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

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.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

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