Jack Thompson Faces Disciplinary Hearing 231
CoolC writes "Gamepolitics is reporting that attorney Jack Thompson is to face a disciplinary hearing before the Florida Supreme Court. The attorney faces five counts of professional misconduct, three of which are correlated with his ongoing campaign against violent video games. Thompson faces the possibility of disciplinary action up to and including disbarment."
Thompsons wild accusations finally his downfall? (Score:3, Insightful)
Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its like saying "lunatic charged of murder cases thinks he should be able to kill people!" Who cares...in both cases its some stupid crazy loon getting what he deserves...
We need to know what crazy loons are up to (Score:5, Insightful)
Calm down... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Department (Score:5, Insightful)
Definitely, but given his history [wikipedia.org] he'll probably sue the Florida Bar (again).
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I feel bad that he has a slashdot article this late in the game even dedicated to him...I don't think its worth it..."
I rarely turn on the news, or read the paper. Slashdot is one of two "news" sites I read, the second being primarily video game based site. So if not for new sites like Slashdot, and other specialty news outlets, I very well may not have known about this extremely relevant piece of information.
Over the last several years it's been a tad bit demoralizing to see logic and reason go out the window in the USA, in favor of a policy of scapegoating. Killed your brother? Blame violent music. Robbed a store? Blame GTA. 8 year old that swears like a sailor? Blame TV and the media at large.
You're a bad parent? Don't worry, we can fix that. Here, blame these guys. Everyone's doing it, it's all the rage.
If you're fat, it's McDonald's fault. If you can't read warning labels or use common sense, whoever made what hurt you, is to blame. Clearly they should have warned you that you were retarded before selling you a product that's designed to do damage, like a knife, or a product that's been served pipping hot for as long as anyone's been alive, like coffee. Clearly you needed to be told not to spill hot coffee on your lap.
So taking a good look back over the last several years, and all the madness... It's refreshing to see a stand being taken against these trends. If left unchecked, people like this, and attitudes like these, will lead to the widespread disappearance of personal responsibility.
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:5, Insightful)
To describe his conduct as "disgusting" is the understatement of the year. Even outside video games, listening to the things he says (neo-conservative religious freak... I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum, that spells "jackass.") makes me sick.
Disbarment is too good for him, but I'll settle for it.
Re:Department (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight. He sues the Florida Bar Association because he basically says its an evil communist terrorist organization planning to turn everyone gay, and that it's blatantly disregarding the Constitution (Please note: I exaggerate his wording, but either way, it's full of shit) and destroying America.
So he settles for $20,000 out of court. "You're destroying America! Stop it now!" "How about we just give you some money?" "That's fine, too!"
Damn, this guy is the ultimate sleezeball. If you ask me. Jack Thompson is a shining example of everything wrong with America these days (bigoted, sue-happy, uninformed but with LOUD AND STRONG OPINIONS).
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:5, Insightful)
"In 1992, Thompson asked a Florida judge to declare the Florida Bar Association unconstitutional. He claimed 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."
We may disagree, however, I think this line here pretty much says to me that Mr. Thompson is a huge bigot. He's going for the "persecuted minority" (despite being a Christian, which is hardly the minority) routine. This is incredibly disgusting to me on every level. Is it wrong to wish to see him fact the consequences of his actions?
I admit, we're biased. But we're also human, and we're talking of a man who has personally attacked our character (well, the character of anyone who ever plays games, anyway), our hobbies, and has in general, made himself out to be our enemy, as if he feeds off of animosity. Is it surprising we should take some enjoyment in watching and criticizing his actions, in hopes that they may be his downfall? Sorry if this is a bit of nonsensical rambling, but I see no reason we shouldn't be upset at him.
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jack Thompson might be a nutjob, that however doesn't mean that violence in video games and other media isn't a problem. You know, personal responsibility is a door that swings both ways, just because people should take care about themself or parents about their children doesn't mean that McDonalds, the cigarette industry or video game developers should get away with selling whatever they feel makes them the most money while totally ignoring the consequences. They have responsibilities as well.
I am not saying that video games should be banned, but its sad that there is so very little room left for meaningful discussion of such topics. You either get the 'every should be banned' nutjobs or the people who want everything totally free and unregulated, no matter the consequences, while in the end the best would probably be something in between those two extremes.
Re:Finally justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what this is about is Jack Thompson, a crazy man practicing law. What exact view he presents, and whom he attempts to target with his wild accusations and lawsuits, is not the case here. He's a flat-out frothing-at-the-mouth smearing-shit-on-the-walls lunatic that is nevertheless certified to practice law in Florida solely because the last time they tried this he threatened them with a civil suit.
It's important that the gaming community at large not gloat too much should this go the way I so sincerely hope it does - i.e, that Thompson is removed to a position in society where he can do minimal harm. If we start waving the flags and claiming victory over those who ignore the research and continue to claim that video game violence produces killers, then we risk making a nutjob a martyr, and watching three more spring up in his place. The sensible long-term response is, "regardless of my views on gaming and media censorship, it's good for ALL Americans that this man is out of the discussion, and we can continue to argue for our rights with those opponents who approach the issue with dignity, respect, and above all, sanity."
That's not to say this news doesn't make me happy in my pants. Oh, it does. It VERY MUCH does.
Re:Jack was abscent... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally justice. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but toeing the party line would.
Just so's you know.
"(Jack Thompson)
Hm. You mean like trying to overturn Roe v. Wade? Or perhaps outlawing gay marraige. Yeah. Those damned liberals. Always thinkin' they know what's best.
Seriously. The second I hear 'liberals are like this' or 'conservatives are like that' I know the speaker has immediately gone into an irrational defensive mode.
Jack Thompson is a conservative; he's almost a reactionary. He's trying to use the legal system to 'protect' the citizens from a new form of content, which is a very conservative thing.
The fact that he's a nutjob has nothing to do with that. There are conservative nutjobs and there are liberal nutjobs. Please, accept your own nutjobs. No one else will.
Re:We need to know what crazy loons are up to (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack Thompson is just a member of that breed of attention addicts who will do or say anything to get their faces in the paper. The news media happily obliges these guys, because they're outrageous and clearly demented. They're following is just as demented, and are probably psychologically not all that different from the kinds of guys who end up in cults. If Jack Thompson belongs anywhere, it's on the Jerry Springer Show fighting transexual hookers and eighty year old sex addicts.
Re:Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps instead of blaming violent entertainment, we should be looking at why we so enjoy watching people get the shit beat out of them.
Write. (Score:2, Insightful)
DId it occur to you (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all lawyers are media whores like JT, and the few that our are smart enough to stay away from cases like these.
Re:Meh... (Score:2, Insightful)
After researching this topic for a few year I came to find out that:
a) Most lawsuits the seem frivilous in the media do so because the facts are not presented.
b) Many 'classic' examples of frivilous lawsuits never really happen and many were started by insurance companies and other anti-Tort orginizations. Example : Person stands on open oven door and the oven falls on her crushing her legs. The is false and was given out by an insurance lawyer as 'prrof' that people should not be allowed to sue companies.
c) Sure there are some, but in the whole scope it's not really that bad. It is alos the only real tool we have when fighting against corporations.
d) Many people 'Threaten to sue' and that will get in the media, but it rarly gets past that point.
You have fallen into a classic media trap. You only hear about lawsuits and since there is never any followup, you think everyone is suing for everything.
We dont need to confecture about 150 degree coffee because we can easily tell the difference between 150 and 190 degrees F.
And finally, people know what conjecture means, there was no reason to be snotty and link it like you are the only human being on Slashdot that know what it means.
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:1, Insightful)
Not so - someone smart enough to be capable of real media manipulation will dodge any question where logic or evidence will show they're in the wrong. Ole Mad Jack just starts shouting.
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Insightful)
there is so very little room left for meaningful discussion of such topics.
Such topics are discussed ENDLESSLY. Ad freaking nauseam [google.com]. The problem is this: One side has decided, arbitrarily, without any compelling evidence whatsoever, that videogames are harmful to children. The other side says, okay, before you go claiming I have "responsibilities" and abridging my rights to self-expression, show me your evidence that what I'm doing is harmful. And that's where things lie. The first side wants to pretend that the "evidence" step (and that whole little issue of parental responsibility) should be skipped over and we should move directly on to imposing restrictions. So when you say "discussion," if you mean "discussion of how far we should restrict video game manufacturers based upon a mere gut feeling that what they're doing is bad," that's not the discussion that the software industry wants to have.
However, if forced, they will have the "let's enact a useless self-imposed 'rating' system to keep the think-of-the-children crowd at bay" discussion.
They'll never go away... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jack Thompson might be a nutjob, that however doesn't mean that violence in video games and other media isn't a problem.
The problem isn't that there's violence in video games. The problem is that violence is far more accepted than sex. I like violent games, but I also like boobs - given the choice, I might pick the violent stuff half the time, but there's really no market for that stuff that I can tell, and I blame the freaky christian right (same one that had an aneurysm over Janet Jackson's pixelated nipple).
The warped values towards anything sex related in this country is definitely a problem, but the presence of violence in games and media isn't causing much in the way of real world problems, aside from the whole thugged out teenager fad.
Re:Meh... (Score:2, Insightful)
And to this I say "ESRB". It's there for a reason.
More on topic, a response to your post;
I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. The ESRB exists to guide parents on what little Jimmy should and should not be playing. As one of my two jobs is working at a store where we sell video games, I'm amazed at how many small children (Under 13) have parents that will buy the Grand Theft Auto games for them. Clearly a lot of these parents are not checking to see if little Jimmy understands the difference between fiction and reality.
Frankly, I'm in the most profane and vulgar ways possible, fucking SICK of people ruining my life experience, in terms of digital media, by being fuck-ups. I extend this to everyone who's blamed video games, movies, music, TV, and any current form of media/entertainment for something stupid they've done, or their kid has done.
Short and sweet; There's a lot of things in this world we don't want little Jimmy to get his hands on. Drugs, alcohol, porn, firearms, knives, your brand new expensive digital camera, etc.
How do you keep those things out of little Jimmy's hands? Got an answer? Good. Take that and re-apply it to movies, music, video games, and anything else you'd like to blame for the way your kid turned out. There's warning labels on this stuff for a reason... Really people.
http://www.bash.org/?628630 [bash.org] I think that about sums up my feelings on these types of people. We need more lion dens, and less Thompsons.
Re:Meh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only possible meaningful discussion is by psychologists and psychological researchers, and there in the realm of nurture vs. nature in behavioral studies in general. Unfortunately, it's not an easy subject to study in a laboratory as people frown on raising twins or triplets in controlled environments just to answer this question. There are too many variables in real life to attribute a person's attitude to any one influence, or to conclude that it would be markedly different under a slightly different attitude.
This whole debate reminds me of the Simpsons episode "Itchy and Scratchy and Marge": If you want to have some crazy logic, why not blame the labor laws? Kids wouldn't have time to play violent video games if they worked all day.
Don't get me wrong; I don't think a six year old should be playing GTA unsupervised. But every kid is different in what he/she can handle, and it's up to the parents to monitor their children and help them deal with it. It is not up to the government to interfere in what entertainment I can access just because some kid, somewhere, can't handle it. I grew up with Daffy repeatedly getting his beak blown off and I haven't killed anyone yet; though I'm tempted to every time I see it on TV now with that part edited out. Thankfully the DVD isn't edited.
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are old enough the government has of course no right to interfere with what you can access, but why shouldn't it have some say about what the kid can have easy access to? In Germany selling movies or games to kids below the rated age is forbidden, this however neither limits your access nor does it stop the parents from buying the games for their kids, even if they aren't old enough. The regulation simply puts power where it belongs: into the hands of the parents. I fail to see what is so bad about that.
We haven't seen the last of him... (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing that we should keep in mind, however, is that crazy old coots like Jack typically don't vanish the moment they lose their jobs (see: Fred Phelps). He'll have a lot more free time all of a sudden, and I expect he will continue to portray himself as a martyr -- a man who sacrificed his own career to protect America's children (and all that drivel). Sure, he won't be as dangerous when he can't blindly sue anything that moves, but I expect that the media will still view him as the resident expert on video game violence.
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, in my own experience, someone who has religion is someone who believes in God/a god/whatever. He follows its principles.
A religious freak is someone who says "I believe this, so follow it, too, or burn in Hell."
There are some key ways to tell the difference. For example, no sane religious person would ever seriously use the term "gay agenda." Mr. Thompson has made it very clear that he's anti-gay, and on a number of occasions spoken like gays are out on street corners, handing out pamphlets to try and convert you.
A religious person finds comfort in his own beliefs. A freak finds comforting in condemning those who don't follow his beliefs.
Part of the reason we don't see many truly religious people in the news is because they're being tolerant and quiet. That's not newsworthy. Some jackass marching down Main Street to have minority group/religion/whatever put in death camps, however, will be plastered all over.
So, Thompson is loud, irritable, stubborn, intolerant, and closed minded. Combine this with his often stated "strong faith" and you've got the model religious nut. Believing in God don't make you nuts. But if you are nuts and believe in God, oh, the shit you can try to pull...
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:5, Insightful)
>If I may quote his Wikipedia article
You may... but if you're really going to tell us what Jack Thompson thinks, you should quote *Jack Thompson*, who said:
>"wedding of all three functions of government into the Florida Bar, the 'official arm' of the
>Florida Supreme Court, is violative of the bedrock constitutional requirement of the separation
>powers and the 'checks and balances' which the separation guarantees."
from the *same article*.
To paraphrase: A branch of the government, especially a non-elected one, should *never* regulate ITSELF. That actually makes a good deal of sense, don't you think?
I dislike Jack Thompson for his smearing, his wild accusations, and his consistent histrionic bullshit, which can be quoted voluminously (so why quote a paraphrase?), but he is still a lawyer, and he is a *competent* lawyer who understands exactly what's gone wrong with the law.
His tragedy is that he uses that information to get his way, instead of as a point of reform. That's not unique amongst lawyers, because the system does not reward ethical behavior, it rewards whatever sticks to the wall. He knows what's wrong with this country's legal system, and I would welcome his disbarment because it might turn his crusade in the right direction: against that corrupted system.
He isn't a nutjob. People IGNORE nutjobs. He's EFFECTIVE and that bothers us because it shows us how easily the legal system can be manipulated to punish unsubstantiated wrongs.
--
Toro
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, yes. True Christians, in my experience, are rare. People who still call themselves as such, however, are not.
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:4, Insightful)
At some point each arm of government has a degree of autonomy. Separation of powers means that each arm may not usurp the others, NOT that each arm may not regulate its own activities insofar as they are within the scope of its power.
Oh, and "especially a non-elected one" - you mean one that actually has an incentive to set up favourable rules and regulations to ensure re-election..?
Re:Meh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i'm hoping... (Score:4, Insightful)