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
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 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
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
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.

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles
Videogames Blamed for NIU Shooting
February 18, 2008, 4:46 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki