Just that harassment has different legal meanings in different contexts. You were right that Thompson's actions didn't qualify as harassment, but you have to be careful about the sources you quote.
I'd suggest less double-postingThat ruffles more than a few feathers.
Something else from the complaint I found interesting: although his arguments aren't quite clear, it seems he is saying that the Best Buy buildings are the nuisance for corrupting children with the game, so Best Buy and MS are both responsible for creating the nuisance. If you read the nuisance statute, its clear that a nuisance has to be a building. Although it is still clearly groundless, that's actually a much better argument than declaring the game itself to be a nuisance.
Also I really wonder about his claim that Best Buy "agreed" to ID people under 21 who try to buy mature-rated games as part of a "settlement" after Thompson's last attack. Since he doesn't support the complaint with the settlement itself, I highly doubt the two events are at all connected.
Reply With Quote