Comments on: As Predicted, Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds Permanent Injunction Of CA Sales Law

By: Dominoes

Dominoes — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:10:48 +0000

It’s still unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And unconstitutionally broad(it’s possible under it that a sale of a T-rated game to someone under 13 would be illegal under the bill) and vague at the same time.

By: Dog Welder

Dog Welder — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:07:11 +0000

Jack,

Why is it that 10 different courts have found the “science” lacking? If there was a true, proven causal link between video games and violence, don’t you think ONE court in this country would uphold a law restricting sales? The problem is, your reading comprehension skills are dirt poor and you see only that which you wish to see in these scientific studies while failing to read all the caveats to the studies. That’s why the laws are failing and will continue to fail.

And your Utah law? It does nothing. It will actually HURT the cause you’ve been advocating as stores will simply not advertise or claim that they won’t sell to minors. It’s hardly irony that a guy who was a complete failure as a lawyer would draft a bill as utterly toothless and meaningless as this one. Revel in your “victory,” though I still wouldn’t be shocked if it got thrown out in court.

By: Kincyr

Kincyr — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:29:36 +0000

actually Jack, the ruling was based on the quote “The government may not restrict speech in order to control a minor’s thoughts…”
seems like you can dish out the “thought police” card but you can’t take it.

By: jccalhoun

jccalhoun — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:49:41 +0000

Yes the APA put out a press release about videogame violence. On the panel was Craig Anderson and lots of people who have coauthored papers with Anderson. The judge specifically calls Anderson out for bad science. So I guess he isn’t as dumb as some disbarred people think.

One thing Jacko’s Utah bill will also avoid is actually doing anything. So I guess there is a lot of similarity between that bill and the one in California that has been thrown out…

By: Hitodama

Hitodama — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:38:05 +0000

Just as planned, eh, Jackie?

By: Shadow D. Darkman

Shadow D. Darkman — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:21:50 +0000

@EZK:

Nothing good, that’s for sure.

@JT

You keep saying the APA found this supposed “causal” link between violence and video games. Since I’m doing my Senior Project on video games and violence, why don’t you post the PROOF they found so I can add it in? Or does it not exist? If it doesn’t, stop saying it does. And if it does, as I said, Show it to us.

By: E. Zachary Knight

E. Zachary Knight — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:12:35 +0000

Hey John Bruce,

I thought you said that the California law was unconstitutional. I remember you said that many times during the original trial. You even said you contacted Yee about it unconstitutionality. Now you are saying that those idiot judges share your very own view on the law. What does that say about you?

By: kurisu7885

kurisu7885 — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:53:40 +0000

Awww, how cute, Thompson still believes the toilet tissue he wrote on will still pass.

By: BearDogg-X

BearDogg-X — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:28:20 +0000

Actually, Jack, your Utah bill doesn’t avoid it, since it’s still based on restricting sales based on content. So it’s still unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And unconstitutionally broad(it’s possible under it that a sale of a T-rated game to someone under 13 would be illegal under the bill) and vague at the same time. Besides that, you’re still basing it on what amounts to less than 1% of all video game sales.

The APA itself has even said that there isn’t a “causal” link. Get it right. And that now makes ten or eleven court decisions that have rejected that flawed junk science research you claim as “proof”.

Count your lucky stars that Utah’s even hearing that pile of garbage you call a bill, considering that all that bill’s really going to do, if it’s even ruled constitutional, is force the retailers to drop their ID policies, since you can’t advertise what you don’t have.

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

By: Jack Thompson

Jack Thompson — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:39:39 +0000

The Ninth Circuit’s predictable but nevertheless bizarre and absurd ruling is based upon its adoption of the notion that there is no causual link between violent game play by teens and behavior changes. The American Psychological Association has found that there is such a causal link, not a mere correlation as the court asserts.

So, how dumb are most federal judges. Answer: Very. But don’t worry, my Utah bill avoids all of this. Sweet!

Jack Thompson