Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Jack Thompson Walks Out On Hearing

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 07:06 PM
from the please-let-this-be-the-end dept.
Erik J writes "Apparently Jack had heard enough. The Florida Bar asked for an 'enhanced disbarment' in the disciplinary hearing of Jack Thompson, held earlier this afternoon. The recommendation means Thompson would be disbarred and prohibited from applying to practice law again for ten years, according to 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida spokesperson Eunice Sigler. Thompson's disciplinary hearing apparently ended in the attorney walking out of the courtroom after saying the judge did not have the authority to hear his case."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Carthag (643047) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:08PM (#23661571) Homepage
    Everyone knows it's a good idea to stick around when an NPC is talking. You might learn something interesting, or get a side-quest.
  • by Toasty16 (586358) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:11PM (#23661607) Homepage
    I for one will not stand for this kind of shabby treatment! How dare you impugn the integrity of Jack Thompson, the legal mind who gave the great state of Florida it's most famous legal document [slashdot.org]!
  • Hasn't he... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:11PM (#23661609) Homepage Journal
    Hasn't he been disbarred yet? I can say without exageration the man is quite delusional. He should have been disbarred after the 2 Live Crew fisco years back.

    Seriously, just read his Wikipedia page.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney) [wikipedia.org]

    I think he needs mental treatment.
    • Re:Hasn't he... (Score:5, Informative)

      by peragrin (659227) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:33PM (#23661873)
      disbarring a lawyer is a long complicated procedure. Indeed this was his disbarrment hearing that he walked out on.

      In a prepared statement left with the court he called the florida bar association Fascists. While the final ruling isn't due until September(long process remember) I can't imagine a judge being called incompetent is going to help him any.
      • Re:Hasn't he... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:45PM (#23661987) Homepage Journal
        In 1990, the Florida Supreme Court wanted his sanity checked.

        "In 1992, Thompson asked a Florida judge to declare the Florida Bar Association unconstitutional. He said that the bar was engaged in a vendetta against him because of his religious beliefs, which he said conflict with what he called the bar's pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda."

        I'm not seeing it on Wikipedia, but I've read that he has filed suit against George Bush as well. He repeatedly files ridiculous law suits that demonstrate he has little working knowledge of how the judicial system is supposed to operate, and abuses his power as an attourney.

        He should have been disbarred years and years ago for his tactics. He filed a lawsuit here in Omaha against the police chief for not handing over evidence on a sealed, active investigation on Robert Hawkins. He sues people for not pressing video game angles in criminal investigations, even before any evidence presents itself to suggest it a factor.

        He "predicts" people's guilt ahead of time based on video games, and then uses legal threats to enforce those predictions that repeatedly turn out to be false.

        He isn't just a nut-job, he is a bully who violates court orders and makes fairly serious threats. I'm shocked Florida has let this guy practice law for decades now.
      • Re:Hasn't he... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by scubamage (727538) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:15PM (#23662321)
        Not to mention if you read his response, he attacks the florida supreme court, and claims he will get them all removed from office.
        His career = over.
  • by i kan reed (749298) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:11PM (#23661611)
    Isn't he always complaining that games lack consequences that are meaningful for evil action.

    Well... Here you are jack, consequences for your arrogant actions. This is no game though, I'm sorry you don't have a save point to revert to.
  • Good riddance. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HermMunster (972336) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:12PM (#23661619)
    One has to understand that this man is most likely very unstable but has a loud voice. He knows a squeeky wheel gets the grease.

    A friend of mine, when I asked him why he was yelling to the crowd of students (in the cafeteria) instead of just speaking to them told me someone told him that if you want to get elected, then speak real loud. He was elected to the student board.

    Jack Thompson has his followers but obviously this man is a kook. I can't imagine anyone getting away with the bullshit he has and not be punished. So now, he's saying they have no authority over him? He'll be surprised when he's arrested for practicing law after he's been disbarred.

    Good riddance to him.
  • Ten years is unusual (Score:5, Informative)

    by hawk (1151) <hawk@eyry.org> on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:14PM (#23661639) Journal
    I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If this even *could* apply to you, you would already be a lawyer . . .

    Ten years is unusual. I'm not even sure I've ever *heard* of "enhanced disbarment" before.

    By its nature, disbarment is permanent. In many (most?) states, an attorney can petition to be considered for lifting of disbarment after five years--but has a heavy burden; he must show that he is no longer a danger if allowed to practice. The fact that he is a danger was established prior to disbarment; disputing it would end the possibility of showing the needed change.

    Ten years, however . . . and that does *not* mean he gets the license back then, only that that is the earliest date at which he *could* request it and attempt to show fitness . . .

    hawk, esq.
    • by rahvin112 (446269) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:32PM (#23661845)
      Attach a bunch of printed gay pornography to your next court submission and see how much the judge likes it. Extra points will be given if the Judge in question is a strictly observant southern baptist. Make sure and not tell the judge it's in there so he's sure to see it in all it's glory. It also needs to be completely unrelated to the case in anyway, use it to insinuate the opposing council is immoral.

      What Jack did was beyond stupid. Way way beyond stupid. It's the kind of stuff only people who are clinically insane do. You don't attach pornography to court filings. Ask anyone you know if they think it would be a good idea to attach gay pornography to a public court filing, I'll pay you $100 if someone honestly, without prompting, sarcasm or malice says yes. In fact I bet you could go ask the people at the state mental hospital the same question and would get the same response. That's just how stupid what he did was.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:47PM (#23662021)
        Attach a bunch of printed gay pornography to your next court submission and see how much the judge likes it. Extra points will be given if the Judge in question is a strictly observant southern baptist. Make sure and not tell the judge it's in there so he's sure to see it in all it's glory.

        Court clerks do read the stuff first -- it's almost certain the judge got a heads-up call first, likely starting with "you're not going to believe this, but..."
  • "Thompson's disciplinary hearing apparently ended in the attorney walking out of the courtroom after saying the judge did not have the authority to hear his case."

    .
    No matter how badly things go for you in court, no matter how much you dislike the ruling, no matter how unjust you feel you've been treated... NEVER insult a judge or be less than totally respectful for the process.

    And don't ever tell a judge they "don't have the authority". You'll be in a higher court soon. Judges don't like people being disrepectful of other judges, not even when the judge in question is wrong. Especailly when your own motives and reasons are (properly) called into question.

  • by Lazy Jones (8403) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:29PM (#23661805) Homepage Journal
    In GTA5 you'll play a lawyer who has had enough ...

  • by adona1 (1078711) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:48PM (#23662035)
    From TFA:
    You have been so cruel and at the same time so foolish as to call my pleadings herein "propaganda." That word means something, given how propaganda was used in the last century by the Third Reich in Nazi Germany

    He Godwinned himself straight out of the gate. Next /. story, please!
  • You fools! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:53PM (#23662083)
    You foolish slashdotters. Don't you realize that Jack Thompson came closer to giving us what we want than anyone else?

    If Jack's plan had succeeded for Halo 3, GTAIV, CoD4, etc, then I would never have to listen to a 11-year-old child screaming in my ear about his prepubescent views on life while he rapes me 15 kills to 4, since it's all he does all day, every day. In fact, he could get his xbox live account cancelled if I lost to him and decided to report his underaged cowlick.

    You hear the name "Jack Thompson" and shriek like banshees, but in fact, he was going to keep underaged gamers out of our servers, and for that, he would have been a savior to the online FPS community, not a villain that you portray him to be. Think for yourselves on this.

    Thanks to this blind tomfoolery, things will never get better, because no one will dare enforce age guidelines lest they receive a similar fate, and you'll be losing to castrato-voiced 9-year olds telling you how your mother was the last time they slept with her for the rest of your geriatric lives.
  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:03PM (#23662201) Homepage

    Thompson started his career as a loudmouth by complaining about some rap from "2 Live Crew" back in the early 1990s. I bought the 2 Live Crew CD to see what all the fuss was about. They were a terrible rap group, at the low end of the garage-band level. My comment at the time was that "this group would never have gotten off the South Florida club circuit without the censorship attempt".

  • by meglon (1001833) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @10:28PM (#23663457)
    Obviously he's been reading up on the game on cheater sites. It's widely known that you have to threaten the entire bar, and insult the judge before you get flagged for the shotgun power-up on level 3. If you don't get that, you're really screwed by the time you hit level 5 and have to get past the mental institute guards to get to see the alien.
    • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Interesting)

      by chaboud (231590) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:16PM (#23661657) Homepage Journal
      Oh, there's some optimism. Has the lack of a license to practice stopped Dr. Phil from being a pain? (Answer: no [wikipedia.org]).

      The worst thing that Jack could do is stop talking, though. He's like PETA. Some people could agree with his points, but he makes it very hard to espouse those positions without being lumped in with the loonies.

      Quiet censorship is far more nefarious.
      • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sentientbrendan (316150) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:24PM (#23662421)
        >The worst thing that Jack could do is
        >stop talking, though. He's like PETA. Some
        >people could agree with his points, but he
        >makes it very hard to espouse those
        >positions without being lumped in with the loonies.

        I for one, enjoy having a rational discussion more than having crazies scream at me.

        There are legitimate questions about what sort of material should be available to minors. I'm on the side of requiring the parents to do most of the footwork to protect their children, but it might also be helpful if extra tools were provided.

        In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13."
        • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:41PM (#23662557)
          Yes, if only someone would invent parental controls [microsoft.com].
        • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Informative)

          by Talez (468021) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:45PM (#23662595)
          In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13."

          You know that was such a good idea that every console maker decided to implement it as well as Microsoft with Windows Vista.

          It's really a non argument.
        • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mr2001 (90979) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @09:03PM (#23662739) Homepage Journal

          In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13."
          Even better, what if this "18+" flag could somehow appear on the outside of the game box? That way, parents could avoid buying the game in the first place, instead of waiting until they get home to discover that their kids are below its target age range.
          • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Insightful)

            by JambisJubilee (784493) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @10:44PM (#23663539)

            Even better, what if this "18+" flag could somehow appear on the outside of the game box? That way, parents could avoid buying the game in the first place, instead of waiting until they get home to discover that their kids are below its target age range.

            This gives me an idea. Let's devise a way so that parents could somehow know what video games their kids were playing. That way they could choose what they felt appropriate for their child.

            This could work for other influences in the child's life, like friends, TV, movies, etc.

            If only there were a way for a parent to get involved.

            • by Mr2001 (90979) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @11:10PM (#23663697) Homepage Journal
              Hmm. That's interesting, because I've read that computer monitors (CRT as well as flat panel) give off electromagnetic radiation, and this radiation is correlated to the type of software that's running on the computer. Televisions also give off the same radiation, correlated to the signal they're tuned into. There's even some evidence that non-electronic objects such as books and people can passively reflect this radiation, selectively absorbing parts of it and causing a characteristic disturbance.

              Many species are able to detect this type of radiation -- and this might seem far-fetched, but I have a hunch that humans might be able to do it too, at least with the proper training. If a parent could learn to distinguish between different games, movies, etc. by detecting patterns in the electromagnetic radiation they emit, they might be able to figure out what their kids are up to.

              Clearly, this needs to be studied more before we can draw any conclusions, but I'm willing to do the research if someone wants to fund it.
        • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Insightful)

          by urcreepyneighbor (1171755) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @09:53PM (#23663179)

          In particular, what if games came with an age group flag when they were installed, and operating system users could also have an age limit specified, so that applications with a "18+" flag would not launch of a user configured as "13."
          Wah? Thirteen? Come on!

          When I was thirteen, I was playing violent videogames - actually, IIRC, I was addicted to Solar Winds [wikipedia.org] - and jerkin' off to Playboy, Heavy Metal [wikipedia.org] magazine and whatever I could find via NNTP [google.com]. Oh, yeah, and trolling chatrooms... starting every conversation with "asl?"

          Let kids be kids. Jeesh. That means getting obsessed with ninja gear, jerkin' off until their wrists are sore, and blowing things up with crudely made homemade explosives that only work a quarter of the damn time. :)
      • Bollocks. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:10PM (#23662281)
        Jack Thompson may be a loon, but his specious arguments sit very well with the ill-informed "think of the children" crowd. He is a generator of headlines. The percentage people who both read the articles beneath the headlines and apply critical thought is infinitesimal. So these headlines are swallowed whole-hog as fact.

        On the flip side, Jack Thompson is used as a punching bag by video gamers and rational thinkers everywhere. Those with a capacity for critical thought are not swayed by Thompson's arguments or behavior regardless of their position. Those without a capacity for critical thought have already chosen a side. Those who agree with Thompson either see him as a martyr or don't associate his lunacy with their beliefs.

      • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Insightful)

        by osu-neko (2604) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:30PM (#23662459)

        He may not be very likable, in and out of the courtroom, but he's correct as it concerns grand theft auto, howard stern, hip hop music and the like. In fact, if you look at political history you can trace the political health of a regime through the music that is popular at the time.

        Um, no. In fact, that's complete bullshit. Just how would you even going about quantifying the political health of a regime? Even if you could, how would then quantify music in a way that relates meaningfully? I suspect you have no studies or evidence to back that absurd proposition, but even if you did, it'd be obvious from the start that the methodology of the study is hopelessly unscientific. In other words, this is just complete and utter bullshit made up to support an argument that's just as bogus.

        I will give you this: it's an old and persistent idea, it goes back at least to Plato. Of course, he had no evidence or good reason for saying it, either.

      • Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Insightful)

        by OlPete (830871) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @09:21PM (#23662911)

        In fact, if you look at political history you can trace the political health of a regime through the music that is popular at the time.
        I took that class too, but I think you may have missed the point the professor was making. If you look at cultures throughout history, you will find that the art of any given period tends to reflect the tensions present in the larger society, regardless of its specific manifestation. For instance, if you look at Westerns from the 50's and 60's, you will find a lot of underlying commentary regarding civil rights tensions. If you examine the poetry of ancient civilizations, you will find representations of common concerns of the day. Art (and all the items you mention are art of a variety) reflect what is taking place in the culture in which it exists. They do not *create* the culture, rather, they are a part of it influencing it within their individual spheres and being influenced by other elements of the culture as a whole. Certainly art can be influential in advancing a particular point of view, but it is a stretch even to suggest that the art is what results in a culture's downfall. At most you will find that art provides a form of analyzing the reasons a culture may be advancing or progressing. (Defining those terms, which, in and of themselves, have no concrete meaning with respect to these matters as progression and regression are dependent on perspective, can be tricky.) In the end, restricting artistic expression because you don't like its message is akin to treating the symptoms of a disease rather than the cause. Or, to put it another way, despite all the gloom and doom frenzied hysterics of The Establishment, rock and roll didn't kill us.
    • by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:43PM (#23661971)
      I'm not sure anybody here cares about the why. Personally, I mainly hate his guts because of the incredibly low standards he's applied to the practice of law. The prosecuting attorney that led that witch hunt against the Duke lacrosse players also got disbarred for his extremely unprofessional actions.

      Really in both of those cases the reason why people hate them is that they were abusing the legal system for personal gain, being disbarred is what is supposed to happen in those cases.
    • by EWAdams (953502) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:50PM (#23662047) Homepage
      Freedom of speech includes his right to spout nonsense and our right to tell him he should STFU. As long as we don't actually hold our hands over his mouth (tempting as it may be), he hasn't been gagged by being told to STFU. Freedom of speech includes the right to say, "You are wrong and should not say what you are saying."

      As for his flagrant abuse of the legal process in order to advance his political agenda... that can and should be stopped, and it doesn't constitute gagging him either. It should be stopped because it's abuse of the law. It also should be stopped because he's wrong.
      • by MacTO (1161105) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @08:42PM (#23662569)
        > As for his flagrant abuse of the legal process in order to advance his political agenda ... that can and should be stopped

        No argument there.

        > It also should be stopped because he's wrong.

        That is where we are in conflict. If you want to present an argument contrary to his position, then fine. That is a part of civil discourse. That is a part of the freedom of speech. But let's face the fact here: a lot of people on Slashdot are arguing that JT should be stopped simply because they don't agree with him. Yet IF a hypothetical anti-JT was standing up for the freedom of expression in violent video games, and abusing the system of law in the exact same manner, a lot of people around these parts would be crying bloody murder if the anti-JT was facing disbarment.

        And MAYBE a mild version of that has already happened. Remember the days of the SCO lawsuit. Remember how almost everyone was standing behind IBM's and Novell's legal teams almost without question. Remember how almost everyone was vilifying SCO, again without question. Now I'm not going to stand up for SCO because I believe that developers should have reasonable freedom to create and distribute their own work. But the point was that people were standing up for IBM and Novell without questioning their tactics or their motives.

        The reason for that, and the reason why a lot of people seem so eager to see JT disbarred, is because we have an intense emotional attachment to the issue. We are letting it cloud our judgement, and because of that we have the online equivalent of a public lynching.

        That emotial response is what I'm opposed to. Ever the more so because we are saying that our sense of morality takes priority over his.
          • They want to disbar him because he is an embarrassment and he's abusing the position of a law practitioner. He is also a menace to the society because of he is a lawyer, one of the several occupations whose words hold sway in courts of public opinion as well, and yet he has been saying stuff which clear does not represent the opinion(s) held by most of the other lawyers in Florida.

            Exactly. I'm a member of the Florida Bar, and when I took my oath (presumably the same one Thompson took) I was consciously binding myself to a certain standard of behavior, and agreeing to limitations as to what I can say and how I can behave. If I ever find those limits too restrictive I can resign from the Bar. What Thompson wants is to be able to use the tools available to him as a licensed attorney, but not follow the restrictions he agreed to when being given those tools.
    • by nuzak (959558) on Wednesday June 04 2008, @07:57PM (#23662145) Journal
      I'll be brief: I'm unapologetically ready and eager to gag and demean someone who himself crusades to do precisely the same of both to others.

      Jack Thompson was even involved in the 80's daycare scare (the "ritual satanic abuse") that ruined dozens of lives. For that alone, he is not simply strident, objectionable, or obstreperous, but really and truly evil. Schadenfreude may be shameful, but today I nonetheless feel the joy.