![Games Games](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/games_64.png)
![Entertainment Entertainment](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/entertainment_64.png)
Jack Thompson Facing Disbarment Trial 258
pwizard2 writes "Gamepolitics reports that controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson faces the start of an ethics trial this morning, a process which could ultimately see him disbarred. The review board has set aside the entire week to hear details on the case. 'Over the weekend, Thompson turned to the Florida Supreme Court in an apparent effort to block this morning's trial from moving forward. In one court filing Thompson asserted that he was willing to accept a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law. The embattled attorney claimed that such an offer had been on the table, but that the Florida Bar was now seeking his permanent disbarment.'"
Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
As for being admitted someplace else, each state has different requirements, but all have some sort of ethics requirement. Being disbarred in one state is serious enough that it would likely be quite difficult to pass the ethics requirements of another state.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Funny)
Errr ethics for lawyers? What is the question "would you sell your grandmother for a BMW or cash?" The "ethical" answer being cash as cars contribute to global warming.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Guantanamo, a.k.a. Godwin v2.0.
The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs (Score:5, Informative)
The 90 days disbarment was an 'offer' from his side, it has NOT been offered to him, so it was not HIS to take but rather the bar's(?)
The fact that he tried this, suggests he really is worried. He might have good reason.
He is making lawyers look bad, yes "they replaced rats with lawyers in lab experiments, because the scientists don't bond with them like they do with rats" lawyers and I can't help but feel that NOT finding him guilty won't make them look any better.
I think he will go down on this. Offcourse that won't stop him, just because he is no longer a lawyer doesn't mean he can't speak up.
Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine this will make him much less popular on the talk show circuit.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Examples_of_appeals_to_authority [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/26/jack-thompson-submits-gay-porn-to-court-judge-not-amused/ [joystiq.com]
Re:Parent needs moded informative. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If he was a doctor he could! [google.com]
-mcgrew
You mean like... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't think he'll go away. I think we'll hear even more out of him. "Ohh.. The gaming industry feared me so much that they manipulated/bribed people to get me disbarred!"...
Bah..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then maybe he would blow a gasket and get committed to a mental ward after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt he'll be disbarred. But he won't lose his livelihood -- people like him cannot be silenced without more extreme measures. He'll take to the media, whore himself out as an "expert" in the field, go on the speaking circuit, and find other ways to corrupt to issue. If only his powers could be used for Good.
He'll probably start his own church, pis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jack Thompson is a "good thing" and if he gets disbarred he might be replaced by someone more intelligent to fight the cause he is fighting.
The replacement, if that person is more intelligent, would be able to do something without being insulting or counterproductive. For example, passing laws that restrict the sale of video games to minors without violating the first amendment. (This would be difficult, but possible if it doesn't restrict the speech in question.)
Furthermore, the replacement would be able to retain allies such as NiMF [mediafamily.org] and Clinton without alienating them on their next concession.
The replacement would know how to deal with hor
Re: (Score:2)
Remember Mortal Kombat? That's already very nearly happened [advancedmn.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember Mortal Kombat? That's already very nearly happened:
As I stated, the restrictions have to not-violate the first amendment. The reason this is the case: the recent batch of "violence-as-porn" laws were declared unconstitutional before enforcement, and the government had to cover legal expenses.
A nutjob (soon to be former) lawyer is much less of a threat than a couple of busybody senators trying to shore up their concerned soccer mom support.
Correct. However, at the rate of their progression, the senators shown in the link aren't a threat either and merely increased the popularity of the games they tried to restrict.
As you can tell from my posting, the replacement should be intelligent - not someone who
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, yes. But even if Congress does pass an anti-violent-video-game law that violates the first amendment, it stands until a court rules it unconstitutional. Add in a few rounds of appeals and we can be stuck with that law for years.
Re: (Score:2)
He is so inept, that any intelligent lawyer who felt the same way would be trying to take over his role already, because he's screwing things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and if they conduct their campaign with the same ethics as John Bruce Thompson, they'll be disbarred too. Fred Phelps was disbarred, and he's still the sort of living boundary marker of the religious right everyone can point to. Don't imagine JT will stop making his silly squawking noises either.
Besides, JT isn't just about videogames -- he was an intolerant, int
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, it doesn't matter who opposes videogames because there is no solid argument for banning or making laws against videogames in the American legal system. There have been numerous laws passed (Oklahoma, Illinois, St. Louis, Indianapolis just to name a few) and they have all been found unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
WHY?! (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you post this without mentioning why they want him barred?
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure? How about dismemberment?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Funny)
You obviously play videogames too much.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a fair question... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Owww (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Informative)
In February 2007, the Florida Bar filed disbarment proceedings against Thompson over allegations of professional misconduct. The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them.[115] According to the complaint, Thompson accused attorney Cardenas of "distribution of pornography to children," claimed that the Alabama judge presiding over the Devin Moore case "breaks the rules, even the Alabama State Bar Rules, because he thinks that the rules don't apply to him," and sent a letter to Blank Rome's managing partner, saying, "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to the complaint, Thompson accused attorney Cardenas of "distribution of pornography to children," claimed that the Alabama judge presiding over the Devin Moore case "breaks the rules, even the Alabama State Bar Rules, because he thinks that the rules don't apply to him," and sent a letter to Blank Rome's managing partner, saying, "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.
I hate Thompson as much as anybody, and he may well deserve to be disbarred, but I don't think it's fair to do so for the reasons stated. He didn't invent claims out of nothing, he made interpretations of real things that were quite, uh, inflammatory. His reasoning was ridiculous, but not patently absurd. There's a logic to them that can't be categorically called false.
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, until some evidence proves otherwise, it is an unfounded claim.
Re:WHY?! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it is still slander. I think that lawyers that knowingly lie in a court of law should not be allowed to practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Motivated by his Christian faith? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder which part of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" he doesn't understand.
Funny how nearly all of our public figures who espouse Christianity (including the guy in the White House) conveniently forget these teachings.
W
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the specific sanction they're looking for isn't publicly known. But he's been up in front of the disciplinary panel before, and there's supposedly 50 separate ethics complaints, from different states, including claims of lying to clients and judges.
About time (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope he starves.
Re: (Score:2)
BE careful (Score:2)
It's not really about his agenda. A lawyer can, if he wishes, pursue an agenda of turning the US into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. It's not unethical for him to believe this would be a good idea.
What's unethical is pursing his agenda -- any agenda -- by illegal means.
Mr. Thompson would love us to believe he is being targeted for his agenda, specifically for being what he calls "a Christian". Apparently this version of Christianity does not inv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let's say he is disbarred. That doesn't, nor should it, preclude him from representing himself in court. Now, calling himself an attorney may be a bit of a stretch, if he isn't admitted to practice in any of the fifty states. Same with lawyer. He could say he's a "law-talking guy", but that doesn't seem to carry the same credibility that attorney or lawyer are afforded. He could (assuming he successfully completed law school [wh
dog may lose it teeth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Free buffet lunch and airfare, count me in." -- Jack Thompson in the near future.
Oh PLEEEEEASEEEE be the anti-game authority!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
An easy to discredit 'authority' of video game violence.
"Interesting point Mr Thompson, but isn't true that you have been found in a court of law to be a habitual liar? One who will say any crazy thing to try to push an agenda?"
Save Jack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Save Jack! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that when someone untwists your knickers?
Only if we're wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Save Jack! (Score:5, Insightful)
The arguments aren't flawed because of the people spitting them forth. The arguments are flawed because the premise is ridiculous.
Video games don't turn impressionable kinds into raving maniacs any more than ultra-violent Warner Brothers cartoons did, or playing cowboys and indians did. The premise is flawed, but there's money to be made and TV time to be had in putting it forth, and there will be as long as scare tactics are used to cajole an uninformed public.
No, don't worry about whoever replaces Jack in this fight. The next person will look just as ridiculous, but it'll be because of what they say, instead of how certifiably crazy they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.
In those studies, they specified that the youths responding adversely to video games were already aggressive, or otherwise disruptive. It's in the first sentence of the actual report [indiana.edu], if you don't want to rely on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a clown/policeman/big brother/preacher/child molester? Yes, I'm referring to Klutzo the Clown [slashdot.org] who was recently tasered to death in the Sangamon County Jail (links to news articles included in that journal).
Somehow I was amused as hell and thought you guys might be, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt the poster meant that Jack is correct in his lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good grief, nobody wants someone that crazy to be a good litigator!
Suffer the Pucks for they displace the Torquemadas.
Well almost...
Go on, admit it. (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone here initially and wishfully read that title as "Dismemberment Trial".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
One down... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
So Jack's having trouble with the Florida Bar... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inasmuch as Tuesday ends with "day," yes.
I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I disagree with him... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I've found is typical: the louder they preach, and more specifically, try to force it on others, the less they practice.
There's an "offensive" fortune (fortune -o) that goes something like this:
Christian: A man who apologizes to his lord for the sins that he committed yesterday and those that he is going to commit tomorrow. One who feels that the Bible is a divinely inspired book, quite well suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
Seriously though. I'm not Christian and never will be, but it would seem to me that real Christians would give more then lip service to Jesus' arguments in favor of the poor and downtr
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Informative)
Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My sins have been paid for and are forgiven. In return I must forgive others who harm me. Seems a fair enough deal to me, since I'm imperfect. If I was a banker or a lwayer or a $5000 suit-wearing preacher I might have cause to worry.
Re: (Score:2)
("slow down cowboy it's bee 8 seconds since you hit reply" grumble grumble... ironic that only on slashdot, "news for nerds" are you punished for reading fast and typing fast.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't mean that it *does* justify it, and most of the time a closer reading will reveal otherwise. But a lot of people who thump the Bible don't really read it.
-uso.
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Funny)
And then a stone came flying out of the back of the crowd and hit Jesus smack in the forehead.
Jesus picked himself up off the ground and grumbled, "Mother..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (Score:5, Insightful)
As for your "I mean really he's been fed by the media to a certain extent" comment, remember that more often than not, he sought out the media as a platform to pound his chest (and bible). Again, his actions, not anyone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Should he lose his right to practice his profession?
I don't know - it's up to the bar association to decide that. Lawyers are in a powerful position - there need to be
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Tou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Slander is one of the "big ten", right up there with thievery, adultery, and murder. I may hire the occasional prostitute (hey, I'm single) but JESUS!!! I'd say this guy was evil if it weren't for the injunction against
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. His actions may be motivated by his faith, but his actions appear to routinely involve lies and deceit and it is these activities for which he is being called to account.
I have to say, your defence of the man sounds an awful lot like "the end justifies the means" to me. Is that what you really mean to imply?
Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, he is. His actions speak for themselves -- and I don't mean just because I disagree with his opinion, I mean I despise his methods.
And so is he.
Now, I wouldn't condemn anyone to burn in hell, if there were an alternative. But this isn't hell, it's only unemployment.
I'm an opponent of people who require and produce DRM. That doesn't mean I'm willing to slander, sue, and outright lie every chance I get. Jack is willing to do all that and more.
Oh, I agree, there are worse who should be gone. But that doesn't excuse Jack.
We tried that. He violated his restraining order.
Yes, absolutely. Not because I'm vindictive, but because the way in which he practices his profession reflects poorly on the whole profession -- and that's saying something, when we're talking about lawyers. And because there are people who will take him seriously simply because he's a lawyer -- say someone goes to him for legal advice. Should they have to suffer just so Jack won't have to find a new job?
Say it was murder. We don't always jail people to punish them -- sometimes, we jail people because they are actually a danger to society.
The only remaining question is why it took so long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
s/Stalin/Bush/
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on him doesn't give any family details, so there's no way to assess the damage done to the gene pool.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is kind of like saying that the inmates that run the prison are trying to decide if Jack needs to be locked in a cell because of his consistently bad behaviour.
This is definitely one of those "You know it's bad when..." mom