backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Suomynona.. on Mar 2 at 3:27 PM

Thompson given until March 5th to prove that he has not "abused the legal system"

Whenever a tragedy occurs, it is virtually a given that Florida attorney Jack Thompson is making a beeline for the nearest media outlet to voice his predictable opinion that video games were the cause of the violent outburst, and has made several attempts to use the legal system to further his cause; however, the Florida Supreme Court appears to be striking back.

GamePolitics, who has had no shortage of communication with Thompson in the past, is reporting that Thompson himself has forwarded the Florida Supreme Court's "Order to Show Cause" that was sent to Thompson's office earlier this week, and has posted the following excerpt from the email exchange:

02/19/2008  ORDER-SHOW CAUSE
TO: JOHN BRUCE THOMPSON
It appears to the Court that you have abused the legal system by submitting numerous frivolous and inappropriate filings in this Court.

Therefore, it is ordered that you shall show cause on or before March 5, 2008, why this Court should not find that you have abused the legal system process and impose upon you a sanction for abusing the legal system, including, but not limited to directing the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, letters, documents, or other filings submitted to this Court by you unless signed by a member of The Florida Bar other than yourself.
The phrase "numerous frivolous and inappropriate filings" stands out to any member of the gaming community familiar with Mr. Thompson's less-than-stellar record in attempting to sway the gaming industry. Mr. Thompson's vitriolic response was both equally amusing and confusing, as he the eggs on the very court that serves him the notice:
This is the single greatest gift that any court has ever given me in my 31 years of practicing law.  I shall now, through a new federal lawsuit, deconstruct The Florida Bar ... This court has threatened Thompson. He does not threaten back. He hereby informs this court that he will see it in federal court.

The Florida court is looking forward to this appearance.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ignore?
By glenn8 on 2/22/2008 12:55:55 PM , Rating: 5
I wish the gaming community wouldn't give this attention whore what he wants. How far would he get if nobody cared about what he though? He's not going away any time soon no matter what the Florida court does.




RE: Ignore?
By glenn8 on 2/22/2008 12:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
Bah.. why am I instantly downgraded? Is it the use of the word who*re?


RE: Ignore?
By dflynchimp on 2/22/2008 1:02:21 PM , Rating: 3
yeah, words like sh*t, f%&k and stuff count against you...I didn't know wh@re was included in that mix tho...

But really, attention-wh@re is probably the closest thing to a synonym for the bane upon humanity that is Jack Thompson


RE: Ignore?
By bfellow on 2/22/2008 2:43:42 PM , Rating: 3
I'm glad this noob is finally getting SERVED.

Unfortunately, we have to waste people's time and money for the very last time.


RE: Ignore?
By qwertyz on 2/22/2008 5:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Jack Thompson the biggest idiot alive.


RE: Ignore?
By ImSpartacus on 2/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ignore?
By frobizzle on 2/25/2008 8:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jack Thompson the biggest idiot alive.

Sorry, Bush has that category locked up now for decades!


RE: Ignore?
By spluurfg on 2/26/2008 11:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just glad the moron is attacking video games. Imagine how bad it would be if he were, say, a prosecutor or DA? Or a corporate lawyer? It is depressingly easy for psycho lawyers to run amok in the US legal system, and unfortunately the only way to get rid of them is to hire another lawyer to hunt one of their own down, which of course they are usually reluctant to do.


RE: Ignore?
By daftrok on 2/22/2008 1:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
There you go, you get +1. And for future reference, you can use this fun idea discovered by Cambridge:

Why the fcuk deos Adaatcneh rtae polepe dwon for finckug cissung? Are we not alduts and awelold to use aludt wdros wothuit genittg sceuinritzd? Tusrt yuor ctotarommens; if seomone is out of pclae let tehm rtae us dwon and not the fcuknig steysm!


RE: Ignore?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/22/2008 1:38:40 PM , Rating: 5
You're free to cuss all you want. But just like the real world, people generally take you more seriously if you can go more than five sentences without dropping the f bomb.


RE: Ignore?
By Donkeyshins on 2/22/2008 2:16:49 PM , Rating: 5
Context is important, Kristopher. "Attention-whore" is perfectly appropriate in this case, whereas if he referred to Mr. Thompson as a "f**king f**ktard motherf**ker" he'd probably be out of line (or at least be hurting his argument).

That's the problem with automated rating systems - they are non-contextual. Oh well.


RE: Ignore?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/22/2008 4:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Whore," no matter what context, doesn't rate you down.


RE: Ignore?
By Donkeyshins on 2/22/2008 5:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the clarification, Kristopher!

Just curious: is there a 'Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on DT or Risk Getting Modded Down' list somewhere? Not that I'm planning on spewing large amounts of obscenity, but I'm sure it would be helpful for everyone to know.


RE: Ignore?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/23/2008 3:16:24 AM , Rating: 2
We keep it close. Not all the words are obvious, though the ones that are you'd definitely want to stay away from. Several, regardless of context, will get you to -1 real quick.


RE: Ignore?
By daftrok on 2/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ignore?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/22/2008 4:32:22 PM , Rating: 5
You're still free to cuss. I've seen plenty of high rated posts with cussing. If it's a great post it will get up to 5 (or even 6) on its own. Shaving one point off posts that are historically and statistically weak has a very minimal effect on good posts but saves people who chose to vote, rather than comment, valuable moderation points.

There's been more than a quarter million posts on DT and we're pretty good at making just enough rules to keep things civil while doing our part to let people voice just about any opinion they like. The rating system is a just small part of that.


RE: Ignore?
By NullSubroutine on 2/22/2008 6:38:22 PM , Rating: 5
The entire point system has gotten to the point where it is ridiculous. Originally seemed it was used to get rid topics not worth reading - someone who says something not worth reading or responding to - now if you disagree with someone they are voted down, if you agree they are voted up.

Rating topics should not used as a substitution for arguing. "I win because other people reading this voted you down." The system also is apparently even being abused by people who have multiple accounts just to vote responses up and down.


RE: Ignore?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/23/2008 3:14:58 AM , Rating: 4
Account botting, meta-voting and vote targeting will all get you banned, and we've banned dozens of IPs and user accounts for doing this in the past.

You can change your account, you can change your IP, you can change your cookies, you can change your user agent, and we'll still catch and ban you if you try it.

When two people argue back and forth of a topic that is negatively rated, both parties are penalized. Just responding to negatively rated topics is enough to penalize you. "Don't feed the trolls" was a popular mantra on Slashdot.

The great state of Illinois may not have given me the best education the state could buy, but I did spend the better part of a decade in enough stat classes to engineer a fair commenting system that discourages flamewars, off topic discussions and personal attacks based on statistical analysis of user ratings and word frequency matches.


RE: Ignore?
By theapparition on 2/23/2008 8:06:18 AM , Rating: 4
I think far too many care about their "rating". Just say what you believe, try and back it up with facts, and let the points fall where they may.

Not eveyone will agree with your opinion, and some very legitimate replies will get rated down. That's just what's going to happen. Deal with it.

In the end, who cares. Do you need a cookie everytime you get rated up? How can DT "fix" a rating system that is governed by it's users? If you look at the majority of posts, I think the rating system does a decent job.


RE: Ignore?
By Martin Blank on 2/22/2008 5:00:21 PM , Rating: 3
Your first example is phrased in such a way as to pose an intellectual question requesting an intellectual answer. Your second example is phrased in such a way as to be taken as an aggressive or combative stance, and in fact will often detract from the maturity of the conversation.

Swearing does not in and of itself add seriousness, and more often portrays a negative image of the swearer if it is used commonly.


RE: Ignore?
By rcc on 2/22/2008 6:01:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Also in the real world, cursing get make a strong point into a stronger point.


Only by those who are unable to get the point across any other way.

Or, those dealing with people that can't understand anything else. : )


RE: Ignore?
By excrucio on 2/24/2008 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
It is proven by many universities that our brain only reads certain parts of the word, but your set up was not the right one it actually took me some time to translate unlike the original version that was going around years ago.

NT though :)


RE: Ignore?
By boogle on 2/26/2008 5:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the vowels have to be in the correct place, only the consonants (sp?) can be jumbled up.


RE: Ignore?
By kephirra on 2/23/2008 10:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
You called it correctly, Glenn8.


RE: Ignore?
By cubby1223 on 2/22/2008 12:59:13 PM , Rating: 5
The gaming community doesn't give him attention. Major media networks give him attention.


RE: Ignore?
By glenn8 on 2/22/2008 1:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. I see plenty of articles about this guy from various gaming sites. Message boards included.


RE: Ignore?
By Chris Peredun on 2/22/2008 1:05:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not true. I see plenty of articles about this guy from various gaming sites.


Granted, but the articles on gaming sites - or any sites with gamers writing for them - tend to focus more on the absolute absurdity of his claims and highlighting them for the entertainment of the readers, vis-a-vis a breaking news announcement of "Monkey seen flinging feces and gibbering incoherently; more at 11."


RE: Ignore?
By glenn8 on 2/22/2008 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I see what you're saying. But from my experience people with attention issues tend to like any kind of attention. We're talking about a guy so delusional he's challenging the Bar. He probably thinks people who laugh at him do so because deep down they fear he is right.


RE: Ignore?
By Chris Peredun on 2/22/2008 1:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, the "negative attention is still attention" idea seems to be one that Thompson subscribes to. Mind you, the higher he builds his house of cards, the funnier it will be when someone turns on the ceiling fan.


RE: Ignore?
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2008 1:34:34 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Look at Tom Green.


RE: Ignore?
By BrownJohn on 2/22/2008 3:41:01 PM , Rating: 5
I'd rather not, thank you.


RE: Ignore?
By murphyslabrat on 2/22/2008 1:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
That may be it. Deep down, I feel that violent video-games really are destroying our community. Fortunately for me, I just got my copy of Crysis. I have a project and an exam due Monday, but after that the community-destroying can commence.


RE: Ignore?
By ImSpartacus on 2/24/2008 7:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Any publicity is good publicity.


RE: Ignore?
By cubby1223 on 2/23/2008 3:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not true. I see plenty of articles about this guy from various gaming sites. Message boards included.

If he didn't have the attention from major media outlets, he wouldn't have the level of attention from gaming sites.


RE: Ignore?
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 2/22/2008 2:06:10 PM , Rating: 5
Obviously he is wrong about video games causing violence, because some gamer would've shot him years ago if he was right.


RE: Ignore?
By exanimas on 2/22/2008 6:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if we make a mod where all the terrorists are replaced by Thompson someone will. Either it will prove him wrong and he can STFU or it will prove him right and we don't have to listen to him anymore. Win/win.


RE: Ignore?
By tigz1218 on 2/22/2008 8:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
ha that comment made me laugh... id rate you up to a 6 if i could


RE: Ignore?
By ImSpartacus on 2/24/2008 7:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow, that's 6 worthy. I do agree though.


RE: Ignore?
By walk2k on 2/22/2008 3:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
That would be nice, unfortunately the news media and politicians like Hilary Clinton give this guy attention and therefore credibility. It's up to the "gaming community" (and, well, the Florida Bar and anyone else with an ounce of sense in their heads..) to spread the truth about this guy.


RE: Ignore?
By MykC on 2/22/2008 10:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
To steal from the West Wing, if the guy is 4/4 from the foul line but 0/20 from the field, while foul him? Just let him shoot and pay no attention to him.


RE: Ignore?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/23/2008 3:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
To some degree, maybe he has a point. If you spend 8 hours a day watching porn, do you view the world in a different way than the person who spends that same 8 hours a day watching Sesame Street?

I logically think, though with relatively little evidence and no fault of my own, that Jacky might be on to something.

The problem is, unfortunately, that Mr. Thompson is one of the most irritable and short sighted people walking the Earth today.

It's too bad too, because maybe one day we'll discover that shooting people in the head in front of a TV screen 8 hours a day isn't healthy for people. But the world gave us Jack Thompson the chicken little instead of Jack Thompson the coal mine canary.


RE: Ignore?
By Dreamsmith on 2/23/2008 7:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
That does not logically follow. If person A spends 8 hours a day watching porn, and person B spends 8 hours a day watching Sesame Street, it's pretty much guaranteed they view the world differently. But it's also certainly true that they viewed the world differently before they started doing that! You're putting the cart before the horse.

Incidentally, if person A spends eight hours a day watching porn, staying up late because of it, and person B spends an hour a day watching porn and getting a good night's sleep, the evidence suggests person B is being more strongly affected by it than person A. If person A is engaging in any activity with such obsessiveness that he's losing sleep over it, he's not being affected as much by it, since it's during sleep that he cements his experiences of the day into his memory. And within the first hour of engaging in any activity, he's already gotten most of the affect he's going to get, after that it's a matter of swiftly diminishing returns.


RE: Ignore?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/23/2008 12:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think those are mutually exclusive ideas. Are you saying you've never felt yourself influenced, not once, over the content you learn from your surroundings? TV, Radio, DailyTech, etc?

I'd say my entire life is just a collection of knowledge I've picked up from things like TV, the Internet, school, etc.

And let's not forget either that the demographic of people reading and commenting on DailyTech is considerably older than that of most gamers (DailyTech is 22 to 35 year old males according to ComScore. Gamers are typically 14 to 25 year olds according to most surveys).

Teenages are extremely impressionable. That's not a fact for debate, though I'll leave the exercise of finding sources to the reader. To think they don't pick up knowledge from video games is folly; to think parents have not guided these children through ethical reasoning before they're exposed to these games is also probably asking too much as well.


RE: Ignore?
By fisher on 2/25/2008 1:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
influenced? yes. controlled, as jack would like people to think? no. i'm not a zombie, i still make my own choices.


RE: Ignore?
By fisher on 2/25/2008 1:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
eh. you can watch porn 8 hours a day and still be a perfectly functioning member of society, as much as anyone else watching tv for 8 hours a day at least.

as long as people who play violent games and then kill others is the exception to the rule and not the norm, the world has no place for jack thompson.


RE: Ignore?
By tmouse on 2/25/2008 10:05:10 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
you can watch porn 8 hours a day and still be a perfectly functioning member of society


Functional, quite possibly; develop a skewed and warped perspective, probably. Anyone who spends that much time engaging in activities which depict a skewed perspective (be it porn or violence) will ultimately be far more effected then a person who does not. A porn addict will be far more likely to be involved in sexual harassment, unable to maintain a healthy relationship and will be a far greater risk to become a sexual predator. People who spend a majority of their time deriving pleasure from graphical depictions of violence will also be far more likely to resort to violence to solve a situation. That is not to say they will become stone cold killers or psychopaths but they will be more likely to respond physically to provocation. Where as a normal person will have an adrenaline rush at the sight of a bloody act which would normally allow a pause in action potentially allowing for re-composure, these people develop an additional release of endorphins which blunt these responses. The facts are we are a far more violent society that we were a few decades ago and the majority of this increase is in the younger populations. It crosses all ethnic and financial boundaries. Games do have a little bit more of an effect since there is a reward factor added in (character upgrades, new levels ect.) TV and movies also contribute but their passive nature does not lead to the same degree of effect, although the increased exposure does mitigate the effects somewhat. So, unlike Mr. Thompson, I do not see a direct cause and effect however, counter to the majority of the posters I also do not agree that these types of games are totally harmless. In the past games had some sort of moral compass, defining a black and white which was by and large in line with ideas that are productive to society. The degree of graphic realism and the believable nature of the “enemy” also limited the immersion and the effects. Now the lines are blurred and even totally crossed. The immersion is becoming more and more total. The rewards are feeling far more “personal”. Violence in this aspect absolutely will have a detrimental effect. Exposure at a young age will have far reaching consequences and very long exposure even at later ages will have an effect.


RE: Ignore?
By rdeegvainl on 2/25/2008 11:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
care to supply any evidence of anything you just stated, or is it just more hyperbole like Jack Thompson spews?
I've seen all sorts of things to show that crime rates have dropped since the creation and subsequent increase of violence in video games.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
And all the studies I've seen shown on the affects of video games, show a correlational (not causational) relationship with aggression. (not violence) You know that same aggression that people who play sports have. The same aggression used to motivate people in the workplace.
But if you can show me something else please do.

Oh and there are ratings boards saying that because of the interactive nature of videogames that they affect a persons impulses less than passive forms of media. here is a link to that story.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/24/british-ratings-...

So please show your sources.


RE: Ignore?
By tmouse on 2/25/2008 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Using the FBI UCR database simply will not give an adequate picture. Keep in mind a large amount of youth violence does not result in arrest. Schools almost never call in the police. Most parents also never press charges considering fighting as just a part of growing up, the same is not true with fights between adults. If you bother to use the same source FBI data for 2002-2006 you will see a +34.4% in robbery, +30.9% in Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc, +7.6% for Violent crime and +8.5% for Disorderly conduct.

As for studies here is a VERY brief list some are reviews:

Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior
Aggress Behav. 2007 Dec 27 [Epub ahead of print]

I wish I were a warrior: the role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys.
Dev Psychol. 2007 Jul;43(4):1038-44

Violent video game effects on children and adolescents.
Minerva Pediatr. 2005 Dec;57(6):337-58

Correlates and consequences of exposure to video game violence: hostile personality, empathy, and aggressive behavior
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Nov;31(11):1573-86

The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior.
Psychol Sci. 2005 Nov;16(11):882-9

Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness
J Adolesc. 2004 Feb;27(1):41-52

The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance.
J Adolesc. 2004 Feb;27(1):5-22

The relationship between violent video games, acculturation, and aggression among Latino adolescents.
Biomedica. 2002 Dec;22 Suppl 2:398-406.

Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Apr;78(4):772-90


RE: Ignore?
By rdeegvainl on 2/26/2008 7:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know what any of those studies said? None of them could show the video games are a cause of any violence. You still can't account for the drop of crime since the mid 80's from the FBI. You say they don't count underage violence. Well they didn't back years ago either. Today is not a more violent nation. We see more violence in the news from the people who profit from you sticking in for the next detail on what kind of TV the killer watched.


RE: Ignore?
By tmouse on 2/26/2008 8:07:21 AM , Rating: 3
Actually I have read them all, and even talked with some of the authors. Well it’s clear you know absolutely nothing about science. Direct causation is virtually never proved by anything. There has never been nor will there ever be a direct causative link between say smoking and cancer, alcohol and liver disease ect. Anytime you have a multi-variant system it is imposable to prove direct causation. I never said there was a direct causation. If you truly believe there is not causative contribution between aggression and violent activities than so be it. There are countless studies showing that de-sensitization to violence results in an increase in the probability of initiating violence. They have been done using police officers and active and ex-military. If you have ever read any of my numerous replies when topics like this arise you would see I do not blame video games for all of the problems, however you seem to feel that spending 8 hours + immersed in a more and more real simulation having the luxury to not feel the direct threat that violence actually can have on its perpetrator and getting rewarded for it will not have an effect on the individual. Why do you think the military and law enforcement spend so much time and money on ground level simulations (both real and virtual)? Partly for tactical co-ordination however part of that is to overcome the hesitation the sight of true violence exposes an newcomer to. In a battle scenario this often results in an increase in the mortality of the deployed units. The problem is outside of these contexts this produces individuals less able to control themselves. If you bother to really look into the crime statistics you would see that the distribution is changing. In the 80's the majority of aggravated crime occurred in urban areas and was largely concentrated in financially deprived minority populations. Today the distribution is far more even and now is skewing toward younger individuals across financial distributions and for the first time genders. No single element accounts for this; it is a very complex event. I NEVER have said otherwise, however the current consensus in investigators studying aggression behavior feel increased exposure to violence in our recreational activities IS a factor. The entire industry of advertising is base upon the idea that images effect our behaviors (and no one can say they are wrong) and there are also numerous studies that prove (at least as much as you can in science) that our visual senses can ultimately override all of our others. Your views are just as bad as Thompsons just the flip side.


RE: Ignore?
By tmouse on 2/26/2008 8:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Also for the record I feel Thompson is a fool whose crusade has done more harm than good. That said I also disagree with the other side. I guess at our basic level we are still violent animals no matter how large our neo-cortex is, as most of our great civilizations turned to violent "entertainments" toward their decline. I suppose I feel there is no way to prevent it as we have an enormous capacity to pretend that inconvenient problems simply do not exist and that every problem must have a simple answer.


RE: Ignore?
By rdeegvainl on 2/26/2008 4:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
I know nothing about science? I wonder where you got that conclusion. But your personal attacks doesn't really matter.

So when I say
quote:
And all the studies I've seen shown on the affects of video games, show a correlational (not causational) relationship with aggression. (Not violence)

You say
quote:
As for studies here is a VERY brief list some are reviews
.
No, you are correct in that you never explicitly stated they caused violence. But when you used it as a direct reply to my statement that I hadn't seen a single one that did, you implied it.
Still the redistribution of violence does not make for a more violent society. Especially when violence rates is decreasing.
Oh and I NEVER said that direct causative links are needed to be proved. It's a correlation to aggression, not Violence. And until people know the difference between cause and correlation, and aggression and violence, both are still valid points, precisely because of the man who the article is about, and especially when people are trying to legislate, thinking studies say something they do not.


RE: Ignore?
By Macungah on 2/29/2008 1:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
Mulder in X-Files watched porn. A lot. :(

I think as newer media develops, and transparency is increased (extremely realistic virtual reality), video game violence will then become a true problem.


RE: Ignore?
By senbassador on 3/1/2008 9:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
"The best way to lose your argument is to overstate it."

I forgot who said that. While it is true that short term changes to your attitude can come from video games, TV, etc, an argument that the changes will be permanent is a bit flaky. I also think you're overstating the argument of teenagers being impressionable. Maybe in the short term, but if you go on to stop playing them for half a year or so, or even less, I doubt you'd get statistically significant differences. I'd like to see some honest study comparing 25 year olds who played violent games when they were 15 verses those who haven't; verses studies of 15 years who play them verse 15 year olds who don't.

I also think your watching porn 8 hours a day scenario is a bit extreme. Seriously, if you have 8 hours a day to blow off on porn or something else equally stupid, porn is probably the least of your problems. I doubt even teenagers have that much spare time.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles
Videogames Blamed for NIU Shooting
February 18, 2008, 4:46 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki