Gamer’s YouTube Question for Republican Debate

This one precedes the big ECA push, having been submitted on July 29th. Still, it’s definitely worth a look.

Sign this guy up for the ECA!!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Predatorian234 says:

    Don’t you guys think we should point the Florida Bar to this website? Let them see just how much of a nut job he is? I mean that way, they will ditch the test all together, and just take away his ability to practice law right away.

    Might as well not waist tax payers dollars on someone who is so nuts you don’t even need a test to confirm it.

    I mean come on, look at him, posting on GP with stupid forum clogging articles.

    I never thought Trolls could have Grey Hair. I thought trolls were annoying, ignorant boys trying to become men. I never knew an actual full grown man could be a troll. Its mind boggling.

    Well since Jack-o is so immature, I’m going to stoop down to his level and insult him like a child…

    God made oceans, God made lakes, God made Jack Thompson, Hey, We all make mistakes!


  2. 0

    I might have to break out the webcam and make a submission on YouTube. While I appreciate the two submissions shown thus far on GP I fear that they fall a bit short below the bar that CNN is going to set for the questions that they air. I think the older and more politically savvy of us should step up more.

  3. 0
    roby00 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    i didnt like it. the guy didnt even use his real name. and then throws in some video game violance for whatever reason? if youre goin to use a video game use one these guys will know about like donkey cong or pac man.

  4. 0
    Mechadon ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m amused at the use of Machinima to make this video. Though, I do find the question a little bit weak and I don’t see how the “lunge attack” fits in with the overall message.

    I guess it’s better than nothing, but I really hope this isn’t the best we have to submit to the debate. I’d like to see a video that asks better questions that makes the politiicians realize what the important issues are, and better visuals that can further enhance the message.

  5. 0
    GamePolitics ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    this one, as I mentioned, pre-dates the ECA getting on board. But still, let’s give the guy an “A” for effort and henceforth try to improve the look and sound quality of our videos…

  6. 0
    Jack Thompson ( User Karma: 0 ) says:




    v. Case Numbers SC 07 – 80 and 07- 354




    COMES NOW respondent, John B. Thompson, and moves this referee for an order regarding both its and The Florida Bar’s ongoing failure to comply with the law of this state and of the federal system regarding “competency to stand trial,” stating:
    1. Fifteen years ago, The Florida Bar, on the urging of the former chairman of the Florida ACLU and of a gay rights/marijuana legalization/shock radio attorney in Ft. Lauderdale, secured an order from the Florida Supreme Court commanding respondent Thompson to submit to a battery of psychiatric and psychological tests to be administered by The Bar’s hand-picked mental health experts to determine if “Jack Thompson’s obsession against pornography is so severe that he is incapacitated by that obsession and unfit to practice law.” The threat by the Supreme Court, reduced to an order, was that if Thompson did not submit to these ordered tests, then he would be suspended immediately from the practice of law.
    2. Thompson’s attorney at the time, John Longino, urged Thompson to fight this bizarre judicial fiat. Thompson disagreed. “Let’s find out if I’m crazy. Besides, my wife would probably like to know.” John Longino, licensed to practice law in Georgia and Florida (respondent extends his condolences as to the latter licensure), can be reached at 1-800-LONGINO to confirm this true tale, which has been recounted in full in Chapter 7 of Thompson’s Out of Harm’s Way, published by the second largest Christian publishing house in the United States. Referee Tunis called Thompson’s account “propaganda” and then refused to recuse herself despite that revealing slip.
    3. The psych tests by The Bar’s health care experts were conducted, and there was even testing done of Thompson for “brain damage.” The Daily Business Review, then called the Miami Review, ran a front-page story whose headline was “Is This Lawyer Too Crazy to Practice Law?” Its author was Robert Kuntz, who has since left the field of journalism and practices law in Miami at Devine Goodman and whose contact information is at Mr. Kuntz can confirm all this. Mr. Kuntz and Thompson, years later, found themselves in a new members class at Old Cutler Presbyterian Church. The Florida Bar, by its reasoning, should be concerned that all members therein should have been Baker Acted.
    The Miami Herald reported all of this and more about Thompson in a multi-page feature story by Fred Tasker in the Sunday edition of the paper.
    4. The Bar’s mental health care experts rendered their report: “Mr. Thompson is fully competent. He does not suffer from paranoia, hallucinatory ideation, or any psychoses or neuroses of any kind whatsoever. He has no brain damage. He is simply a Christian acting out his faith.”
    5. Upon Thompson’s becoming the only officially Bar-certified sane lawyer in the State of Florida, The Bar’s insurance carrier, appalled by what it had done to destroy Thompson’s career, in violation of its own Rules, paid Thompson money damages for the privilege of being publicly and illegally stigmatized. Thompson’s exoneration was buried back in the Miami Review’s legal notices. As far as he can recall, the Herald, which never forgave Thompson for being the Republican Party’s opponent of Janet Reno in the 1988 campaign for State Attorney, never reported Thompson’s vindication. There was probably “no space available.” Tom Fiedler, the man who made a career for himself hiding in Senator Gary Hart’s bushes to confirm sexual liaisons, who loathes Thompson for Thompson’s concerns about the distribution of pornography to children, can confirm just why the Herald refused to report this conflict’s resolution.
    6. The Bar’s having proven, by its institutional lunacy, the competency and sanity of Thompson, it stopped its SLAPP harassment of Thompson and moved on to greener regulatory pastures.
    7. In August 2004, after numerous successes in what some call the “culture war,” Thompson filed formal complaints with the Federal Communications Commission arising out of Miami radio station WQAM’s airing of the Howard Stern Show, whose host himself called his terrestrial radio program “pornographic.” Stern complained at the time that “This lunatic lawyer in Miami got me off the air,” as Thompson had persuaded Clear Channel Communications to remove Stern from all of its radio stations because he aired the following comment:
    “Ever bang any famous nigger chicks? What do they smell like? Watermelons?
    Thompson also secured, as the formal complainant, a $495,000 fine against Clear Channel for its airing of Stern in violation of 18 USC 1464, which statute was declared constitutional by the US Supreme Court in FCC v. Pacifica, an “inconvenient truth” ignored by ideological zealots like Bar Governor/ACLU operative/US DOJ “target letter” recipient/alleged Medellin cocaine cartel money launderer Ben Kuehne (Thompson’s “designated reviewer” in current Bar matters), and others collaborating with The Bar.
    8. WQAM hired the aforementioned Ft. Lauderdale lawyer to file Bar complaints against Thompson in retaliation for his having filed his FCC complaint. Sworn answers to interrogatories filed last week by this lawyer prove and admit that that is precisely why he was hired by WQAM’s parent company, Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc., headquartered in Naples, Florida.
    9. Significantly, when this lawyer wrote Thompson on August 24, 2004, threatening him with Bar complaints, this lawyer also threatened Thompson with new lunacy proceedings, which he spearheaded previously, with disastrous results (see above). Some people never learn.
    10. On March 5, 2005, Thompson appeared on CBS’ 60 Minutes at the personal request of Ed Bradley to discuss the role that Take-Two Interactive’s Grand Theft Auto cop-killing simulation games played in the death of three cops in Alabama. That wrongful death case relies in part upon the sworn testimony of four experts who have testified before the United States Congress about the overwhelming evidence that interactive violence simulators (video games) can lead to increased aggression and even criminal violence by teens who play these adult-rated video games. The US Supreme Court’s case (Rappaport v. Sims) which struck down for the entire nation the juvenile death penalty the week before Thompson appeared on 60 Minutes, relies in part, as stated in Justice Kennedy’s opinion, upon brain scan studies that show that adolescents and teens process this violent information in a different part of the brain than do adults, which neurobiological differential leads to predictable, foreseeable copycat violence.
    11. When Thompson appeared on 60 Minutes about all this, all Hell broke loose. The video game industry, principally but not exclusively through Take-Two, commenced a number of collateral SLAPP assaults upon Thompson in order to drive him out of the Alabama case and to destroy not only his career but also his usefulness in such cases. All of these SLAPP assaults are fraudulent, and their purpose is to “shoot the messenger” since Take-Two’s aggressive marketing and sale of adult video games to children is indefensible, and they know it.
    12. “Big Tobacco” similarly targeted the Insider, Jeffrey Weigand, portrayed by Russell Crowe in that movie, after he appeared on 60 Minutes. Video game industry lawyers may not read their Bibles, but they sure do know their SLAPP manuals, cover to cover.
    13. The centerpiece of Take-Two’s and the video game industry’s shoot the messenger strategy aimed at Thompson is a set of three Florida Bar complaints authored by Blank Rome, whose main office is in Philadelphia, with offices here in Florida. All of these complaints are baseless and rest upon the demonstrably false cornerstone assertion that Thompson achieved pro hac vice status in Alabama by means of lying about his “colorful disciplinary history before The Florida Bar.” This would be the disciplinary history exhaustively set out a) above, b) disclosed fully in Chapter 7 of his book Out of Harm’s Way distributed around the planet and available now from booksellers everywhere, and c) delineated, in every minute detail, in a 25-page filing with the Alabama State Bar and trial court prior to Thompson’s being granted pro hac vice status. This Blank Rome SLAPP stunt is all based upon a lie which The Bar fully knows to be a lie by virtue of its possession of all of the aforementioned proof that it is a lie. Significantly, The Florida Bar, in thwarting depositions, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, answers to interrogatories, and all other forms of discovery, including Florida Public Records Law requests, refuses to answer just what Thompson failed to disclose to Alabama about his “colorful disciplinary history.” The Bar refuses to answer that one question because it has no answer other than “nothing.”
    14. Thompson has repeatedly sought resolution of this matter by mediation and other means for the past three yeas. The Bar responded to these overtures, if the reader of this can believe it, with a written demand that Thompson plead guilty to certain charges and that he agree to a forced to a mental health examination by the Florida Lawyers Assistance program to determine if Thompson is mentally ill, incapacitated, or otherwise incompetent. Importantly, the assessment of Thompson is to occur after the guilty plea! Said Barry Richards, of Greenberg Traurig in between gigs arising out of Presidential elections, told one court: Well, it has been 15 years since Mr. Thompson was examined. This from the partner of ethics paragon Jack Abramoff.
    15. At a recent formal mediation endorsed by this referee, The Bar’s assistant prosecutor Sheila Tuma, who has done nothing with her life professionally but prosecute lawyers, having never practiced law in the real world, waltzed into the mediation and demanded that Thompson accept a mental health exam or be disbarred. This is a Hobson’s choice, and The Bar knows it. On the one hand, there is the option of a second public stigmatization of a forced mental exam, and the sure end to Thompson’s career. On the other hand, there is disbarment. None of the SLAPP-happy Blank Rome lawyers care which Thompson picks. The result will be the same. As to disbarment, it will most assuredly occur, as Judge Tunis, apparently selected by Chief Judge Farina because she could be counted upon to secure the “proper result” in these disciplinary matters, just as Judge Farina’s “proper result” in the Lozano case led to race riots in Miami (just ask Superlawyer Roy Black, whose Medellin cartel bagman is alleged to be Bar Governor Ben Kuehne), has denied Thompson any and all opportunities to posit and prove his various defenses in the case and at trial before her. This is a judge who gives more due process to alleged rapists in her courtroom.
    16. The Bar’s position, then, is that there is ample reason to believe that Jack Thompson, respondent herein, is incompetent. The Bar is sufficiently sure of this that it has now, twice, over the span of a year, demanded that Thompson submit to an assessment of that very issue by the folks at the Florida Lawyers Assistance program.
    17. Despite the smug certitude of The Bar on this issue, The Bar refuses to comply with Bar Rule 3-7.13, which requires that such a demand can only be made a) after a sworn complaint is filed against an alleged mentally incompetent lawyer, b) after there is a staff office investigation, c) after a grievance committee, in this case Grievance Committee 11-F, finds “probable cause” that a lawyer is incompetent, and d) only after the allegedly incompetent lawyer is eyeballed by the grievance committee to see how crazy he really is.
    The Bar has complied with none of these procedures set forth in Rule 3-7.13, confirmed as necessary and proper in a phone call between Thompson and the Director of Lawyer Regulation Ken Marvin, who sits in Tallahassee, charged with the obligation that this type of perversion of The Bar’s disciplinary process, in violation of its own Rules, not occur.
    18. If the reader of this reads and gets nothing else herein, then he/she, especially Bar referee Tunis, should “get” this: The Bar cannot logically, and as a matter of law, propose a settlement of these disciplinary matters while demanding that Thompson be assessed for mental competency after he agrees to a plea deal. If Thompson is “incompetent” then he lacks the mental capacity, in a legal and in a common sense use of the term, to consent to anything. This is covered the first week in law school.
    19. Further, if Thompson is not only “incompetent” now but incompetent previously, during the period of time that Thompson’s activism against those who distribute adult entertainment to children were threatening all of western civilization with his untoward behavior, then that alleged lack of mental incapacity serves to mitigate, in part or in whole, his culpability for what he allegedly did. No judicial system on earth, as far as Thompson can ascertain, determines whether a defendant is guilty, either by trial or by an admission of guilt, and then determines if he was and is insane, incompetent, or whatever stigmatizing term the state wishes to put on it. The Bar has, by design, put the guilt cart before the lunacy horse. Duh.
    20. Can The Bar follow this reasoning? Of course it can. Even Thompson in his allegedly incompetent state can follow it. Hell, he’s making the analysis.
    21. It is not Thompson’s position that he is incompetent. It is the freaking Bar’s position that he is incompetent, if the court will excuse the use of the vernacular to underscore the point. The Bar cannot hold permanent disbarment over Thompson‘s head in order to compel, by means of extortion, a forced mental health exam. The extortion is proven by The Bar’s utter refusal to answer any questions about what the nature of the alleged incompetency is and who is alleging it. This is Bad Faith 101. The bad faith is also proven by The Bar’s utter failure to follow its own procedures, clearly and lucidly set forth in Bar Rule 3-7.13, as to how to secure an examination and determination of the mental health of a lawyer if it reasonably believes he is incompetent.
    22. So, to sum up and in trying to be so clear that even The Bar gets it, The Bar has hoist itself upon its own petard. It has been so clever in serially trying to use Thompson’s alleged mental illness(es) to coerce and exhaust him, that it has created for itself a dilemma, a conundrum, from which it must escape, one way or the other:
    23. Either The Bar proceeds, under its Rules, to determine if Thompson is in fact incompetent, or it knocks this lunacy crap off.
    24. As to the referee who keeps pointing out how cordial she is, while at the same time turning every hearing herein into a mendacious rubber stamp for whatever the gulagists at The Bar want, just as some of the guards at Treblinka undoubtedly smiled as they took their “relocated” prisoners to their showers, she, Judge Tunis, must follow The Bar’s own logic to where it has now led us all:
    25. Either Judge/Referee Tunis conducts a preliminary competency hearing as to whether Thompson is competent to stand trial, or she explains in open court why she will not do that. Thompson has neither the time this referee has not the interest, it seems, in bothering to read legal research, that proves that no court, on planet Earth, can proceed with a trial when the prosecution asserts that the defendant is incompetent and must be examined for such incompetence. There must be a determination of that first, and then what follows follows. Those who know Judge Tunis say how smart she is. Respondent is sure she can figure this out, as there are literally thousands of cases, in Florida and other jurisdictions, that explain what “incompetent to stand trial” is and how the issue is to be addressed preliminarily, not after a trial occurs.
    26. David Chapman, the man who shot Lennon outside the Dakota, was found “incompetent to stand trial.” He is still incompetent to stand trial. He has never been adjudicated guilty of anything, apparently because New York State has prosecutors, unlike The Bar’s Ms. Tuma, who went to Kafka School of Law, who understand that prosecutorial decisions, including extortion games, have consequences.
    27. The Florida Bar has been, as the British say, too clever by half. On the one hand these paragons of procedures and ethics, these self-righteous Pharisees of political correctness, assert Thompson is incompetent, that he must plead guilty to all sorts of things while he is allegedly incompetent, that his apparent incompetence acts as no mitigation of what he allegedly did while incompetent, and he must agree to this completely insane approach by The Bar or he will in fact be permanently disbarred. Who is crazy in all this? Is it Thompson, or is it the apparent idiot savant immediate past President of The Florida Bar, Hank Coxe, who sat there in the Tallahassee offices of Greenberg Traurig and told Thompson, in front of five other witnesses, that Thompson should have his licensed pulled for being “vitriolic.” Hank Coxe should have his license pulled for being the functional equivalent of a regulatory moron. How about psych tests for Bar Governors? Thompson will pick the mental health experts.
    28. How far does this recidivist effort to pathologize Thompson’s Christian, conservative activism go? It goes back fifteen years. How deep does it go? Here’s just one index of how deep:
    29. The new Chairman of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Strauss Zelnick, who led the successful charge to wrest control of that porn-to-kids video game company, on behalf of major institutional investors, agreed to meet on Central Park West recently with Thompson, just a few minutes’ walk away from the aforementioned Dakota. Strauss Zelnick posited one and only one question to the man who arranged the meeting, at which Mr. Zelnick assured Thompson that Take-Two was “in a war with Thompson that would be won at any cost.”
    30. The question Mr. Zelnick asked, who has seen his company plummet since under his brilliant guidance, asked: “Is Jack Thompson insane? My people [Blank Rome] tell me he is.” Said the go-between, who has known both Thompson and Zelnick for years: “No, Strauss, he’s more sane than you.”
    31. Let The Bar either put up or shut up about this lunacy matter. It cannot have it both ways. It must either drop this lunacy nonsense or use proper procedures, under its own Bar Rule 3-7.13, to determine whether Thompson is competent to stand trial, and that means before the trial, not after. This is so simple and so logical, that even a crazy person can comprehend it.
    WHEREFORE, based upon all of the above, the referee must order a competency hearing if The Bar does not withdraw its written demand for a mental competency examination. Let’s have The Bar either stop this hurtful illegal insanity, or come forward with proof Thompson is impaired.
    I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have provided this to Sheila Tuma, The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, the 7th day of August , 2007, and to Judge/Referee Dava J. Tunis, who would do well to read it and act judiciously thereupon.
    I FURTHER AFFIRM that the factual assertions above, under penalty of perjury, are true, correct, and complete, so help me (can I say this?) God.

    JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney
    Florida Bar #231665
    1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
    Coral Gables, Florida 33146

  7. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    why do I have half a mind to ask, and yes zippy has a cam….
    Are you for a nanny state to protect children by removing questionable material from the hands of adults?
    Are you for a corporate state that gives its all to protect the rich and large business at the price of consumer rights,innovation and freedom of the American people?
    Are you for nazisitic copy rights that damns fair use and consumers to unlawful fines and fees while doing nothing to protect smaller business’s from larger ones stealing their copy right and intellectual properties.

    PS:If you are wondering why this video is blurred out I am wearing a copy righted shirt and have various copy righted items in the background, with fair use dying this is a picture of things to come if you do not create strong a fair use structure preventing industries from bulling the public over what amounts to free advertising.

  8. 0
    Razer210 says:

    @JT: WTF!??!?!

    Okay, after forcing myself to read that entire thing, I request that you show the name of the four legal experts who claimed video games make you do violent acts, stop arguing crap with the Bar and prove you’re sane, cause right now things aren’t looking your way, and third, why is this here???

  9. 0

    […] Yahoo Contact the Webmaster Link to Article youtube Gamer’s YouTube Question for Republican Debate » Posted at on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 Gamer’s YouTube Question for Republican Debate August 7th, 2007 This one precedes the big ECA push, having been submitted on July 29th. Still, it’s definitely worth a look. Sign this guy View Original Article » […]

  10. 0
    Predatorian234 says:

    I still can’t believe Jack posts here. Its got to be fake. I mean come on, what man purposely goes to a video game web forum to put up a copy and paste article like this? I bet he sits there and watches the comments roll in too.

    This guy IS nuts. You don’t need a test to declare that. I mean, come on, look at this. Look at what hes doing. I’m 21 years old and I know how to handle situations better then this guy.

    I refuse to believe thats him. I just can’t think someone at his age, with enough college under his belt to become a lawyer, would be this childish and stupid. I can’t. Its can’t REALLY be him.

    …can it?

  11. 0
    Masterofpsi says:

    Uh… Jack, what does that have to do with this article? I’m strapped for time, so if you could shorten it up, or point me to the important bits, I’d be grateful. Oh, and something I’ve always wanted to ask you: Do you talk to gamers? Not insults and threats and whatnot, but a correspondence between two clear thinking individuals? Would you be interested?

    I think the lunge+monster screams aren’t going to help this video. I also think CNN would rather have a human face given airtime, but that’s just me.

  12. 0
    Silver_Derstin says:

    Thompson, shut the hell up. I thought you were BANNED from this place. By the Emperor…

    In other news, I liked yesterday’s video like 600 times more.

  13. 0
    Snakestream ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Um, shouldn’t that post be removed for being completely irrelevant to the topic? If you won’t be reasonable or civil, at least have the manners to not just blindly post whatever you want wherever you want.

  14. 0
    Andrew Eisen ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Remember gang, these are debate questions. The idea is to get the candidates talking and to learn their view on different issues so you can decide who to vote for. While you can make your opinion known, this is not the forum to convince anyone you’re right.

    Decide what’s important to you and ask away.

    Andrew Eisen

  15. 0
    kurisu7885 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Jack Thompson, hearse chaser

    You’ve already been proven a liar, your press releases are no longer good here, not like they ever were.

  16. 0
    faceless coward ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “21. It is not Thompson’s position that he is incompetent. It is the freaking Bar’s position that he is incompetent, if the court will excuse the use of the vernacular to underscore the point.”

    That was pretty funny.

  17. 0
    faceless coward ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    For Chrissake, Jack, free speech and cigarettes are not the same thing. I can tell you’re a very motivated guy. Why don’t you focus on setting up or working with an organization to inform parents of the harms of videogames if you’re so certain they’re really there? Get a consumer group running. Do tests on different stores across the country to test the effectiveness of their policies on selling M-rated games to minors. Wage boycotts against store chains that don’t meet your expectations until they improve the system across the board. Don’t you understand that railing against the First Amendment is doing far more harm than good?

  18. 0
    Phantom says:

    Predatorian: you must be new. Jack’s trolled Dennis for years, and has always been selectively illiterate. He doesn’t care that his writings have nothing to do with the topics. He lives to make himself the news. It’s all part of his raging narcissism.

  19. 0
    kurisu7885 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Jack “the hack” Thompson

    Oh, and, Thompson, how’s that heart condition. Awful busy for a man who is supposedly having heart problems.

  20. 0
    faceless coward ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Is that standard legal procedure or does Jack Thompson really believe that every one of those embedded opinions that are sprinkled (quite liberally) throughout that massive wall of text are, in fact, “unrebuttable facts”?

  21. 0
    Gray17 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Actually the huge and irrelevant post is more like Jack Thompson than the very small stuff we’ve been seeing lately.

    Yeah, he has a tendency to post his “press releases” in various game news sites comments sections. Usually because said sites refuse to print every last thing he sends them.

  22. 0
    Andrew Eisen ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    I was just making a general comment but to answer you specifically, no I don’t think your questions are clear enough. For example:

    ”Are you for a nanny state to protect children by removing questionable material from the hands of adults?”

    First of all, that’s a bit accusatory and antagonistic. Probably not how you want to come off. As for the question itself, what questionable material are you talking about? GPers know what you mean but the candidates won’t. You have 30 seconds. Go ahead and use the time to give a little background.

    Andrew Eisen

  23. 0
    Shoehorn O'Plenty ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Jack Thompson legal filing checklist:

    Shilling of his book? Check
    Boasting of his 60 Minutes appearance? Check
    Claims of persecution due to his religion? Check
    Reference to “experts” with no names/studies/anything? Check
    Claims of “porn-to-kids”? Check
    Incredibly immature and unprofessional language? Check

    As far as I can see, the only thing he has left out here is his wife’s cancer.

    I cannot believe that this is a real document. There are some real gems in there that you wouldn’t see in a schoolkid’s copy book.

    “It is the freaking Bar’s position that he is incompetent”
    “The Bar has, by design, put the guilt cart before the lunacy horse. Duh.”
    “I FURTHER AFFIRM that the factual assertions above, under penalty of perjury, are true, correct, and complete, so help me (can I say this?) God.”

    How can you put this in a legal document and NOT be accused of being crazy? Legal documents and filings are supposed to follow a strict language and terminology to ensure there is no ambiguity about meaning. They should not include slang, silly insults or sarcastic comments.

    Aaaand, back to the original topic…
    I think this is a pretty silly and open ended question, as it does not imply that the censorship of electronic media is wrong. I could see a candidate answering “of course, whatever it takes to keep our children, our most precious resource safe”, said with a clenched fist to emphasise his resolve and dedication to saving your kids…
    The question posed should be along the lines of:

    “Would you be in favour of the denial of people’s first amendment rights through legislation against electronic media, as has been attempted to no avail and at the cost of over a million tax payer dollars in several states?”

    Attention needs to be drawn to the prior failure of ALL of these laws, to the massive loss of taxpayer money, and to the fact that it would be unconstitutional to do so.

    Or perhaps it would be more helpful to ask what positive action they could take instead:

    “Proposed legislations regarding video games and electronic media across numerous states have been ruled unconstitutional and have cost the taxpayer well over a million dollars. Seeing as legislation is not the answer, what would you do to educate and inform parents regarding the existing ratings system for digital media, as well as the parental controls available on today’s video game systems? “

  24. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    @ Jack Thompson, Hearse Chasing Necrophile Attorney

    I highly doubt the court gives two squirts of monkey piss, to quote another well-known celebrity from Miami, if you were on 60 Minutes, Today, or The Simple Life.

    At any rate, “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

    Practice what you preach, jabroni: Grow up and get a life.

  25. 0
    Andrew Eisen ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Shoehorn O’Plenty,

    That last question is very good. Simply add what the proposed legislations were attempting to do and you’re golden.

    Andrew Eisen

  26. 0
    Gray17 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    I wouldn’t be surprised if it was real, Jack’s provably filed crazy stuff with a court before, only to have it amended to something sane later.

    That being said, I agree with Andrew, that last question is very good. It’s not loaded, calls attention to the fact that legislation has failed without casting much blame, and draws them into talking about and considering what other actions could be taken.

  27. 0
    JBourrie says:


    I think you should delete the off-topic post that is spamming up a large chunk of this page.

    Is there an issue with the videos being posted containing copyrighted content (such as Halo characters or the game playing on the TV in the first one)? Because there’s really no point in sending your video to YouTube if CNN refuses to show it based on possible copyright infringement. If this is the case, we’d be better off making videos that focus on our question, without showing trailers of our favorite games.

  28. 0
    J-Guy says:

    GP what are you thinking? This video is terrible, plain and simple. The guy doesn’t provide a clear, understandable question, and the video itself neither shows the person nor is it acceptable for the debate. It seems that the video would only irritate the Republicans with that loud screech toward the end.

    @ Jack
    I have not, for once, believed you to be the real Jack. But now, I’m starting to trust the other users here about you actually BEING the real Jack. And if you are, you are childish to be posting that here. You rarely, if ever, reply to comments made to you and present no argument to defend yourself. All you do is troll and post that God has charged you to protect the kiddies. Do us a favor. Leave. Immediately.

  29. 0
    Brandon St. Germaine ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I am conflicted. At one moment, I feel like we should reveal the lack of respect, tact, and professionalism displayed by Jack Thompson. At the same time, I feel like giving him some kind of coverage would be a horrible mistake on all of our parts.

    I wish the Florida Bar would do something about him, at least. Does he realize what kind of a jackass he makes of himself on this website?

  30. 0
    Maria Roos says:

    getting back to the topic at hand, (the one before JT exapted the thread for his purposes).

    I will grant that machinima is a creative way to deliver this question. the question itself too is is quite deserving of a response from the candidates.

    but, doesnt the halo kill shot and blood stain ‘thank you CNN’ at the end sent the wrong mesage. wouldnt it make more sense to use a less violent game? perhaps one that the anti game lobby does not use as an argument for restrictions.

  31. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Andrew Eisen

    all questionable material would be R rated+ of coarse,once baned books will start being labeled er rated and burned as seen fit by local protection squads,its all for teh children yo!

    zippy needs his sleep 0_o

  32. 0
    jccalhoun GRADUATE STUDENT ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It is interesting in all the reasons why Jacko thinks the case against him should be stopped that he doesn’t mention his earlier claims that an attorney once involved in the matter is accused of being involved in some drug cartel money laundering scheme. Of course it is also funny that no one besides Jacko ever claimed that…

    It is also interesting that he keeps changing his reasons why this matter should be dropped. If I didn’t know better I would think that he was desperately grasping at straws…

Leave a Reply