He's not allowed to practice law anywhere in the US now. Hence his puppeteering of another person to push his bill through.Zenode said:
Jack Thompson Authored Game Bill Introduced In Utah
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
This guy has no clue what hes attempting to shake up just to tend to his fractured ego.
wether this guy eventually gives up his fundementally flawed arguments due to popular opinion or a sudden uncharacteristic burst of self insight dosnt matter, just so long as he just stops ruining entertainment (emphesis on ENTERTAINMENT, not mindless, child-corrupting splatterthons) for everybody else
wether this guy eventually gives up his fundementally flawed arguments due to popular opinion or a sudden uncharacteristic burst of self insight dosnt matter, just so long as he just stops ruining entertainment (emphesis on ENTERTAINMENT, not mindless, child-corrupting splatterthons) for everybody else
It would be the sweetest of ironies if this lunatic would be disposed of in a way that "proved him right".Pyre1million said:
Apart from that, he's a fucking lunatic in a position of relative power, thus can't be laughed at and ignored, but needs to be removed, by any means neccessary and as irrevocable as possible.
I don't know why America gets so upset about the regulation of games. I agree, games should have legally enforced age ratings as they do in Britain. Some games are only suitable for adults so why bother trying to stop their regulation?
I'm not in favour of the ban wand people try to waive every time a new game comes out but I think that certain titles such as manhunt should be withheld. If the games industry was regulated it would actually require it to be taken seriously by a lot more people and content would be more important in judgements than media headlines currently are.
I'm not in favour of the ban wand people try to waive every time a new game comes out but I think that certain titles such as manhunt should be withheld. If the games industry was regulated it would actually require it to be taken seriously by a lot more people and content would be more important in judgements than media headlines currently are.
Where is "here?"Anonymouse said:
And for the record, you don't do your argument or your credibility any favours by saying you "truly do think he should be killed." It leaves me inclined to dismiss pretty much everything you say as, well, stupid.
If you haven't read the entire thread, you should; and if you have, you should read more closely. The answer is contained within. But to sum up, the opposition is less about videogames and more about undoing 200 years of the First Amendment based on the whims of a genuinely lunatic fringe. If you're going to mess with the Constitution, particularly the part that talks about freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all that sort of good stuff, then you better have a pretty goddamn good reason.beddo said:
I fail to see how this relates to freedom of speech. If you follow that stance how can any content be illegal other than if it violates another constitutional law?Malygris said:
What about cinemas? You have to be a certain age to see films at the cinema, is that against your freedom of speech? What makes adult entertainment different from video games, that material has to be sold in specifically licensed shops so what's the difference here? What about regular films that you buy or rent, you have to be a certain age to get those, I fail to see what makes games exempt from these controls. Numerous films have been banned in America, what's the difference there.
The constitution was actually meant to be re-written after x number of years to adapt to a changing society.
The US claims to be so concerned about its pseudo constitutional rights yet things such as the patriot act 2004 were passed without much opposition. This essentially rendered the constitution irrelevant.
Just look at the NSA flouting the right to privacy by tapping the communications of US citizens at will.
Throughout the history of the US the constitution has rarely stood up for the people except in places where the government didn't care enough to override it. The McCarthy trials showed that the US does not have freedom of speech.
More recently the litigious nature of your society has resulted in a legal barring of freedom of speech. People are not able to criticise companies in the US or they will be sued! Moreover, the US has even made a number illegal to write down because it can be used to decrypt certain information!
So don't bother claiming you have freedom of speech which is constitutionally protected because it's simply false.
Disappointed?mattttherman3 said:
Sorry, couldn't resist. Anywho, on topic: Why won't Jack just fade away? Lets just hope this fails - not because its a bad law persay, simply because we don't really want Jack to try and force himself back into the public eye!
Ok, I don't like how you have those airquotes Thompson. "Pesky First Amendment concerns"? Maybe you should, y'know, actually "practice law" instead of giving it "lip service"?
Besides, developers don't actually sell the games, retailers do. Who cares though, right? Forget logic!
Besides, developers don't actually sell the games, retailers do. Who cares though, right? Forget logic!