spielermacher writes "GamePolitics is reporting that Jack Thompson — the lawyer every gamer loves to hate — has apparently lost his court case and is facing disbarment. The Referee in the case has gone beyond the Florida Bar's request for a 10-year disbarment and is recommending a lifetime ban. From the Final Report issued by the court: '... the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes. He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior ...' All I can say is that it's about time."
It's not the US government, it's the state of Florida.
Speaking as someone living in Florida, the idea that the state of Florida did something right is even more astounding than the idea that the US government did right.
Yeah, as someone who lives right smack in orange county I'm pretty much struck fuck dumb by this. It's like something gave them a violent allergic reaction and it manifested as common sense, decency, and good taste instead of anaphylactic shock.
Well of course they made a move to disbar Jack Thompson. There can only be one king asshole and they certainly weren't going to let some schmuck hold the title.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 09 2008, @05:30PM (#24126217)
It's not the US government, it's the state of Florida.
It's not even the state of Florida. It's the Florida Bar, which is a professional organization set up by the Florida Supreme Court. So while it was granted authority by the government of Florida, it isn't part of the government of Florida.
107,000 gallons if you like home brewing very good American swill. A little less if you go for real beer. Less if you go for chinkweiser and not enough if it's German beer.;)
Is there anything to stop him from making the exact same amount of noise, but just hiring other lawyers to do the legal mumbo jumbo?
Chances are he will hit the talk show circuit, particularly among conservatives, to give speeches about video games and the decline of civilization (or law) as we know it. I half expect him to show up at a local church and be proclaimed a prophet.
Who tagged this story "censorship". Jack Thompson can think or say whatever he wants, but abusing his legal standing to further his cause is not acceptable to the Bar. Also he's acted unprofessional [slashdot.org] numerous times.
It's not tagged Censorship because the gov't is censoring him... it's tagged Censorship because that's what he's always pushing for and he's finally getting the throttling he deserves.
Ding-dong the witch is dead
Which old witch? The wicked witch
Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead
Wake up you sleepyhead
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up the wicked witch is dead
She's gone where the goblins go
Below - below - below
Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead
I love reading legal documents where it's clear that the person being deposed is batshit crazy, and they're trying not to use pejorative language while stating the facts.
As an example, the line "During his testimony, the undersigned Referee asked for clarification of Mr. Thompson as to which of the four binders of exhibits in evidence he was referring. Once clarified, Mr. Thompson spoke at length, before re-addressing the issues" is footnoted with the following:
What followed the Court's inquiry regarding clarification as to in which binder the document was located, is twenty-three (23) pages of testimony by Mr. Thompson involving matters such as: why he had not shaved that day for court; referring to the "Twinkie" case about the killing of a Mayor in San Francisco; a lawsuit filed by him in Kentucky in 1999 involving allegations regarding a video game entitled, 'Doom'; an interview with Matt Lauer from NBC's Today show; the killings in Columbine; information about a Lt. Colonel David Grossman regarding his book, On Killing; information regarding addressing the American Bar Association and his shared Christian values with David Grossman; former President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s radio address regarding David Grossman (sometime during the Clinton administration years); an appearance with now deceased CBS reporter Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes; comments by Peggy Noonan-former President Ronald Reagan's speech writer-and an article she wrote for The Wall Street Journal; comments about the movie starring actors Russell Crowe and Al Pacino, called The Insider; issues regarding products liability and 'Big Tobacco'; the alleged targeting by Mr. Thompson by Blank Rome; information about Doug Lowenstein described as the president and chief lobbyist for the parent company of the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board)--which Mr. Thompson alleges now "represents gun running cartels." T 1068, line 7; an article published in Reader's Digest with actor Tom Hanks on the cover; Mr. Thompson's meeting with convicted murderer Devin Moore on death row; a contention of a racial component in defendant Moore's case, "they certainly have it to contend with in Alabama being a slave state," T 1070, line 15, 1071, line 1; information that allegedly occurred the week of the Final Hearing in this disciplinary matter regarding comments made by a law enforcement officer in Australia and New Zealand equating a spike in teen violence with interactive violent video games; an article which purportedly appeared in Time magazine quoting David Grossman; the connection of violence towards law enforcement officers and interactive video games that simulate the killing of officers; and the numerous civil lawsuits filed across the country in various jurisdictions which lead to the filing of the Strickland case in Fayette, Alabama.
I'm almost going to miss the crazy bastard. This stuff is too good to be fake.
To be specific, it can be used as a blunt instrument in a blow to the temple or trachea. Removing the guard can allow it to cause lacerations, probably most effective when striking an eye. The batteries can be removed, shorted, and then ingested by the victim, potentially causing major internal damage. It can be held by the ends and used to choke the victim.
It's really a shame that the anti-violent game lobby has someone like JT as a de-facto spokesman.
Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.
It's really a shame that the anti-violent game lobby has someone like JT as a de-facto spokesman.
Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.
We'll have to agree to disagree that it's a reasonable position. I think it's unreasonable to make that jump that it's 'bad.' Further, even if I agreed, it's not up to the government to decide this, it's up to the parents and families and individuals. The Video Game Industry, afaik, has always been reasonably responsible in rating their games, and parents can decide if thier kids can play M-rated games or not. I really don't understand the basis for the 'anti' argument at all. Don't like it, don't play it, and don't let your kids play it.
Though I think sheltering your kids is far more harmful to their development than letting them play M-rated games, you don't see me insisting we pass laws saying you should let your kids play whatever games they want to. It's not my business to tell you how to raise your kids.
There's a lot more to military conditioning than target practice or tactical training. While these things are comparable in some ways, there are significant differences.
To be fair, even target practice and tactical training have to be done over when moved to the real world.
You're not going to learn to shoot well enough to pass the marine corps' firearms tests through a video game, no matter how much time you spend or how much some people would like to believe that's the case.
Last time I shot, over a decade ago, I was a fair shot, but I wouldn't personally think that the limited experience I had with a real rifle would prepare me for trying to pass that test. And that's real weapons work, not simulated conditions.
Likewise with the tactics, a lot of that ends up being muscle memory and training in using ones senses as part of the strategy, you aren't going to learn that via a video game, ever. Perhaps one could learn the very basics, but I doubt that it would take even a day to teach that.
It may be a reasonable position, but is it a correct one? So far nobody's been able to come up with any hard numbers agreeing with it. All the results are either "no correlation" or "kids who play violent video games are slightly less likely to be violent than average".
The position that if you're standing in the airlock of the ISS and give a good shove off, sending yourself flying away from the station and towards Earth, you'll burn up in the atmosphere is also a reasonable one. It just happens not to be correct. One orbit later you'll find yourself bumping off the ISS again. Common sense might say one thing, but orbital mechanics says another. I suspect the same thing's at work: common sense might say that violent games should beget violent acts, but reality and psychology don't work the way common sense says they should. Nothing new there, lots of things that're true violate common sense.
i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games
So be a good parent and don't let them. The price of convenience for lazy parents cannot and must not be the end of free speech for everyone else. The ratings system was and is a good compromise, it puts the tools into the hands of the parents to make their own decisions with regard to the welfare of their children and it should have ended with that. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to be on the side of limiting freedom of speech. The founding fathers were extremely wise in the considered trade-offs they made in those first ten amendments to the Constitution. They knew that some people would say things which they didn't agree with or didn't like hearing, but they had the foresight to realize the tremendous upside potential and value of free speech, even potentially objectionable speech, to the continuation of freedom and the democratic way of life. If you have to suffer the reality of violent video games, pron, and Rush Limbaugh so that free speech can continue then I say so be it.
We are actually fortunate that the current actor is so impotent in his role. Imagine what might happen if some charming, efficacious attorney took his place. The more I consider it the more I think we may be lucky to have Jack playing the part of the alarmist. The alternative might be someone who is actually capable.
Now that it is even more obvious that Thompson is a nutcase, who is going to take his place? Someone competent in that role? That is a scary thought.
"However, under the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been adopted in most states, disbarment in one state or court is grounds for disbarment in a jurisdiction which has adopted the Model Rules."
I don't think so. They guy has found out you can make a living out of being an asshole, he's not likely to drop that recipe for success. My bet is that he'll be doing the pundit round next. He'll found some institute so his CV can read "former lawyer, now chairman and founder of the No More Violence Institute" or something like it, and then he'll go from TV station to TV station and spread his crap. Very few of them will tell their viewers about his disbarment.
As a supposed left winger, i agree. People who put their causes above all else are the problem here. Defending ideological territory at any cost is akin (isomorphic?) to religious zealotry.
Displaying my supposed left-wingedness, i'll say that religions are fine, provided you don't shove them down everyone else's throats. The same goes for ideological platforms. Thankyou.
The bit about costs is separate from the rest of the recommendation. If the Supreme Court adopts the referee's recommendation, he'll be disbarred for life. That's pretty much standard language they probably include where you temporarily lose your license if you don't pay the costs of the proceedings against you. If the final punishment was simply a reprimand, then the failure to pay would become more important. The costs issue is a separate punishment from the disbarment.
In many states lawyers are suspended each year for failing to pay their bar dues. As soon as they pay them, they're reinstated.
Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Informative)
At least the US Gov. managed to do one thing right today.
It's not the US government, it's the state of Florida.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking as someone living in Florida, the idea that the state of Florida did something right is even more astounding than the idea that the US government did right.
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, as someone who lives right smack in orange county I'm pretty much struck fuck dumb by this. It's like something gave them a violent allergic reaction and it manifested as common sense, decency, and good taste instead of anaphylactic shock.
Parent
Getting rid of the competition (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even the state of Florida. It's the Florida Bar, which is a professional organization set up by the Florida Supreme Court. So while it was granted authority by the government of Florida, it isn't part of the government of Florida.
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
It's the Florida Bar, which is a professional organization set up by the Florida Supreme Court.
It's not even the Florida Bar. It's just some guy named Frank.
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Informative)
The bar brought the suit to revoke his license. The state actually issues the license, and can revoke it when the bar recommends that it do so.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Informative)
He could try suing the Florida bar in federal court, but the chances of the circuit court taking the case are pretty slim.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
He could try suing the Florida bar in federal court, but the chances of the circuit court taking the case are pretty slim.
Yes, because of violent gay gamer conspiracy operating at all levels of the courts working against him!
Hey, with Jack out of the picture, someone has to step up to the plate at Crazy Bastard Memorial Field.
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Game over man, game over!
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Does it go any other way?
Of course it does. How do you think JT got here to begin with?
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Has anyone tried spraying him with holy water*? I have a feeling it may work.
*Or pasta water, depending on your particular religion.
Parent
Re:Thank Goodness (Score:5, Funny)
We might have gotten the better end of that trade.
(I kid...)
Parent
It's not just lifetime disbarment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not just lifetime disbarment (Score:5, Funny)
The Judge also wants him to cough up $43,000 to cover the Bar costs because the whole thing was so outrageous.
That's a lot of beer
Parent
Re:It's not just lifetime disbarment (Score:4, Informative)
107,000 gallons if you like home brewing very good American swill. A little less if you go for real beer. Less if you go for chinkweiser and not enough if it's German beer. ;)
Parent
You will see him on TV or in churches... (Score:4, Insightful)
Chances are he will hit the talk show circuit, particularly among conservatives, to give speeches about video games and the decline of civilization (or law) as we know it. I half expect him to show up at a local church and be proclaimed a prophet.
And he'll write a book.
Parent
Re:It's not just lifetime disbarment (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing there aren't any incompetent lawyers out there then...
Parent
so what (Score:4, Insightful)
He'll probably make more cash being a commentator on Fox News pushing their particular agenda. He's been defanged but no one's cut his vocal cords.
Re:so what (Score:4, Interesting)
People stopped listening to him a long time ago.
Ah no, there you're wrong. Never underestimate the entertainment value of a nutbar in vocal mode.
What they've done is stop taking him seriously. I'm a long way from being tired hearing about him.
In my opinion, one of the best treatments of his obviously deranged state is that done by de-rez http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/de-rez/55-Jack-Thompson-The-Movie [escapistmagazine.com]
Serious coffee on keyboard time.
Parent
Re:so what (Score:4, Insightful)
There might be a place for him as White House press secretary.
Parent
Re:so what (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I think that's about right these days.
Parent
Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Sorry, but I just have to do this... (Score:5, Funny)
Which old witch? The wicked witch
Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead
Wake up you sleepyhead
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up the wicked witch is dead
She's gone where the goblins go
Below - below - below
Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead
Muahahahaha! (Score:5, Funny)
The Florida Bar Wins.
Fatality
But...But... (Score:5, Funny)
Bill G. retires. And now Jack T. is being disbarred. Who will be the slashdot editor post about for us to all agree on in our complaints?!
The ruling is a trip. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love reading legal documents where it's clear that the person being deposed is batshit crazy, and they're trying not to use pejorative language while stating the facts.
As an example, the line "During his testimony, the undersigned Referee asked for clarification of Mr. Thompson as to which of the four binders of exhibits in evidence he was referring. Once clarified, Mr. Thompson spoke at length, before re-addressing the issues" is footnoted with the following:
What followed the Court's inquiry regarding clarification as to in which binder the document was located, is twenty-three (23) pages of testimony by Mr. Thompson involving matters such as: why he had not shaved that day for court; referring to the "Twinkie" case about the killing of a Mayor in San Francisco; a lawsuit filed by him in Kentucky in 1999 involving allegations regarding a video game entitled, 'Doom'; an interview with Matt Lauer from NBC's Today show; the killings in Columbine; information about a Lt. Colonel David Grossman regarding his book, On Killing; information regarding addressing the American Bar Association and his shared Christian values with David Grossman; former President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s radio address regarding David Grossman (sometime during the Clinton administration years); an appearance with now deceased CBS reporter Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes; comments by Peggy Noonan-former President Ronald Reagan's speech writer-and an article she wrote for The Wall Street Journal; comments about the movie starring actors Russell Crowe and Al Pacino, called The Insider; issues regarding products liability and 'Big Tobacco'; the alleged targeting by Mr. Thompson by Blank Rome; information about Doug Lowenstein described as the president and chief lobbyist for the parent company of the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board)--which Mr. Thompson alleges now "represents gun running cartels." T 1068, line 7; an article published in Reader's Digest with actor Tom Hanks on the cover; Mr. Thompson's meeting with convicted murderer Devin Moore on death row; a contention of a racial component in defendant Moore's case, "they certainly have it to contend with in Alabama being a slave state," T 1070, line 15, 1071, line 1; information that allegedly occurred the week of the Final Hearing in this disciplinary matter regarding comments made by a law enforcement officer in Australia and New Zealand equating a spike in teen violence with interactive violent video games; an article which purportedly appeared in Time magazine quoting David Grossman; the connection of violence towards law enforcement officers and interactive video games that simulate the killing of officers; and the numerous civil lawsuits filed across the country in various jurisdictions which lead to the filing of the Strickland case in Fayette, Alabama.
I'm almost going to miss the crazy bastard. This stuff is too good to be fake.
Re:The ruling is a trip. (Score:5, Funny)
I've got to admit, after reading that, I'm really rather curious as to why he didn't shave!
Parent
Re:Shaving was the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't kill someone with an electric shaver, you're not trying hard enough.
Parent
Re:Shaving was the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Shaving was the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Dismemberment? (Score:5, Funny)
Dang it! I totally thought that said "dismemberment"!
Good riddance to bad advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.
Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really a shame that the anti-violent game lobby has someone like JT as a de-facto spokesman. Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.
We'll have to agree to disagree that it's a reasonable position. I think it's unreasonable to make that jump that it's 'bad.' Further, even if I agreed, it's not up to the government to decide this, it's up to the parents and families and individuals. The Video Game Industry, afaik, has always been reasonably responsible in rating their games, and parents can decide if thier kids can play M-rated games or not. I really don't understand the basis for the 'anti' argument at all. Don't like it, don't play it, and don't let your kids play it.
Though I think sheltering your kids is far more harmful to their development than letting them play M-rated games, you don't see me insisting we pass laws saying you should let your kids play whatever games they want to. It's not my business to tell you how to raise your kids.
Parent
Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a lot more to military conditioning than target practice or tactical training. While these things are comparable in some ways, there are significant differences.
To be fair, even target practice and tactical training have to be done over when moved to the real world.
You're not going to learn to shoot well enough to pass the marine corps' firearms tests through a video game, no matter how much time you spend or how much some people would like to believe that's the case.
Last time I shot, over a decade ago, I was a fair shot, but I wouldn't personally think that the limited experience I had with a real rifle would prepare me for trying to pass that test. And that's real weapons work, not simulated conditions.
Likewise with the tactics, a lot of that ends up being muscle memory and training in using ones senses as part of the strategy, you aren't going to learn that via a video game, ever. Perhaps one could learn the very basics, but I doubt that it would take even a day to teach that.
Parent
Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
It may be a reasonable position, but is it a correct one? So far nobody's been able to come up with any hard numbers agreeing with it. All the results are either "no correlation" or "kids who play violent video games are slightly less likely to be violent than average".
The position that if you're standing in the airlock of the ISS and give a good shove off, sending yourself flying away from the station and towards Earth, you'll burn up in the atmosphere is also a reasonable one. It just happens not to be correct. One orbit later you'll find yourself bumping off the ISS again. Common sense might say one thing, but orbital mechanics says another. I suspect the same thing's at work: common sense might say that violent games should beget violent acts, but reality and psychology don't work the way common sense says they should. Nothing new there, lots of things that're true violate common sense.
Parent
Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games
So be a good parent and don't let them. The price of convenience for lazy parents cannot and must not be the end of free speech for everyone else. The ratings system was and is a good compromise, it puts the tools into the hands of the parents to make their own decisions with regard to the welfare of their children and it should have ended with that. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to be on the side of limiting freedom of speech. The founding fathers were extremely wise in the considered trade-offs they made in those first ten amendments to the Constitution. They knew that some people would say things which they didn't agree with or didn't like hearing, but they had the foresight to realize the tremendous upside potential and value of free speech, even potentially objectionable speech, to the continuation of freedom and the democratic way of life. If you have to suffer the reality of violent video games, pron, and Rush Limbaugh so that free speech can continue then I say so be it.
Parent
Who will replace him? (Score:5, Interesting)
Penny Arcade made a very good point [penny-arcade.com] a few years ago, when Thompson was threatening them:
Now that it is even more obvious that Thompson is a nutcase, who is going to take his place? Someone competent in that role? That is a scary thought.
I hope he got well paid (Score:4, Funny)
IANAL (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems to be in Florida only.
If he is disbarred there, can he pass the bar in another state?
Re:IANAL (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disbarment [wikipedia.org]
"However, under the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been adopted in most states, disbarment in one state or court is grounds for disbarment in a jurisdiction which has adopted the Model Rules."
Parent
not the end (Score:4, Insightful)
You think we've seen the last of Jack?
I don't think so. They guy has found out you can make a living out of being an asshole, he's not likely to drop that recipe for success. My bet is that he'll be doing the pundit round next. He'll found some institute so his CV can read "former lawyer, now chairman and founder of the No More Violence Institute" or something like it, and then he'll go from TV station to TV station and spread his crap. Very few of them will tell their viewers about his disbarment.
Re:Owned (Score:4, Informative)
Shouldn't that be "PWNED!"?
Parent
Re:Singlemindedness (Score:5, Insightful)
Why a right-winger? Left-wingers are at least as hostile to freedom of speech when the speech is something they dislike.
Parent
Re:Singlemindedness (Score:4, Insightful)
Displaying my supposed left-wingedness, i'll say that religions are fine, provided you don't shove them down everyone else's throats. The same goes for ideological platforms. Thankyou.
Parent
Re:This story is misleading, nobody read the PDF? (Score:4, Informative)
Congratulations, you can read the last page.
The bit about costs is separate from the rest of the recommendation. If the Supreme Court adopts the referee's recommendation, he'll be disbarred for life. That's pretty much standard language they probably include where you temporarily lose your license if you don't pay the costs of the proceedings against you. If the final punishment was simply a reprimand, then the failure to pay would become more important. The costs issue is a separate punishment from the disbarment.
In many states lawyers are suspended each year for failing to pay their bar dues. As soon as they pay them, they're reinstated.
Parent