Jack Thompson Spams Utah Senate, May Face Legal Action

eldavojohn writes "Yesterday, GamePolitics ran an interesting story about the Utah Senate President threatening Jack Thompson with the CAN-SPAM Act. You might recall Utah being Jack's last hope and hold-out after being disbarred in Florida and more or less made a mockery everywhere else. Well, from Utah's Senate Site, we get the picture of what Jack is up to now: spamming his last friends on the planet. The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting on Senate President Michael Waddoups' statements: 'I asked you before to remove me from your mailing list. I supported your bill but because of the harassment will not again. If I am not removed, I will turn you over to the AG for legal action.' The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Waddoups confirmed on Tuesday that he would attempt to pursue legal action under the federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 against Jack Thompson."

Comments

Low lifes

[Pig Hogger]

Is there any lower life form than a spammer?

We used to think that Thompson was lower than a spammer, but we're not so sure nowadays...

Re:Low lifes

[Shakrai]

Is there any lower life form than a spammer?

Rapists, murders and Yankees fans all come to mind ;)

Re:Low lifes

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I was walking through Boston with a Yankees shirt(I am a Yankees fan, but will cheer the Mets on as well), and got harassed by a group of superfans which escalated into one of those fuckers throwing a bottle at me. Said bottle struck me in the head.

Of course, they're still less frightening than Patriots fans, whom I will not even approach.

Despite all this, if the Cubs ever make it to the series, I want them to win. They really need it.

Jack Thompson is right: it's NOT spam.

[mrchaotica]

Spam is commercial email. This is email about a pending legislative action, and thus Jack Thompson has the right to send it because he has a right to free speech.

But all that means is that the CAN-SPAM act isn't the appropriate law to attack him with: instead, the Senator should just go for plain-old harassment.

Besides, there's nothing that says the Senator has to listen to him -- that's what filters are for! Let Jack Thompson write to /dev/null to his heart's content.

Re:Jack Thompson is right: it's NOT spam.

[drinkypoo]

IIRC CAN-SPAM (might as well just add some words to the name and call it the CAN-HAS-SPAM act, but whatever) makes specific exemptions for political advertisements and solicitations by nonprofits, but says nothing about whether the content is commercial or not.

Further, there is no reason why I or my ISP or any other email provider should have to bear the cost of accepting spam. That is pure crap, and arguably theft of services, though obviously IANAL — it might not hold up in court, but I think I can construct a fairly logical argument along those lines.

Re:Jack Thompson is right: it's NOT spam.

[Anonymous Coward]

since when does "logic" have any place in the law?

Re:Jack Thompson is right: it's NOT spam.

[_Sprocket_]

Spam is commercial email. This is email about a pending legislative action, and thus Jack Thompson has the right to send it because he has a right to free speech.

Just to clarify...

Spam is not always commercial email. However, I believe the CAN-SPAM act is only concerned with unsolicited commercial email. So in that sense, you're probably right that the CAN-SPAM act doesn't apply to this case.

As for filters - that's what spammers say. I don't buy the argument. At some point, the harasser will attempt to bypass filters and you end up inducing a cost to keep ahead of the filtering arms race.

Re:Jack Thompson is right: it's NOT spam.

[b4dc0d3r]

Michael Waddoups should be put in jail. You do have a point here, but I'll go one better. He previously supported Jack's bill, but now because Jack is exercising his right of free speech, however annoyingly, Michael is not going to support the bill. This is not commercial, and it is only unsolicited in the sense that they did not expect it. But of all people lawmakers should be accepting input on pending legislation. Claiming this is SPAM is clearly abuse of the laws they made, and they should know better. Utah State Senate President should absolutely know better.

He is deciding his vote on the personal actions of one of the parties - not whether the bill is good for the people. Better still, he is deciding on his opinion of the actions of one of the parties. He is guilty of not doing his job, which is to represent the people. I read his comments as "You have to go through me, I get to choose the laws."

I don't know which bill this is, and can only assume it's as idiotic as Jack Thompson has proven himself to be. But Michael should not be playing this game in public. I will shut down your bill if I don't like you, regardless of whether it is good for the people.

Re:Jack Thompson is right: it's NOT spam.

[42forty-two42]

Lawyerly logic is perfectly logical. It's just their system of axioms (laws and precedent) that sometimes seems illogical.

Hint for spammers:

[Opportunist]

If you flood someone with spam, they may turn against you, even if they were on your side originally.

In other words, way to shoot your own foot.

Re:Hint for spammers:

[Chris Mattern]

In other words, way to shoot your own foot.

Jack Thompson has so repeatedly shot himself in the foot that I don't think that there's any feet left any more.

This use of CAN-SPAM is unconstitutional

[JSBiff]

Ok, well, I really hate to be on the side of Jack Thompson, but. . .

U.S. Constitution - 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Simply put, if you are a legislator, you have no right to ask people to not petition you. Jack Thompson was exercising his contitutionally protected right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There is nothing CAN-SPAM can do about that. Such an application would be clearly unconstitutional.

Now, that said. . . there's such a thing as an email filter that automatically deletes email from certain senders. . .

Re:This use of CAN-SPAM is unconstitutional

[tim_darklighter]

You bring up an interesting (if partially unrelated) point. By the First Amendment, can an elected official filter email from his/her constituent(s) in their district/state/etc.? I realize Thompson is not a Utah resident, but if he was, would his elected officials have the right to filter out their email, since it automatically would delete anything from Thompson (or other people) that the elected official wants to ignore? Would this constituent the government unlawfully silencing the redress of grievances?

I wouldn't be surprised if this has already been addressed (especially related to postal junk mail), but it might save some lawsuits from people (like Jack Thompson) who just want to hear their own voice and will do anything (however asinine) to make sure that happens.

Re:This use of CAN-SPAM is unconstitutional

[JSBiff]

I dunno. I thought about that, but the thing is, the First Ammendment only states that Congress cannot enact any laws restricting those rights, or punishing people for exercising those rights. An individual Senator deleting your emails is not congress passing a law. You have a right to petition the government, but people in Government, I think, have a certain right to ignore you if they choose.

I mean, is there anything that stops a senator from throwing your mail in the trashcan when he sees it's from you? Filters are sort of the equivalent of looking at who a physical letter is from and tossing it in the trash.

Re:This is just more proof

[stoned_hamster]

I wonder if anybody has ever pointed him to /. and everybody who hates him...

I wonder. I recently passed some corner preachers who took a passage from the Bible and twisted it all out of context. I stopped and engaged them in a conversation, proving they were wrong in the context they had chosen. They got all flustered and declared me a (direct quote, mind you) "Spawn of Satan, send to this world to corrupt these people of God" and continued to shout out about what they had been preaching about.
Its people like this who believe that what they do and say is right and everyone who believes in different things that are a real problem to society.

Re:So, what was it?

[gmack]

These tactics remind me of a trick on how to check out other girls with your significant other present: feigned outrage.

"Wow look at her shes wearing almost nothing at all. Will you look at that top? You can almost see right down her shirt. And look at those pants! They are so tight they show everything. Disgusting isn't it?"

The simple fact is, if you don't like something, the natural human tendency is to stop looking at it.

Meanwhile this guy has played enough GTA to find the lap dance clip and went browsing through the adult section of a gay website to find a picture to include in his legal filings?

Re:First Amendment

[nmx]

If Thompson's bill was worth supporting before, then his bill should still be worth supporting after annoying e-mails, spam or for all I care: murder.

Clearly you don't understand how the Senate works. Bills need support to pass, regarldess of their content. People make deals to support each other's bills. Having friends in your court is crucial if you want to get anything passed. Is this right? Maybe not, but that's how it is, and it's not exactly a secret. For more information, I suggest reading Fight Club Politics, available at your local library.

Re:You're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

This *IS* spam.

Saying it louder doesn't make it so.

This is email about a pending legislative action I don't give a flying fuck what the content is - it's still spam.

Speaking of morons, that statement is moronic. Sending "unsolicited" communication about topical issues to senators and congressmen is an important part of the political process.

If you think that ANYONE has the right to harrass and intimidate people, for any reason, you are a complete fuckwad.

I doubt the senator was intimidated. And I doubt that you think so. So why did you include it? Do you think it makes your "argument" sound stronger?

If you disagree with me, please post your address here, and I will come by your house and scream at you with a bullhorn 24 hours a day. After all, I have the right to free speech.

See if you can come up with some non-fallacious arguments. Of course Jack Thompson is pain in the ass nut-job. But subverting some law to deal with him, as amusing as it is in this case, is just weasly-politician behavior.

Well, maybe

[Sycraft-fu]

As with anything in terms of the Constitution and your rights, it isn't a black and white, set in stone thing. You have the right to petition the government, of that there is no question. However that doesn't mean you have the right to be a pain in the ass. You cannot, for example, follow your representative around all day long and scream at them. You aren't allowed to harass them any more than you are allowed to harass me.

So this is the kind of thing where you enter a gray area. Clearly you are allowed to send the government e-mails, letters, etc telling them your point of view. However there are lines you can cross where it again just becomes harassment. If you were to go and send your representative the same letter hundreds of times a day just to flood their office with mail, that might just be harassment. Same sort of thing if you got a group to call in all the tiem and try to tie up their phone lines so nobody else could reach them.

I'm not saying they are necessarily right in this case, I'd have to know more about it and then my opinion doesn't really matter, the court's does, but just because he's contacting his representatives doesn't mean any and everything is ok. You have a right to contact them and tell them what you believe, how you want them to vote and so on. You don't have a right to try and flood them with your point of view to try and drown everyone else out.

Re:It's guys like him who give lawyers a bad name

[Hatta]

No it's not. Jack Thompson is clearly insane. It's the rational and ruthless lawyers that give lawyers a bad name. It's guys like this who give lawyers a bad name.

Re:Finally

[KDR_11k]

I do assume that a court record describes things that actually happened and you should try reading the record of his disbarrment trial.

Re:This is just more proof

[Idiomatick]

I got called "the scum of the earth! Lower than scum! It is people like you that are ruining this world for good GOD fearing people." This was while volunteering at a church and fasting for charity. Apparently someone found out I was 'an atheist infiltrator'. This was at the easy going Protestant church, I worry what might have happened had I volunteered at the hardcore Catholic church across the street.

Re:You're a fucking moron.

[mrchaotica]

The fact that the CAN-SPAM act in particular may not apply doesn't change the widely accepted definition of spam.

But the "widely accepted definition" isn't the one that's relevant to this discussion. The Senator threatened to invoke the CAN-SPAM Act, which means that definition is the relevant one.

I've said it all along...

[CompassIIDX]

Jack Thomson is actually a hardcore gamer.

Think about it. He's arguably done more to marginalize the anti-videogame movement than anyone else in history. His over-the-top, histrionic antics absolutely destroy any credibility his arguments might have.

I never understood why gamers cheered for his downfall. Imagine if there was someone competent in his place? ::shudder::

Re:Finally

[kingcobra0128]

To me the real issue is not that Jack Thompson spammed the senate but the fact he is pushing his bill. I think we as a people should be able to decide what our kids play and watch not have and intermediate like the US government. This is bad for consumers, Game developers, Game Distributors, and Stores. Why lets someone like this run our lives.

I know he's an asshat, but this doesn't seem right

[BitwiseX]

'I asked you before to remove me from your mailing list. I supported your bill but because of the harassment will not again..'

That's not a good reason to NOT support a bill. That's kinda childish.
I've known a few people that were complete and utter TOOLS, but had some damn good ideas. Poor presentation shouldn't affect his judgment, the CONTENTS of the bill should.

Re:So, what was it?

[SpecBear]

You can't overdo it, and you have to tailor your approach to the woman your dealing with. My previous girlfriend responded quite well to me making snide comments about other women, but she would have seen right through feigned outrage.

My current girlfriend is bi. That's a much better solution to the problem.

Re:Finally

[DJRumpy]

Holy crap where have you guys beenand why did you let them take over your party so completely. I actually like a lot of the ideals in the republican party but I haven't seen any of them in years. It's become a total lip service to their ideals while they are jerking everyone off with the other hand.

Hopefully they'll get back to making sense and leave this other nonsense behind them.

Re:Finally

[Darby]

I actually like a lot of the ideals in the republican party but I haven't seen any of them in years. It's become a total lip service to their ideals while they are jerking everyone off with the other hand.

I'm pushing 40, and that Republican party hasn't existed at any point in my life. If you've ever seen it, you must be pretty old by now, Grandpa ;-)