Beginning of the end of a prick

[Zorro7]

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/11/26/jack-thompson-faces-trial-before-the-florida-bar-today/

[Frogacuda]

Even if he is disbarred he won't drop this cause. He'll still be appearing on the news as a "video game violence expert" and staging protests.

[squall_vb]

Even if he is disbarred he won't drop this cause. He'll still be appearing on the news as a "video game violence expert" and staging protests.

Hopefully he doesn't lose his ability to practice law. We need people like him. Otherwise, who is going to convince the courts that something must be done about all this violence in games?

Just imagine how wonderful it would be if some court ruled that a predetermined level of violence in video games is dangerous to society. We could outlaw all this filth that people try to peddle under the guise of "artistic expression" and "free speech."

And the kicker? THERE WOULD BE NO MEANS OF APPEAL! It would be glorious!

(Removing sarcasm filter...)

Nuts like him are the very reason I hold the position I so adamantly defended last night. While you make some very good points about elected officials caving to what is popular at the moment (regardless of it being right), at least those flaws might eventually be corrected through a more educated and enlightened electorate.

With a runaway judiciary, all you need are a couple nuts like this dipshit. That seriously concerns me.

I don't want to reignite the debate; rather, I felt the need to chime in because dickheads such as he and John Asscroft really make my skin crawl, and subsequently cause me to latch to the language of the Constitution as I do.


Edit: Also, I didn't mean to thread-hop on this one. This just seems like a more natural thread for the discussion, IMHO.

[Bruhaha69]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43441

Old onion article that I thought was pretty funny and relates to this scumbag. The best part are the final couple lines. Funny because you KNOW as ridiculous as the article is, it's not far off from how it would happen in reality.

[Frogacuda]

Nuts like him are the very reason I hold the position I so adamantly defended last night.

Honestly, no one has done more to convince the courts that video games are protected by the first amendment than Jack Thompson.

Better him than a competent lawyer.

[squall_vb]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43441

Old onion article that I thought was pretty funny and relates to this scumbag. The best part are the final couple lines. Funny because you KNOW as ridiculous as the article is, it's not far off from how it would happen in reality.

Haha... I remember reading that a while back. I love The Onion.


Honestly, no one has done more to convince the courts that video games are protected by the first amendment than Jack Thompson.

Better him than a competent lawyer.

In this case, yes. Judges don't take him seriously; why the media continues to do so is beyond me.

I worry about competent, credible lawyers on a crusade.

[Frogacuda]

In this case, yes. Judges don't take him seriously; why the media continues to do so is beyond me.

I worry about competent, credible lawyers on a crusade.

I also hope you realize that lawmakers have repeatedly attempted to pass laws restricting videogames and failed only because the judicial branch and its rulings on constitutionality. If we had it your way there would have been nothing to prevent congress from banning whatever they want.

Yeah, it might be scary if this line of defense goes down, but surely no scarier than if it wasn't there at all. You are out of your goddamned mind if you think the legislative branch is going to protect free speech. Leiberman and Hillary are leading the goddamned charge.

[squall_vb]

I also hope you realize that lawmakers have repeatedly attempted to pass laws restricting videogames and failed only because the judicial branch and its rulings on constitutionality. If we had it your way there would have been nothing to prevent congress from banning whatever they want.

Yeah, it might be scary if this line of defense goes down, but surely no scarier than if it wasn't there at all. You are out of your goddamned mind if you think the legislative branch is going to protect free speech. Leiberman and Hillary are leading the goddamned charge.

If it is the will of the majority that violence in videogames be outlawed, so be it. That's how things work in a democracy. People vote for their representatives, and the representatives determine national policy. If people don't like their decisions, they are thrown out on their asses in the following election.

I would much prefer that laws and policies I disagree with come at the hands of elected officials than unelected judges.

That sounds crazy? Well, try looking at it this way:

Imagine that the tables are reversed. It's a few years from now, and President Clinton has appointed many judges that see things her way. This time a case dealing with videogame violence finds itself before such a judge, and the ruling goes in a direction that neither of us would like. It gets appealed to the highest court, but... there have been some changes. Some vacancies opened up during her eight year reign, and she once again filled them with justices that she liked. This hypothetical case is reviewed, and the verdict stands.

Now what? Who do you vote out of office? How do you reverse such a decision? How do you change the new national policy?

That's what I'm getting at.

You're going to say that the scenario I painted is ridiculous, but I contend that it is not.

[Frogacuda]

If it is the will of the majority that violence in videogames be outlawed, so be it.
Stopped reading. We can pretty much end this discussion here. My interpretation of the constitution involves enforcing the bill of rights and yours doesn't.

It's not about majority rule, it's about minority rights. That's the difference between a constitutional democracy and mob rule.

[squall_vb]

Stopped reading. We can pretty much end this discussion here. My interpretation of the constitution involves enforcing the bill of rights and your doesn't.

It's not about majority rule, it's about minority rights. That's the difference between a constitutional democracy and mob rule.

I never read anything about "minority rights" in the constitution. (I read a lot about it in Stupid White Men, though.) Everybody is entitled to the same rights in a constitutional democracy, whether you're in the majority or the minority. The First Amendment, in the Bill of Rights you mentioned, only protects political speech. This was the interpretation based on that process of "judicial review" you love so much.

And ceasing to read a post based on the first sentence? That's very big of you. It shows wonderful tolerance for the views of others... even if they are in the minority.

[Frogacuda]

I never read anything about "minority rights" in the constitution. (I read a lot about it in Stupid White Men, though.) Everybody is entitled to the same rights in a constitutional democracy, whether you're in the majority or the minority.
Please tell me you're only pretending to be this dense and you understand the difference between a statistical and a demographical minority.

And ceasing to read a post based on the first sentence? That's very big of you. It shows wonderful tolerance for the views of others... even if they are in the minority.
I read the rest of your post. I'm really struggling to not be a complete asshole in my response. It doesn't even make a little bit of sense an I will try very hard to say this without being condecending:

Ruling that banning a game is unconstitutional would protect us from congress taking action to ban a game.

You purport that congress should be the ones to decide whether or not games could get banned.

BUT if a stacked court ruled that banning a game IS constitutionally acceptable legistators could STILL pass a law saying that it could not.

So the voters would have the EXACT SAME line of recourse either way.

[squall_vb]

Please tell me you're only pretending to be this dense.

Considering that engaging in this debate requires giving your opinion an even minute amount of possible credibility, it's hard to come across otherwise.
_

[post updated]

_

Please tell me you're only pretending to be this dense.

I read the rest of your post. I'm really struggling to not be a complete asshole in my response. It doesn't even make a little bit of sense an I will try very hard to say this without being condecending:

Ruling that banning a game is unconstitutional would protect us from congress taking action to ban a game.

You purport that congress should be the ones to decide whether or not games could get banned.

BUT if a stacked court ruled that banning a game IS constitutionally acceptable legistators could STILL pass a law saying that it not.

So the voters would have the EXACT SAME line of recourse either way.

Before I go on, let me see if I'm hearing you the way you wish to be heard... Are you implying that one side will always offset the other regardless?

[Frogacuda]

Before I go on, let me see if I'm hearing you the way you wish to be heard... Are you implying that one side will always offset the other regardless?No, I'm saying that Congress and voters would have the EXACT SAME recourse in your nightmare scenario and your ideal scenario. Both would be effectively leaving the decision to the discretion of congress.

Considering that engaging in this debate requires giving your opinion an even minute amount of possible credibility, it's hard to come across otherwise.
Dude, think about it for a moment. What does "freedom of speech" mean? Does it mean that I have the freedom to say something unless the majority disagrees with me? No, that's not free at all.

The ONLY speech that needs to be protected is unpopular speech, because it's the only speech that will be threatened. That's why I say "minority rights." When I say "minority" I don't mean "black people." I mean protecting the people that need protection whoever they are.

The point of "inalienable rights" is to keep the majority from running amok over the minority. The aforementioned line between mob rule and a society with guarunteed freedoms.

[squall_vb]

No, I'm saying that Congress and voters would have the EXACT SAME recourse in your nightmare scenario and your ideal scenario. Both would be effectively leaving the decision to the discretion of congress.

Very well... Then why not leave the system as the Constitution says is should be? The Congress makes the laws, and the Supreme Court upholds the laws. This invented power of "judicial review" simply gives a few unelected men and women the power to shape policy. No thanks.



Dude, think about it for a moment. What does "freedom of speech" mean? Does it mean that I have the freedom to say something unless the majority disagrees with me? No.

The ONLY speech that needs to be protected is unpopular speech, because it's the only speech that will be threatened. That's why I say "minority rights." When I say "minority" I don't mean "black people." I mean protecting the people that need protection whoever they are.

The point of "inalienable rights" is to keep the majority from running amok over the minority. The aforementioned line between mob rule and a society with guarunteed freedoms.

The Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech protects those with dissenting political views. It says nothing about the right to play violent video games.

As far as political speech is concerned, it seems to be very much protected to this day. You'll notice that Michael Moore is still alive and well. He was never rubbed out by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and we can still enjoy his wonderful political works. Shit, even the American Communist Party is allowed to function unimpeded. There are no American political prisoners, and this is thanks to the Constitution... not "judicial review."
_

[post updated]

_
I wasn't referring to "black people" either. (I think you misunderstood me because of the Moore book title... it sort of jumbled my paragraph.) I, too, was referring to holders of minority opinions.

[Frogacuda]

The Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech protects those with dissenting political views.
Really? I'm pretty sure it just says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Don't think the word "political" is in there. And here I thought you actually knew the wording intimately.

And you're changing the subject since that post wasn't about video games at all, but just rights in general and how allowing the mob to rule is a LACK of rights.

[squall_vb]

Really? I'm pretty sure it just says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Don't think the word "political" is in there. And here I thought you actually knew the wording intimately.

And you're changing the subject since that post wasn't about video games at all, but just rights in general and how allowing the mob to rule is a LACK of rights.

You call them the "mob." I call them "citizens." That is our difference.

The Supreme Court ruled that the protections of the First Amendment only apply to political speech. You can thank "judicial review" for that. Had they not been allowed to meddle, a more strict interpretation would conclude that all speech is protected.

And that, my friend, is why I feel the way I feel.

[Frogacuda]

You call them the "mob." I call them "citizens." That is our difference.Stop avoiding the point. The point is that "rights" implies that everyone is protected, not just the majority.


The Supreme Court ruled that the protections of the First Amendment only apply to political speech.
Really? Is that why Larry Flint won?

[squall_vb]

Stop avoiding the point. The point is that "rights" implies that everyone is protected, not just the majority.

I never said that everyone isn't protected. But everyone can't have their way on matters of policy.



Really? Is that why Larry Flint won?

EXACTLY!!! That's another problem with "judicial review." Court opinions and policies change like the fucking wind.
_

[post updated]

_
That leads to another can of worms... what is "political speech?" Some argue that pornography should be included. Some argue that flag burning should be included. And yes, some argue that violent games should be included.

If the Supreme Court stuck to its constitutionally assigned job, this wouldn't be an issue. All speech would be protected, as it is clearly stated in the document.

[Frogacuda]

You're spinning like a top and I'm dizzy. I enjoyed the argument from the other day, you held your ground well and I respected you for it.

Today, however, clearly isn't your day. I like you, Andrew, so I'm just going to leave this discussion now before I become more of a sarcastic asshole than I am. Let's save it for another time.

[squall_vb]

You're spinning like a top and I'm dizzy. I enjoyed the argument from the other day, you held your ground well and I respected you for it.

Today, however, clearly isn't your day. I like you, Andrew, so I'm just going to leave this discussion now before I become more of a sarcastic asshole than I am. Let's save it for another time.

Thank you for the kind words. My sentiments for your argumentative skills are mutual.

While I obviously disagree with your opinion of my argument, I respect your wish to retreat to our neutral corners for the evening. Until next time...