Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government It's funny.  Laugh. Spam News Entertainment Games Your Rights Online

Jack Thompson Spams Utah Senate, May Face Legal Action 319

Posted by Soulskill
from the get-some-popcorn dept.
eldavojohn writes "Yesterday, GamePolitics ran an interesting story about the Utah Senate President threatening Jack Thompson with the CAN-SPAM Act. You might recall Utah being Jack's last hope and hold-out after being disbarred in Florida and more or less made a mockery everywhere else. Well, from Utah's Senate Site, we get the picture of what Jack is up to now: spamming his last friends on the planet. The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting on Senate President Michael Waddoups' statements: 'I asked you before to remove me from your mailing list. I supported your bill but because of the harassment will not again. If I am not removed, I will turn you over to the AG for legal action.' The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Waddoups confirmed on Tuesday that he would attempt to pursue legal action under the federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 against Jack Thompson."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson Spams Utah Senate, May Face Legal Action

Comments Filter:
  • Finally (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thefear (1011449)
    Will a spammer finally be prosecuted? It seems to me like a lot of these spam suites just don't stick
    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)

      by DJRumpy (1345787) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:44AM (#27586879)
      This guy isn't a spammer in the typical sense. He's a hack 'lawyer' that's been permanently disbarred in Florida for false statements, disparaging remarks, and humiliating litigants.

      He's tried to get music banned due to explicit content, violent video games banned because they incite violence, video games declared as pornography, etc., etc., etc. You know they type. More concerned about everyone else's business rather than minding his own.

      He's essentially wants to ensure that everyone else lives to his own moral standards regardless of their beliefs or how they want to raise their children.

      He's just a big born-again right wing religious wack job for lack of a better term. This latest spam suit is just his latest 'label' among many.
      • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:11PM (#27587245) Homepage
        This guy isn't a spammer in the typical sense. He's a hack 'lawyer' that's been permanently disbarred in Florida for false statements, disparaging remarks, and humiliating litigants.

        It was funny, right after being disbarred he sent a long, impassioned letter to all of the rest of us in the Florida Bar asking us to rally around him. I always wondered if anyone did.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by DJRumpy (1345787)
          Guessing from the info online about him, I'd say he's about out of friends, or even anyone that will tolerate him.
  • Low lifes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig,hogger&gmail,com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:25AM (#27585867) Journal
    Is there any lower life form than a spammer?

    We used to think that Thompson was lower than a spammer, but we're not so sure nowadays...

    • Re:Low lifes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:26AM (#27585879) Journal

      Is there any lower life form than a spammer?

      Rapists, murders and Yankees fans all come to mind ;)

    • by TheLinuxSRC (683475) * <slashdotNO@SPAMpagewash.com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:27AM (#27585903) Homepage
      I think the problem is that not only is this guy Jack Thompson, but he is also a spammer. That is akin to a division by zero or adding multiple infinities - the human mind simply cannot comprehend that level of low.
      • Eh, not so much (Score:5, Informative)

        by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:37PM (#27587545)

        It's not surprising when a pig gets dirty. He's just found a new way to do it is all. I wouldn't be surprised if he started cold calling people on their cell phones next, or sending unsolicited faxes.

        The guy has absolutely no clue when it comes to tech issues. None. This whole spam thing is yet another demonstration of that.

        Nothing he does is really surprising.

  • So, what was it? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:26AM (#27585889) Journal
    Did he manage to spam them with anything interesting? I figure that, if this guy can somehow think that putting porn in a court filing is a good idea, anything is possible when he gets on the internet.
    • by gmack (197796) <[gmack] [at] [innerfire.net]> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:15AM (#27586469) Homepage Journal

      These tactics remind me of a trick on how to check out other girls with your significant other present: feigned outrage.

      "Wow look at her shes wearing almost nothing at all. Will you look at that top? You can almost see right down her shirt. And look at those pants! They are so tight they show everything. Disgusting isn't it?"

      The simple fact is, if you don't like something, the natural human tendency is to stop looking at it.

      Meanwhile this guy has played enough GTA to find the lap dance clip and went browsing through the adult section of a gay website to find a picture to include in his legal filings?

      • by WCguru42 (1268530) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:47PM (#27587675)

        These tactics remind me of a trick on how to check out other girls with your significant other present: feigned outrage.

        "Wow look at her shes wearing almost nothing at all. Will you look at that top? You can almost see right down her shirt. And look at those pants! They are so tight they show everything. Disgusting isn't it?"

        And that actually worked for you? No offense, but you need to find smarter women to date.

        • by SpecBear (769433) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @02:12PM (#27588701)

          You can't overdo it, and you have to tailor your approach to the woman your dealing with. My previous girlfriend responded quite well to me making snide comments about other women, but she would have seen right through feigned outrage.

          My current girlfriend is bi. That's a much better solution to the problem.

  • A guy sends out spam with images of scantily-clad women -- and THIS, not his Quixotic crusade against everything that offends him, is a reason for using the Can-SPAM act against him?

    Jack Thompson actually went up a notch in my estimation, now that I've heard he's sending out pr0n emails. (His approval rating in my book is now at 1%. Way to go, Jack!!)

    ...but yeah, sic 'im, guys. About bloody time.
  • Per subject: it's guys like Jack Thompson who give lawyers a bad name.

    He has lost his mission, he has lost his friends, and what does he do---piss away the last he had.

    Truly this is the time to quote Leia: the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.

    Soon, all Jack will have left is an empty clenched fist, which he will be free to wave at anyone passing by his soap box.

    May it be put on a deserted island.

    Now, let's all play a game with tits and guns! :D

  • by Spazztastic (814296) <`spazztastic' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:27AM (#27585909)

    This is just more proof that Jack Thompson, much like Steve Balmer, was put on this earth to be an infinite source of entertainment. As long as people like Jack try to attack violent video games and remove them from the shelves, they will never succeed. His tactics of idiocy and harassment don't seem to work.

    I wonder if anybody has ever pointed him to /. and everybody who hates him...

    • by stoned_hamster (1531291) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:47AM (#27586161)

      I wonder if anybody has ever pointed him to /. and everybody who hates him...

      I wonder. I recently passed some corner preachers who took a passage from the Bible and twisted it all out of context. I stopped and engaged them in a conversation, proving they were wrong in the context they had chosen. They got all flustered and declared me a (direct quote, mind you) "Spawn of Satan, send to this world to corrupt these people of God" and continued to shout out about what they had been preaching about.
      Its people like this who believe that what they do and say is right and everyone who believes in different things that are a real problem to society.

      • That's because you followed the Gourd instead of the Shoe!

      • by Idiomatick (976696) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:15PM (#27587277)
        I got called "the scum of the earth! Lower than scum! It is people like you that are ruining this world for good GOD fearing people." This was while volunteering at a church and fasting for charity. Apparently someone found out I was 'an atheist infiltrator'. This was at the easy going Protestant church, I worry what might have happened had I volunteered at the hardcore Catholic church across the street.
  • God Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:28AM (#27585913)

    Why couldn't he have given us some warning before doing that?

    Now we have to arrange for confetti and parade floats and marching bands all on short notice!

    Does he have any idea how hard it is to get a 500ft Master Chief balloon in just a couple days?

  • How does this work? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitig (1056110) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:30AM (#27585937)
    I don't know the politics behind this -- am I correct in reading it as Waddoup being fine with everybody else being spammed, and only objecting when he discovered that he could get spammed too?
    • by orclevegam (940336) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:02AM (#27586323) Journal
      I read it more as most spam comes from random relays over in China which we can't really do anything about, but here is an instance where it's trivially easy to point out exactly who is sending the spam. It gets even easier from a prosecution standpoint because Jack is too simple (read boneheaded) to even consider trying to deny sending the e-mails, rather he's going to try to argue that the e-mails constitute protected speech under the first amendment (oh the irony), and just to dig himself a bit deeper start throwing allegations of corruption, bribery, and conspiracy at anyone who disagrees with him (as if the only way someone might not have exactly the same views as him is if they've been bought by some megacorp).
  • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:32AM (#27585945)

    Spam is commercial email. This is email about a pending legislative action, and thus Jack Thompson has the right to send it because he has a right to free speech.

    But all that means is that the CAN-SPAM act isn't the appropriate law to attack him with: instead, the Senator should just go for plain-old harassment.

    Besides, there's nothing that says the Senator has to listen to him -- that's what filters are for! Let Jack Thompson write to /dev/null to his heart's content.

    • IIRC CAN-SPAM (might as well just add some words to the name and call it the CAN-HAS-SPAM act, but whatever) makes specific exemptions for political advertisements and solicitations by nonprofits, but says nothing about whether the content is commercial or not.

      Further, there is no reason why I or my ISP or any other email provider should have to bear the cost of accepting spam. That is pure crap, and arguably theft of services, though obviously IANAL — it might not hold up in court, but I think I can construct a fairly logical argument along those lines.

    • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:07AM (#27586383)

      Spam is commercial email. This is email about a pending legislative action, and thus Jack Thompson has the right to send it because he has a right to free speech.

      Just to clarify...

      Spam is not always commercial email. However, I believe the CAN-SPAM act is only concerned with unsolicited commercial email. So in that sense, you're probably right that the CAN-SPAM act doesn't apply to this case.

      As for filters - that's what spammers say. I don't buy the argument. At some point, the harasser will attempt to bypass filters and you end up inducing a cost to keep ahead of the filtering arms race.

    • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:34AM (#27586747) Journal

      Spam is commercial email.

      No. Spam is Unsolicited Bulk Email [spamhaus.org]. Content does not enter into the equation.

    • by master811 (874700)

      No, SPAM is NOT necessarily commercial email. SPAM can be commercial, but it does not have to be so to be classed as SPAM.
       
      I could email you 100 times with a blank email, that would not be commercial (and yet it would still be SPAM).

    • by b4dc0d3r (1268512) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:49AM (#27586939)

      Michael Waddoups should be put in jail. You do have a point here, but I'll go one better. He previously supported Jack's bill, but now because Jack is exercising his right of free speech, however annoyingly, Michael is not going to support the bill. This is not commercial, and it is only unsolicited in the sense that they did not expect it. But of all people lawmakers should be accepting input on pending legislation. Claiming this is SPAM is clearly abuse of the laws they made, and they should know better. Utah State Senate President should absolutely know better.

      He is deciding his vote on the personal actions of one of the parties - not whether the bill is good for the people. Better still, he is deciding on his opinion of the actions of one of the parties. He is guilty of not doing his job, which is to represent the people. I read his comments as "You have to go through me, I get to choose the laws."

      I don't know which bill this is, and can only assume it's as idiotic as Jack Thompson has proven himself to be. But Michael should not be playing this game in public. I will shut down your bill if I don't like you, regardless of whether it is good for the people.

  • Not his first time. (Score:5, Informative)

    by kramer (19951) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:32AM (#27585953) Homepage

    Not long after being disbarred, Ol' Jack spammed the entire membership of the Florida Bar (all Florida lawyers) asking for personal stories about how other members have been "unfairly" targeted by the Florida Bar. I presume he wanted to start some sort of class action suit, but I haven't heard anything further about it.

    • Ol' Jack spammed the entire membership of the Florida Bar (all Florida lawyers) asking for personal stories about how other members have been "unfairly" targeted by the Florida Bar.

      Similarly to what I noted above [slashdot.org], that is likewise not spam -- at least in the legal "CAN-SPAM Act" sense -- because the emails weren't sent for a commercial purpose. Instead, it would be a different sort of offense (e.g. regular harassment via email).

      The only way it would have been spam is if he'd asked for the purpose of collect

    • Didn't Jack make some sort of statement prior to being disbarred that he was going to file a class action lawsuit against the Florida bar? Lawyers may be sharks, but they look after their own, one lawyer tries to go after another one (let alone an entire body like the Florida bar) and he'll find himself rather quickly taking a long walk off a short pier, as Jack found out.
  • Hint for spammers: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:33AM (#27585969)

    If you flood someone with spam, they may turn against you, even if they were on your side originally.

    In other words, way to shoot your own foot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chris Mattern (191822)

      In other words, way to shoot your own foot.

      Jack Thompson has so repeatedly shot himself in the foot that I don't think that there's any feet left any more.

    • I propose this be called the "Thompson Effect" in his...um, honour?

  • First Amendment (Score:5, Informative)

    by internic (453511) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:35AM (#27585987)

    If I understand this correctly, Thompson was petitioning elected representatives for a particular change in law. No matter how annoying his tactics or the fact that he was asked to stop, I have to believe that any prosecution of him for these actions would be thrown out on first amendment grounds. Recall that the first amendment reads as follows (emphasis mine):

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Of course, in usual Slashdot fashion, IANAL.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sockatume (732728)
      Given Thompson's track record, his petition was probably anything but peaceable. He killed someone's fax machine in one of his previous crusades.
    • You're not the only one [slashdot.org] who realized that. I suppose you got modded up instead of me because I titled my post "Jack Thompson is right." Oh well.

      Anyway, I think all that means is that the Senator would be incorrect to prosecute him under the CAN-SPAM Act. I bet Jack Thompson could still be prosecuted under some other anti-harassment law. Even if it is about legislation, if it's more harassing than it is political then it stops being protected speech.

      • Re:First Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Animaether (411575) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:02AM (#27586329) Journal

        I'm no big fan of Jack Thompson, but in addition to what you said about any CAN-SPAM bits, this (if true) caught my eye..

        Senate President Michael Waddoups' statements: 'I asked you before to remove me from your mailing list. I supported your bill but because of the harassment will not again. If I am not removed,

        "Stop sending me spam or I will not support your bill" sounds dangerously close to "send me $ or I will not support your bill". I realize that word on the street is that all politicians are corrupt anyway, but a public admission to in my opinion a less-than-honorable ethic? Yikes.

        If Thompson's bill was worth supporting before, then his bill should still be worth supporting after annoying e-mails, spam or for all I care: murder. If it was only worth supporting because he liked the guy, then it was never worth supporting to begin with. Either way, Senator President Michael Waddoups needs to take a real close look at what he said.

        We're not writing off ReiserFS just because Hans Reiser was convicted of murder - this should be no different.
        ( ReiserFS is being written off for technical reasons in many situations, but that's a different story on a different website. )

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nmx (63250)

          If Thompson's bill was worth supporting before, then his bill should still be worth supporting after annoying e-mails, spam or for all I care: murder.

          Clearly you don't understand how the Senate works. Bills need support to pass, regarldess of their content. People make deals to support each other's bills. Having friends in your court is crucial if you want to get anything passed. Is this right? Maybe not, but that's how it is, and it's not exactly a secret. For more information, I suggest reading Fight Club Politics, available at your local library.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          "Stop sending me spam or I will not support your bill" sounds dangerously close to "send me $ or I will not support your bill". I realize that word on the street is that all politicians are corrupt anyway, but a public admission to in my opinion a less-than-honorable ethic? Yikes.

          I think this is one of those cases where you're mistaking incompetence for malice. To me it looks like he supported the bill because he was thinking of the children, but now he realizes that Thompson is a big fucking idiot and his bill is probably just as stupid. In that case, the only flaw is supporting the bill at all.

        • by Chris Burke (6130)

          If Thompson's bill was worth supporting before, then his bill should still be worth supporting after annoying e-mails, spam or for all I care: murder. If it was only worth supporting because he liked the guy, then it was never worth supporting to begin with.

          In an ideal world of complete knowledge and perfect logic, sure.

          In reality, if the Senator's support for the bill was based in part on Jack Thompson's explanation of what the bill would accomplish and why it was important, and the weight he gave to Jack

    • True his actions are considered free speech; however, Jack Thompson doesn't really practice restraint when communicating. An endless amount of communication, especially when his recipient asked him to stop, could be considered harassment or stalking.
    • Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SBacks (1286786) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:57AM (#27586265)

      You have a very interesting point. However, he's petitioning the Utah state government, which he is not a constituent of. Does the 1st apply to just your local/state/national government, or to every local/state government?

      Any lawyers around to clarify?

    • Well, maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      As with anything in terms of the Constitution and your rights, it isn't a black and white, set in stone thing. You have the right to petition the government, of that there is no question. However that doesn't mean you have the right to be a pain in the ass. You cannot, for example, follow your representative around all day long and scream at them. You aren't allowed to harass them any more than you are allowed to harass me.

      So this is the kind of thing where you enter a gray area. Clearly you are allowed to

  • Surprise! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:35AM (#27585989)

    Well, from Utah's Senate Site, we get the picture of what Jack is up to now: spamming his last friends on the planet.

    He still has friends?

    • Did. He *did* have friends.
  • by JSBiff (87824) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:37AM (#27586019) Journal

    Ok, well, I really hate to be on the side of Jack Thompson, but. . .

    U.S. Constitution - 1st Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Simply put, if you are a legislator, you have no right to ask people to not petition you. Jack Thompson was exercising his contitutionally protected right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There is nothing CAN-SPAM can do about that. Such an application would be clearly unconstitutional.

    Now, that said. . . there's such a thing as an email filter that automatically deletes email from certain senders. . .

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You bring up an interesting (if partially unrelated) point. By the First Amendment, can an elected official filter email from his/her constituent(s) in their district/state/etc.? I realize Thompson is not a Utah resident, but if he was, would his elected officials have the right to filter out their email, since it automatically would delete anything from Thompson (or other people) that the elected official wants to ignore? Would this constituent the government unlawfully silencing the redress of grievances?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JSBiff (87824)

        I dunno. I thought about that, but the thing is, the First Ammendment only states that Congress cannot enact any laws restricting those rights, or punishing people for exercising those rights. An individual Senator deleting your emails is not congress passing a law. You have a right to petition the government, but people in Government, I think, have a certain right to ignore you if they choose.

        I mean, is there anything that stops a senator from throwing your mail in the trashcan when he sees it's from you?

        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:00PM (#27587113)

          Can you imagine if a Congressman was legally required to read every piece of correspondence and listen to every speaker? You could paralyze a government by hiring enough speakers / writers to take up every available moment of the Congressman's time (and then still file a lawsuit because your hired army never got their time due to waiting in line behind all the other hired armies).

    • by nmx (63250)

      Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      I assume this is the part you're referring to, but I don't agree with your interpretation. I don't think petitioning "the government" in this case means that harrassing one government official in particular is necessarily Constitutionally protected behavior.

      • by JSBiff (87824)

        Well, there might exist a valid harassment claim, but I don't think you could use CAN-SPAM for this. Ultimately, it's up to the courts to decide, but I just can't see it being valid that an Anti-Spam law could be used to punish people for sending emails to legislators seeking those legislators' support in regards to a matter of governance.

        As for harassment, I'd personally have to be seeing multiple emails per day before I'd be inclined to find someone guilty of harassment in a situation like this. Jack send

  • by Sooner Boomer (96864) <[sooner.boomr] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:37AM (#27586025) Journal
    Please, please, please, please, please ignore the rantings of those less enlightened than you. You need to keep up the crusade! Don't stop your actions just because of some idle threats! Keep sending them email until they relent! You know so much more than they do! You're the one that's right!

    for those of you that don't understand the above post, please consult your dictionary under the heading "Sarcasm"

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      for those of you that don't understand the above post, please consult your dictionary under the heading "Sarcasm"

      I would have suggested browsing slashdot under the tag "itsatrap"

  • by VinylRecords (1292374) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:39AM (#27586063)

    ...to complete GTA3, VC, SA, and GTAIV (with DLC) 100%. Story modes, hidden packages, unique jumps, taxi rides, you name it *.

    He can't leave the mental institution they place him in until he beats those games.

    *Gameshark or other cheats no allowed

  • by mc1138 (718275) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:41AM (#27586089) Homepage
    I remember a time when Jack Thompson angered me for his ignorance, but now, its better than daytime soap opera drama! He's like the Al Sharpton of video game violence or something, and at this point no one is taking him seriously anyway. I love a good Jack Thompson headline these days, makes me feel better about myself.
  • As dirty as that feels.

    Of you can't petition your representatives you don't have a democratic system.

    And if I was the senator I'd certainly prefer random lunatic emails then Thompson making a personal visit to my office each and every day to complain about some damn video games.

  • So how long until Jack's career is reduced to fetish porn to support his drug addiction?
    • So how long until Jack's career is reduced to fetish porn to support his drug addiction?

      Give the man some credit, he's not that bad.

      He'll be peddling drugs to support his fetish sex addiction.

  • by kenp2002 (545495) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:08AM (#27586391) Homepage Journal

    Email has become a victim of its (or is it it's) own success. Now we are moving to invite only systems like IM. What we really need is a replacement electronic messaging platform with some form of "postage". I for one suggest teaming up with Stanford and get folding@home a form of postage. Sender must complete 1 work unit for every message sent to a non-registered recipient (a.k.a 1 WU = 1 unsolicited message.)

    In addition the government should provide each citizen an official goverment mailbox for non-critical information [INFO] level messages that are from goverment to citizens. Attached to that mailbox is your current legal residence location for automatic filtering and routing Senator and House member email, never forgetting who your represenatives are!

    Anyone wanna help put a demo together?

  • hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by immakiku (777365)
    "I supported your bill but because of the harassment will not again". Why is this senator publicly letting personal affairs affect legislation? I hope he is never re-elected.
  • He should become Michael Jackson's lawyer...then it would be a total nut-job defending a complete wacko.

  • Next to him, I appear to be sane. I can always point to the fact that Jack Thompson hasn't been committed yet when they come to take me away!
  • by CompassIIDX (1522813) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:44PM (#27587635)
    Jack Thomson is actually a hardcore gamer.

    Think about it. He's arguably done more to marginalize the anti-videogame movement than anyone else in history. His over-the-top, histrionic antics absolutely destroy any credibility his arguments might have.

    I never understood why gamers cheered for his downfall. Imagine if there was someone competent in his place? ::shudder::
  • by sirwired (27582) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:58PM (#27587837)

    This episode serves the Utah Senate right. It was their bright idea to take up his bill, despite the fact that it's chief proponent is a 100% Pure, Unadulterated, Nutcase.

    SirWired

  • unfortunately (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GregNorc (801858) <gregnorc.gmail@com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:12PM (#27588007)

    As much as I dislike Thompson, it's already well accepted that we have the same right to e-mail legislature as we do to write them letters. I remember there was a lawsuit over a similar issue (in California I think) where someone in government was getting a ton of emails about a pending bill, and they set up a filter to delete them as they came in.

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Working...