Jack Thompson has a warning for the Pixelantes

[FriskyTanuki]

Link to his first post (the warning itself) (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/174842.html?thread=9869306#t9869306)
Link to the article and all the comments (many more JT comments after the initial post) (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/174842.html)

I am working with legislators now in six states to pass video game legislation to prohibit the sale of sexual and violent games harmful to minors. We have the way to do this constitutionally. Kiss your mature-games-to-kids arrangement good-bye.

Secondly, here is a warning to you folks here who post and send annoying messages that pertain to me. President Bush has signed into law a bill, that your asylum keeper here, Dennis McCauley, managed to miss. From now on, if your posts pertain to me, and are of their typical tenor, then you must provide your true identity in the post. Good luck on this one, pixelantes. Dennis, consider yourself warned:

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.


Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

It may be a week old, but it's still something JT fans/haters might want to read. Also, check out the comments that he spawn after his first post (over 90 replies to the first) and the many that follow as he continues to post. Entretaining stuff.

Also, stopkill (www.stopkill.com) no longer exists. JT now operates over at The Florida Bar (www.theflabar.org). Now he's telling people that the Florida Bar Association is up to no good.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I think stopkill going down and him buying stock in take two means someone has waved a new shiny set of keys in front of his face, and he'll be busy with that for a while.

[Backlash]

JT now operates over at The Florida Bar (www.theflabar.org). Now he's telling people that the Florida Bar Association is up to no good.

From that site:

Space does not allow me to recount here how The Florida Bar has perverted its "disciplinary" machinery to protect the porn industry and its unethical lawyers, but you can read all about it in Chapter 7 of my new Tyndale House book Out of Harm's Way. It will make your blood boil.


Yeah I hate the limited space you have when creating your own web site. :roll: Way to plug your book, too.

[mykevermin]

Ihim buying stock in take two
A who to the what now?!?!?!

I could picture EA trying to secure exclusive right to Jack Thomson, but I never heard about him buying take-two stock. Is he trying to get a coalition of people to buy in, create a majority, and plan a hostile takeover?

[Vegan]

I am working with legislators now in six states to pass video game legislation to prohibit the sale of sexual and violent games harmful to minors. We have the way to do this constitutionally. Kiss your mature-games-to-kids arrangement good-bye.

Um, that's 100% fine with me, and I'm sure it's fine with a large percentage of gamers. I just don't like the Jerk attitude he dishes out. Of course, I'm sure he does it largely because he takes a lot of shit from 14 year old gamers on the Internet. This guy REALLY needs to stop lurking gaming sites, for his own good.

Btw, if he really wants to quote the absurd e-noyance law.... He technically posts under an anonymous (i.e. not logged in, Guest, etc.) name, so wouldn't he fall under that jurisdiction as well? He's certainly posting annoying messages.

[lordxixor101]

I tend to agree with Vegan. I personally have never seen what all the uproar is about over not being able to sell certain types of games to minors. Heck, the whole point of the rating system is to help keep games in the age ranges intended. Personally, I wouldn't want a 10 year old playing Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. At 14, maybe, depending on the kid. But not below that.

The problem with BatJack (a gaming blog on gameblogs.org used that term. I can't remember which one to give credit to) is that he's too confrontational. I think he seems to relish the fact that he's hated by the younger gamers. The problem is, if he had a better attitude, as the 14 year olds become 24, they will likely see the logic in some of his speeches. But, with the current attitude, they'll hate him all the more then.

[Reality's Fringe]

A who to the what now?!?!?!

I could picture EA trying to secure exclusive right to Jack Thomson, but I never heard about him buying take-two stock. Is he trying to get a coalition of people to buy in, create a majority, and plan a hostile takeover?

If I remember correctly, Thompson's plan was(is ) to show up at a shareholder meeting and launch into one of his insane tirades. I don't quite remember how much stock he purchased, but it wasn't significant.

[mykevermin]

I tend to agree with Vegan. I personally have never seen what all the uproar is about over not being able to sell certain types of games to minors. Heck, the whole point of the rating system is to help keep games in the age ranges intended. Personally, I wouldn't want a 10 year old playing Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. At 14, maybe, depending on the kid. But not below that.

As a liberal, putting government restrictions on sales of "M" titles is fine with me, as is fining retailers who sell "M" games to minors. We perhaps agree here (or agree that children shouldn't have such easy access to them). Start a thread about it, however, and people explode into arguments, mostly suggesting that the retail industry should regulate itself (which, I may point out, is partially culpable for getting us into this mess to begin with).

The problem with BatJack (a gaming blog on gameblogs.org used that term. I can't remember which one to give credit to) is that he's too confrontational. I think he seems to relish the fact that he's hated by the younger gamers. The problem is, if he had a better attitude, as the 14 year olds become 24, they will likely see the logic in some of his speeches. But, with the current attitude, they'll hate him all the more then.
The problem with him is that he makes assertions and states them as fact. He can cite no data, no research, no causal models that show the negative affects games may have on children. They may have *terrible* effects, but Thompson lacks proof. He, as a lawyer, is engaged in the role of claimsmaking in the way of convincing you its probable or inevitable. He lacks credible evidence that empiricists (such as myself) would demand.

If I say "Chocolate cake makes your cock huge" over and over again, that doesn't change the absurd nature of my claim. However, that is about as in-depth as Thompson can go into his overall argument without making shit up.

[camoor]

If I remember correctly, Thompson's plan was(is ) to show up at a shareholder meeting and launch into one of his insane tirades. I don't quite remember how much stock he purchased, but it wasn't significant.

I've gotta admit - that's pretty funny!

[mykevermin]

If I remember correctly, Thompson's plan was(is ) to show up at a shareholder meeting and launch into one of his insane tirades. I don't quite remember how much stock he purchased, but it wasn't significant.
Wonder what he does with those dividend checks for $3 he's receiving?

[Backlash]

One of his many problems is that he'll claim that all he wants to do is prevent the sale of violent games to minors, and then he'll turn around and sue to remove the game entirely, or ban it from coming out (e.g. Bully). Or just sue the game company and store for hundreds of millions of dollars, which doesn't accomplish either objective.

[javeryh]

I tend to agree with Vegan. I personally have never seen what all the uproar is about over not being able to sell certain types of games to minors. Heck, the whole point of the rating system is to help keep games in the age ranges intended. Personally, I wouldn't want a 10 year old playing Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. At 14, maybe, depending on the kid. But not below that.

No one wants kids playing these games. However, if laws like this were allowed, the secondary effect would be that the games would never get made. Retailers wouldn't carry them anymore because it's more cost effective to not stock them than pay hefty fines when some pimply face teenager making $5 an hour sells them to his friends. Game designers (who, surprise, are in it for the money) will just stop making them if no one will sell them.

Besides, all of these so-called "laws" violate freedom of speech and are completely vague. Who do you want deciding what is "objectionable sexual or violent conduct?" I'm sure Mr. Thompson and I have wildly differing definitions... Just like the uproar against this kind of stuff in movies, books and music, this will go away eventually when something else comes along...

[psiufoxx2]

Dearest Jack Thompson,

GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morris
True Identity.





Guess what asshole? I love me my first amendment. Come on back and tell me when that's overturned.

As quoted from the original article detailing the "Bill":


Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else. It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstraylight.law.cornell. edu%2Fsupct%2Fhtml%2F93-986.ZC1.html&siteId=3&oId=2010-1028-6022491&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex) magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

[VanillaGorilla]

Dear Jack Thompson,

You're a Douchebag

Love,
Percy Cuggs

[gambitmachete]

I kind of like it how he says such crazy things.

[RelentlessRolento]

the problem about the law is that you can say your true identity is this: human. Either that or just state you are a humanoid living cromosome. That's it.

so Thompson: you can officially suck Don Kaydik for as long as you like.

love: A very human human being of the male sex.

[rabbitt]

You guys say that you love when he says stupid things, but he loves it even more when you retaliate and fireback with namecalling and immature statements.

His job is to criticize us and the industry that we love, so let's leave him unemployed.

[RelentlessRolento]

You guys say that you love when he says stupid things, but he loves it even more when you retaliate and fireback with namecalling and immature statements.

His job is to criticize us and the industry that we love, so let's leave him unemployed.


it's kinda win win since both sides enjoy insulting... except we do it better...

[FriskyTanuki]

You guys say that you love when he says stupid things, but he loves it even more when you retaliate and fireback with namecalling and immature statements.

His job is to criticize us and the industry that we love, so let's leave him unemployed.
His job is to find any small thing with which to be able to sue game companies over causing it.

[Logain8955]

The biggest change that this bill will enact?

Standard Web site Terms of Use:

By using this website you recognize that some aspects of the site may annoy you (articles, advertisments and member posts, hereafter refered to as "Content"), however, you are intentionally exposing yourself to this possibility. You waive your rights to demand a person's real identity in any of the Content posted to this site and recognize that "annoying" Content may be created anonymously with no requirements to disclose your real identity. Website operators have the right to restrict your access to the website at will.


Boom. 1 paragraph of bullshit, stupid law circumvented.

[The Truth]

I figure if he keeps it up, someone really is going to re-enact GTA and snipe Jack Thompson. What a glorious day it will be. Everyone be sure to drink two 40s before visiting his grave.