Thenamelessdan

Once again Jack Thompson gives us a fascinating case study in the projection defense mechanism. Let observe yet another miss representation of the facts by the only knucklehead in this place, that is you John Bruce.

Congressional testimony recently proves that the entire rating system is a sham (see testimony of Harvard's Kimberly Thompson).

Wrong!
Kimberly Thompson has repeatedly said she is a supporter of voluntary regulation she has never claimed the system is "the entire rating system is a sham"
In fact here are some quotes directly from her Kidsrisk site http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/

3. Media ratings provide important information

Whether you like the current media ratings systems or not, they offer an important tool to help parents make good media choices for and with their children. Currently several different industry rating boards separately rate media using an "alphabet soup" of age-based rating categories, and some also provide content information. Even if you find the ratings confusing, you need to know the rating boards and their systems and instantly recognize the rating symbols used to label media products

10. Do your part to make media self-regulation work

Our current system of media self-regulation depends on everyone making responsible choices.

So let review it is an important tool that you both need to know about and help work. Look up sham in dictionary and you will see this does not meet the definition yet this lovely case study has convinced himself that she some how said something she never said and some how also managed to convince himself that his repeated unsuccessful effort to dismantle the ESRB are some how in line with her views even thought it completely contradicts the explicit message of making self regulation work.

Tune in next time as we watch our lovely case study fail at yet another case and then continue to blame his failings on evil liberal judges and incompetent attorneys other then himself.

How sad, a supposedly grown man make hate filled news releases, which aren’t even news, in the comment section of a story with little to on relevance’s to his rant on of all places one he considers to be filled with morons. All while thinking he is some moral savior, worse still that he has some special ability to predict the future.

How's the Alabama case that you were throw off going?
How’s your LA law going?
Why are the penny arcade workers not in jail yet?
Why is bully still on track for release?
Why is it that 2 live crew album are not consider obscenity?
Why do know of the studies you cite say what you claim they say? (The FBI clearly said their was no common dominator in school shooting, Dr Thompson doesn’t consider the ESRB to be phony she has repeatedly voiced her support of voluntary regulation and so on)

Because your are a miserably excuse for a lawyer and a human being you lie and deceive all the while criticizing other for their negative influence they have on children. Unfortunately for you Jack our Lord is not a fan of pride, arrogance and deception all of which you take part in regularly, or do you believe you somehow have the right to throw the first stone?
Jack Thompson a case study in self-delusion.

Really we should feel sorry for Jack he so out of touch with reality he honestly believes what he says no matter how plainly false it is.
Example:
He in a Shreveport Timeseditorial in regards to the LA law he claims: “The FBI and Secret Service found, in studying all the school shootings up to and through Columbine, the one common denominator was the immersion of the perpetrators in violent entertainment.” Neither the FBI nor the Secret Service have ever said anything of the sort. It is true that the Secret Service in its report, “The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative”, found that “Over half of the attackers demonstrated some interest in violence” they also noted that “there was no one common type of interest in violence indicated” and that Thompson's preferred target of immersion in violent video games was present in only 12 percent of cases. The FBI in its report, “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective”, also makes it explicitly clear that “No one or two traits or characteristics should be considered in isolation or given more weight than the others. Any of these traits, or several, can be seen in students who are not contemplating a school shooting or other act of violence” and both organizations empathized the fact that “There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence” and that “there is no set of traits that described all–or even most–of the attackers.” It is quite clear there is no common denominator, of any sort. Furthermore, neither the FBI nor the Secret Service made as much as an intimation of the relationship between violent media and school violence being casual in nature, the Secret Service in fact stated, “Many adolescents are fascinated with violence and the macabre, and writings and drawings on these themes can be a reflection of a harmless but rich and creative fantasy life.”

The FBI’s and Secret Service’s actual recommendations, are the polar opposite of Thompson’s misguided approach. Rather then trying to find some sort of common denominator, the research rightfully concluded that a milieu of factors were responsible for each of these tragedies and that anything short of a comprehensive threat assessment approach will not prevent these tragedies from occurring.

Mr. Thompson by advocating a contraindicated approach and even worse coning other into wasting resources doing so is part of the problem he is supposedly trying to prevent.

I can’t seem to find the editorial in question on the Shreveport Times website anymore but here are the links to the FBI and Secret Service studies.

www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
www.fbi.gov/publications/school/school2.pdf