Jack Thompson Walks Out On Hearing

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."

Good ridance

[lyml]

It will be nice to never hear anything from him again.

Re:Good ridance

[chaboud]

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

[sentientbrendan]

>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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if only someone would invent parental controls [microsoft.com].

Re:Good ridance

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Uh, actually all three major consoles in this current generation (Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii) have parental controls built-in. The console can read the rating on the disc and you can set a maximum allowed rating. So yes, they do have the tools necessary to enforce what games their children play, and no, they don't have the right to prevent the rest of us from playing what we want.

Consoles have controls too

[vecctor]

Consoles have parental controls as well:

Here is handy instructions for each one:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2006-12-28-parental-controls-consoles_x.htm [usatoday.com]

Re:Good ridance

[Talez]

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

[Mr2001]

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

[JambisJubilee]

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.

Re:Good ridance

[Mr2001]

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

[ShannaraFan]

I don't think I could be any more involved in my 16-year-old son's gaming and circle of friends. After hearing that I was a Counter-Strike addict in a former life, they introduced me to Call Of Duty 4. After I proved that I don't completely suck, they all now invite me into their games. They also like hearing "stories" about how things were before the Internet - dialing in to individual BBS systems, acoustic modems (yes, just like in Wargames), saving programs to cassette tapes, etc.. In the late 80's, I wrote a war-dialing program that found its way onto several BBS's, and still lives on the Internet today (it's even referred to in at least on computer security book, found on Google Books). They all thought that was just the coolest damned thing ever, so I'm seen as the "uber hacker".

Hilarity ensued one night when several of them were at our house - one of them brought a laptop. In my house, Facebook and Myspace are banned, blocked via several methods (Squid, Dansguardian, and OpenDNS). The "lead hacker" at the time thought he could get around my blocks by using another open proxy. The entire time he was messing around, I was upstairs watching the logs, watching all this take place. I let him struggle for about 15 minutes, then went down and casually asked "Who's trying to get around my firewall?". His face turned beet red, he stammered around for a few seconds, and then said "I didn't even know you could block proxy servers." The rest of them all laughed hysterically, and my son chimes in "Dude, my Dad gets paid to protect computers!". From that point on, I was seen as "l33t". Imagine, me, "l33t". Hilarious...

Re:Good ridance

[Samah]

Even better, what if the Australian Classification Board [classification.gov.au] had some sense and actually created an R18 rating for games rather than banning anything considered too explicit for M15?
Wait, that's too sensible.

Re:Good ridance

[bh_doc]

Not the ACB's fault. It's the South Australian Attorney-general that's preventing it. To implement the R18+ rating for games requires all the state and federal attorney-generals to agree, and he's the one bass-ackwards idiot saying no.

Re:Good ridance

[Samah]

And I live in Adelaide...
Perhaps an *accident* could be arranged >:D

Re:Good ridance

[Mr2001]

As i mentioned in an earlier post, my manager's kid had a copy of GTA 4. She didnt buy. He does chores, saves money from his birthday, whatever, either he bought the game some place where the clerk doesnt give a damn who they sell to (the kid is 14) or another adult bought it, but not his parents. His mother broke it and threw it away once she realized he had it.

If he's old enough to scrape together the money to buy it, get himself to the store, and buy his own copy of the game, then he's old enough to play it. (In a just world, his mother would be found guilty of vandalism, and she'd have to pay restitution and do community service for destroying another person's property.)

Really, I don't know why people think this stuff is so dangerous. You know what's going to happen to this kid if he plays GTA a few years before his parents think he's "ready" for it? Nothing. He's going to grow up to be a well-adjusted individual, most likely, just like everyone else. To think otherwise is to buy into Jack Thompson's bullshit ideas about games turning kids into murderous zombies.

Re:Good ridance

[urcreepyneighbor]

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. :)

Ratings systems are limited.

[jd]

I agree with the principle of having some means of evaluating whether a product is suitable, but a ratings system is flawed and inherently biased by the loudest groups and not by the genuine needs or concerns of the individuals. This is why graphic bloodbaths in movies and television are acceptable, whereas a 1/2 topless shot of a rather ugly wannabe for a couple of seconds can cause a major uprising and massive fines. In America. In Britain, they wouldn't show a sporting event so boring that people only tune in for the adverts, but they probably wouldn't have even noticed the so-called wardrobe malfunction.

Clearly, however, if you accept the need of a parent to evaluate a product legitimately, you cannot exclude all of the significant and potentially disturbing material from that evaluation.

Ergo, you need multiple scales. Perhaps a pair of values for violence (degree and realism), same for sexual content, and so on for whatever other factors child psychologists in general (not just the ones on the payroll of a pressure group) consider areas of genuine concern that can also be reliably quantified in a game setting.

These would replace the ratings system entirely. Parents who go by biological age ignore the individuality of needs, thereby not really evaluating but chickening out of their responsibility by blaming time. Evaluation has no place for blame and no time for those who betray their responsibilities. But what responsibility is there if elapsed cell divisions is not considered worthy of notice? The responsibility of understanding the person they are supposedly evaluating for. If a parent does not understand their child, their child's own specific needs and vulnerabilities, then the parent is far less mature and adult than the child themselves, and the child should be provided with a rational means of determining their limits and their comfort.

Re:Good ridance

[danaris]

Something like "No, little Johnny doesn't need exposure to this extreme violence. But a little minor nudity never hurt anyone." probably wouldn't work so well with US age-based ratings.

Right, and there are definitely those who don't want you to be able to easily make that distinction. There are a disturbing and depressing number of Americans who really do believe that not only is watching a woman take her shirt and bra off more damaging to a child than watching someone get shot or beheaded, but it is their duty as good Christians to make sure that everyone believes that—or at least has that standard enforced on them.

Dan Aris

Re:Good ridance

[Captain Sarcastic]

While losing his license was not directly responsible for his current status, if he had never lost his license, he likely would never have done anything more than be a local shrink.

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

Bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[osu-neko]

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

[OlPete]

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.

Re:Good ridance

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Violin.

And a big fire... //points at Nero

Obviously he's not a fan of computer games

[Carthag]

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.

Re:

[Kjella]

You might learn something interesting, or get a side-quest.

I think he's already intensely devoted to his main quest.

Re:Obviously he's not a fan of computer games

[b0r1s]

Clearly, he forgot to turn quick quest text: on.

How dare you!

[Toasty16]

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]!

Re:How dare you!

[Anonymous Coward]

He gave Florida a 404?

Re:How dare you!

[syousef]

He gave Florida a 404?

Nope, that was your presidential elections a few years back.

Hasn't he...

[Enderandrew]

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...

[peragrin]

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...

[Enderandrew]

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.

Jack Thompson is a catastrophe waiting to happen

[Jesrad]

Correlation is a situation where two things happen with statistically significant coincidence. Simply said, if there are effect A and effect B, and if you have significantly more occurences of A and B happening together and of neither happening together, than occurences of A happening without B or B without A, then there is a correlation between A and B.

If A is "the person played violent videogames" and B is "the person murdered someone", then every case where someone played violent videogames and soon before or afterwards murdered someone is a statistical point in favor of the correlation between the two, but only if there also are cases where someone did not play violent videogames and did not murder someone soon before or after: unfortunately for Jack Thompson, the latter is becoming extremely rare, which reduces the significance of the former. Also, every case where someone plays violent videogames and does not murder someone is a statistical point against the correlation. Similarly, every case where someone did not play violent videogames yet did murder someone goes against the correlation. So far, evidence shows that any correlation between the two is extremely improbable.

Illusory correlation, like that inferred by Jack Thompson repeatedly between violent videogames and crime, is the situation where someone insists on considering two events to be related despite being not significantly correlated. Despite popular belief to the contrary, such illusory correlation behaviour is not correlated to schizophrenia (paranoid or non-paranoid, delusional disorder), nor with depression [inist.fr]. So Jack Thompson is probably not technically insane on such grounds.

However, illusory causation, where the person infers causality between two supposedly correlated events, is a trait of paranoid disorders [mayoclinic.com]. Jack Thompson goes as far as making public claims (and suing according to those claims) that a causation exists between people playing violent videogames and murders despite the absence of even mild correlation between the two, and even interprets much of what happens to him in his professional life as having a causal link to this illusory causation in the first place (as evidenced by his claims of collusion between the Florida Bar or Supreme Court and the videogame industry). When his interpretations are rejected by the public (like when he unsuccessfully sued Janet Reno and RockStar), he rejects the result of the scrutiny instead of questioning those interpretations: that's a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia. At one point he even fantasized himself as being Batman, FFS ! It makes him a very dangerous man in my book, because the paranoids are often capable of nurturing delusory fantasies of persecution and injustice that can push them to commit serious crimes.

Given some of his more religious statements I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that he has auditory hallucinations which he attributes to God... The other symptoms (disorganized thinking, absent or inappropriate emotional behaviour, etc.) are easier to hide and less prominent in paranoid schizophrenia.

Even if the guy is disbarred for ten years, if he really has paranoid schizophrenia, I would only consider the general public to be safe when he is committed to a mental institution.

Re:Hasn't he...

[scubamage]

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.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't he been disbarred yet? I can say without exageration the man is quite delusional.

But then he probably qualifies under the Americans With Disabilities act and he'll sue for discrimination.

It's not like he has anything else to do!

Isn't he always complaining...

[i kan reed]

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.

[HermMunster]

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

[hawk]

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.

Re:Ten years is unusual

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Ten years is unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

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..."

Re:Ten years is unusual

[Chris Burke]

Now keep in mind a disturbing number of the populace is increasingly kook.

It's true, which is why I signed up for classes in speaking Kook at my local community college. I figured it'll be useful in the job market. It's pretty rough though, because the entire class is taught in Kook. I guess that kind of immersion is the best way to learn a new language, but it makes it hard to keep up. The prof says "Nipples turn children into Hitler" and I'm so busy trying to figure out what he meant that I miss what he said next. A buddy in the class said it was "Gays cause droughts and if they marry it causes earthquakes", which he thinks is some kind of homework assignment. And that was the first class!

Re:

[camperdave]

Maybe an enhanced disbarment is just like a regular disbarment, but with the additional stipulation that you cannot go into actual bars for ten years.

Good thinking there

[Kabuthunk]

Right, telling a judge that they don't have the authority to hear your case will SURELY persuade them to go lenient on you.

Unfortunately, him being unable to practice law will unlikely stop politicians or other figures looking to ban violent video games from going to him for advice.

Re:

[arth1]

It's no big secret that Hilary Clinton and Joseph Liebermann both have consulted with Jack Thompson. Don't expect either of them to say "oops, sorry".

Re:

[aeschenkarnos]

Right, telling a judge that they don't have the authority to hear your case will SURELY persuade them to go lenient on you.

You do have the right to question a court's jurisdiction. However, there is a strong presumption that they do have it, and there are ways to go about it that do not constitute a challenge to the judge's personal integrity. If your problem is with the judge's personal integrity, you appeal to a higher court.

What not to do in a court room

[buss_error]

"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.

The first rule of litigation . . .

[hawk]

The first rule of litigation is, "Don't p*** off the judge."

Seriously.

hawk, esq.

Re:The first rule of litigation . . .

[Cadallin]

This should be blindingly obvious, but I'm always amazed at the number of people who make this exact mistake. Top two rules:

1. Do NOT Piss off the Judge.

2. Do not piss off your defense attorney.

If you cause #1, you will cause #2, and you will be well and truly fucked.

Oh yeah, #3 Do NOT testify in your own defense (And even worse, Do NOT insist against the best advise of your lawyer that you be allowed to). It doesn't matter how well you think you'll do, or how innocent you think your ass is. It is almost always (i.e. 99% of the time) a horrible idea.

Pull a Reiser

[Enderandrew]

Your post can be summed up as "don't pull a Reiser."

Re:

[nomadic]

And don't ever tell a judge they "don't have the authority". You'll be in a higher court soon.

Appeal isn't a simple matter; it's a long and costly process that should be avoided if possible. There's nothing really wrong with respectfully pointing out in a pleading that the court you're before doesn't have the discretion to do something. Granted he didn't do that in this case, but in general judges have thicker skins than slashdotters give them credit for.

Such anger

[Starteck81]

All that pent up anger of his is finally coming out. I wouldn't be surprised if he went on a shooting spree like the troubled people he says were driven to violence by video games. I think he should try a violent video game and see just how cathartic it can be.

Bababooey!

[Babbster]

Jack Thompson: "Because I took on Bar complainant, Al Cardenas, the Howard Stern Show is off terrestrial radio and his influence diminished."

Really, Jack? I thought it was because Sirius offered Stern a free hand with content and over $100 million per year on a 5-year contract.

Re:

[Babbster]

Well said. [google.com]

You probably don't want to hear this, but ...

[MacTO]

Being disbarred is not about his personal opinion, nor your personal opinion, about video games. It is about his ability to practice law. I also find it ironic that people who are so keen on the freedom of speech are so eager to find a way to gag or demean someone that they don't agree with. That's not civil behaviour. It is childish behaviour. (My apologies to the children of the world.)

I'm not a member of the bar...

[argent]

I'm not a member of the bar. Does this mean my right to free speech has been curtailed? By whom? By myself, for never having attempted to pass a law exam I'm unqualified to pass? You have to be a practicing lawyer to enjoy the right of free speech? I don't get it. Seriously. What are you talking about?

Re:You probably don't want to hear this, but ...

[hedwards]

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.

Freedom of speech yes, abuse of due process no.

[EWAdams]

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.

Re:Freedom of speech yes, abuse of due process no.

[MacTO]

> 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.

No, not really

[Moraelin]

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.

No, not really. I for one want him stopped because he's a fucking lunatic, and I don't see why such lunatics belong in a court of law. He's still free to rant on his own time, to whoever listens to him, but I genuinely don't see how he's fit to help determine if someone's guilty or not.

It's not just about games, but about all his surrealistic antics. Seriously, read even the sample on Wikipedia, and you tell me if it doesn't sound like someone clinically insane.

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.

Nope, sorry. In fact: good grief, no. When I have something to say, I want it said in a professional way. The last thing I want is my position to become associated with raving lunatics, idiots trolling for attention and abuses of the judicial system.

He's acting like a troll fanboy, or what we'd call one on any forum. And that's something some people don't seem to understand: annoying fanboys and zealots don't actually help get your point across. Regardless of whether it's "Linux is ready for the desktop" or "games are good for you", you want it to come across as a helpful and even-handed opinion. You don't want it to become a case of, basically, "oh, heh, it's those trolling fanboys again, blowing stuff out of proportion." Annoying people for attention is bad too, because if you've annoyed them, they're automatically inclined to _not_ listen to anything you have to say.

In Slashdot terms, you want advocacy to come across as +5 Informative or +5 Interesting, not as -1 Flamebait.

It's not even as much a personal opinion. Read any advocacy faq, and it will tell you the same. People like JT are _not_ the kind you'd want as advocates, for any domain or idea. JT is the kind of obnoxious troll that the real advocates wish would STFU already and stop polluting the channel. _Especially_ if they profess to be on your side.

Re:Freedom of speech yes, abuse of due process no.

[nomadic]

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.

Re:You probably don't want to hear this, but ...

[nuzak]

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.

Now What?

[mqduck]

I don't understand how these things work. Can someone explain to people like me what this "recommendation" means in the immediate sense? Does it get rubber-stamped? Are there further hearings? When will the guy *actually* be disbarred?

Re:Now What?

[nuzak]

Tunis has basically handed the charge to the FL Supreme Court, who will rule on it on Sep 2. They may strike one or more charges, but he's got 27 racked up against him, so it hardly matters.

It would take a wormhole opened into bizarro world for them to actually overturn the recommendation. The worst they might do within the realm of probability is disqualify Tunis and make Jack do it all over again.

My guess is Thompson's behavior will be such that they may actually pass down a harsher judgment.

top secret inside information: GTA5

[Lazy Jones]

In GTA5 you'll play a lawyer who has had enough ...

First Ammendment

[Enderandrew]

He's all about protecting the First Ammendment. From Wikipedia:

In January 2006, Thompson asked the Justice Department to investigate the Florida Bar's actions. "The Florida Bar and its agents have engaged in a documented pattern of this illegal activity, which may sink to the level of criminal racketeering activity, in a knowing and illegal effort to chill my federal First Amendment rights," Thompson wrote in a letter to Alex Acosta, interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.[121]

We can ignore him now

[adona1]

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!

Re:We can ignore him now

[Enderandrew]

He wrote a letter to Take Two CEO's mother saying she raised him to be a member of the Hitler Youth.

I wonder how many times he Godwinned himself.

You fools!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Obligatory

[Godji]

Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more... Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more!

He's the guy who made "2 Live Crew" famous

[Animats]

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".

just playing the game....

[meglon]

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.

As the victim of recent game related violence...

[XDirtypunkX]

... in the form of a GTA style car-jacking by two teenagers just after the game was released... I still am happy to see this happen. Those 17 year old kids whacked out of their heads on speed were going to commit a crime either way. They probably would've just beat someone to death. It wasn't the game that caused the crime, it was two kids from broken homes with easy access to amphetamines that caused the crime.

Wouldn't it be lovely

[WarPresident]

...if he managed to pull down the Florida Supreme Court before he got disbarred? Yeah, he's bat-shit crazy, but you gotta admire the rabid determination to always be right. He's damn-near presidential material (vice presidential at the very least!).

I object, strenuously, as I have in the past on the record, to the very notion that this proceeding can even occur, on various grounds any single one of which is fatal to its legitimacy, including but not limited to the following grounds:
You, the referee, are not even a judge. The law in Florida on that is clear, and it is found in Florida's Loyalty Oath Statute 876.05, et sequitur, held constitutional and binding by the United States Supreme Court in Connell v. Higginbotham.

We know now from a recently concluded State Attorney's investigation and Report that your first state loyalty oath was forged. We also know that your next two oaths, which you signed, did not conform to that statute in that the language deviated from what is required and they were not even notarized. A number of formal opinions by Florida's Attorney General state that such flaws are fatal regardless of intent.

The statute itself states that if any state official, including a judge, fails to comply strictly with the loyalty oath statute, then that judge is without legal authority to serve and must immediately be removed from office. I will accomplish your removal from office in the days and weeks ahead, as the litigation that will achieve that has already been filed by me in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Florida, which you, the referee think is your ally in what you are doing here has ruled that your loyalty oath screw-up is fatal. ...

Secondly, we know now that six of the seven Florida Supreme Court Justices never executed valid state loyalty oaths. I have proven that, as has Florida and Washington, D.C. lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley, whose own Bar referee, Judge Prescott, had his oath forged by the same person, Sayed A. Shah, who forged yours. What a coincidence.

Re:fp

[Tenebrousedge]

Reign of terror? You must be thinking of a different Jack Thompson. This seems more like a punch line to me.

Seriously, when it comes to ambulance-chasing frothing-at-the-mouth nutcase walking jokes, Ol' J.T. takes the cake. And then sues Hostess for making it...

Re:fp

[Majik Sheff]

I consider this a colostomy for the legal system (one less asshole).

Re:fp

[glitch23]

I consider this a colostomy for the legal system (one less asshole).

I get your point however a colostomy [wikipedia.org] isn't actually the removal of the anus. I can't find what that procedure is called but the colostomy just changes the location for the function of the anus. No removal actually occurs from what I can tell.

Re:fp

[Hawkeye05]

I get your point however a colostomy isn't actually the removal of the anus. I can't find what that procedure is called but the colostomy just changes the location for the function of the anus. No removal actually occurs from what I can tell.

Jeez, what's in your anus?

Re:fp

[oahazmatt]

Jeez, what's in your anus?

That's the worst Visa marketing campaign, yet.

Re:fp

[Barny]

You can't be anally retentive without an anus :)

Re:fp

[Muad'Dave]

What good is your retentiveness, Mr. Anderson, if you don't have an anus?

Re:fp

[Majik Sheff]

Ok, then we'll go with this. The asshole is still there, it just doesn't have the official capacity to spew shit anymore. See, my analogy still works.

Re:fp

[thermian]

It's called a Total Pelvic Exenteration, and it's probably the nastiest operation a woman can undergo.

It's only for women though. I assisted on several in my former career, not a fun thing the help with, I can tell you.

Re:fp

[mopower70]

Good lord. I just googled that operation. I will not be sleeping any time soon.

Re:fp

[hostyle]

I can't find what that procedure is called

s/://;

Re:fp

[JosKarith]

And here I was thinking that it was "Add another 8 lawyers, wait for the cement to dry and get ready for the best game of whack-a-mole of your life."

obligatory

[naz404]

I, for one, welcome our new Jack Thompson-disbarring overlords!

Re:obligatory

[Kingrames]

for one? you must be new here.

Re:obligatory

[afaik_ianal]

*whoosh*

Re:fp

[rob1980]

Wrong. His career as a "video game analyst" at Fox News starts in 5...4...3...2...

Re:fp

[AuMatar]

And yet he'd still be closer to reality than O'Reily.

Re:fp

[hardburn]

Fox already hires nutjubs, crack cases, and quacks. Why stop at disbarred lawyers?

Sounds like a Mel Brooks sketch...

[Hognoxious]

Applicant: I'm a disbarred lawyer, a nutjob, a crack case, a quack and a disbarred lawyer.
Fox HR man: Hey! You said disbarred lawyer twice!
Applicant: I like being disbarred!

Re:fp

[eldepeche]

Well, they do have a few convicted felons. G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North...

Re:fp

[nomadic]

Well, they do have a few convicted felons. G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North...

North's conviction was overturned, so technically he's not a convicted felon. Of course he's an amoral, deceitful, arrogant swine who admitted under oath to breaking the law, but he's not technically a felon.

Re:fp

[mabhatter654]

he (and Regan & Bush 1) broke the law and got off on a technicality just like Clinton and OJ.

Re:fp

[MoldySpore]

Actually I think Clinton "got off" wayyyyy before he was brought up on impeachment charges...HA

Re:fp

[sm62704]

The Constitution is a "technicality" to most people. "Got off on a technicality" often means "they didn't have a search warrant when they obtained the evidence".

Re:fp

[deniable]

Given that Fox News is a big practical joke on the Americans, Rupert will hire whoever he needs to keep it running. All Australians should be proud of him. Keeping that many people fooled for so long is a sign of true mastery. Just wait till they start reporting the Al Queda / Drop Bear connection or that beer shortages cause global warming.

Re:

[glittalogik]

Roger that, Thompson. Golf Tango Foxtrot, Over.

Loyalty oath issue

[Animats]

The loyalty oath issue is interesting. The loyalty oath in Florida used to contain the language "that I am not a member of the Communist Party; that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party". This was a big deal during the Red Scare era in the 1950s. It's not an oath of office; all state employees were required to sign it.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that language to be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and association [justia.com] in 1961. So the legislature took out the "Communist party" part. The shortened oath is still required of all state employees and candidates [myfloridalegal.com].

Florida law says that any state employee refusing to sign the oath shall be discharged. It's not clear there's any penalty for an employee who, through some omission of the state, was never asked to sign it.

Florida judges are mostly elected, and normally the loyalty oath is required as part of the paperwork for getting on the ballot. But it seems that Judge Tunis [countyjudges.com] was appointed (by Gov. Jeb Bush) to fill a vacancy created when the Legislature increased the number of judgeships. For most state employees, it's the responsibility of the employee's superior to make sure that the loyalty oath is signed. But for elected positions, there's no "superior", so it's not clear who's supposed to get this done. Which is probably how she became a judge without signing the loyalty oath first. Anyway, Judge Tunis did sign the oath at a later date.