Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government Censorship United States News Entertainment Games

Jack Thompson Disbarred 522

Sockatume writes "The Florida Supreme Court has approved Judge Dava Tunis' recommendations for the permanent disbarment of John B. "Jack" Thompson, with no leave to reapply and $43,675.35 in disciplinary costs. The ruling is a step up from the enhanced disbarment that had been suggested by the prosecution, which would have forbidden him from reapplying for ten years. Thompson has 30 days to appeal the ruling before the disbarment is permanent. Thompson responds to the ruling."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson Disbarred

Comments Filter:
  • Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tergvelo ( 926069 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:42PM (#25155075)
    It's about damn time this poor excuse for a human being was disbarred.
    Maybe now we won't have to hear about him all the damn time.
  • by Broken scope ( 973885 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:45PM (#25155135) Homepage
    jack did alot more than piss of some judges.
  • by Hairy Heron ( 1296923 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:47PM (#25155173)
    No, it takes filing tons and tons of frivolous lawsuits and wasting countless hours of court time and taxpayer money to get where he is at.
  • by Chyeld ( 713439 ) <> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:48PM (#25155189)

    How many states do you think let someone apply to the Bar if another state has this sort of ruling against the person.

  • by Cerberus7 ( 66071 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:51PM (#25155249)

    Exactly. If all it took was pissing off some judges, he'd have been disbarred a long, long, LONG time ago. He demonstrated compete disregard for the legal system with meritless filings for YEARS, and as a result got exactly what he deserved.

  • by Hairy Heron ( 1296923 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:53PM (#25155275)
    Yep, it's not as if judges and the Bar only recently got pissed at him. He's been the thorn in the side of the Florida legal system for years and years. He just got way too cocky and he finally is now paying for his years of shenanigans.
  • Re:Holy cow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by athdemo ( 1153305 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:53PM (#25155281)
    He'll still be on TV, he just won't be in the courtroom.
  • All it means... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jlindy ( 1028748 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:57PM (#25155335)
    Meh...All this means now is that he'll run for the senate. After all being a disbarred loon is a perfect qualification considering the company he'd be keeping.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:00PM (#25155367) Journal

    Maybe you think everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want whenever they want, and if people don't like it, they can piss off?

    Actions have consequences. When you screw up, you have to pay the price. I know, making people pay for their mistakes is taking away their freedom to be douchebags. Obviously these professional associations, by holding their members to certain standards, must hate our freedoms.

  • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:04PM (#25155423) Journal

    Nonsense. He will simply, make the talk show circuit, get backing and funding by some "think of the children" and christian groups, and bam he is back in business using OTHER lawyers.

    In fact, I can imagine that software makers are going to be paying him, via a proxy group, to sue them.

  • by evilbessie ( 873633 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:06PM (#25155459)
    12 noon, January 20th 2009.
  • by querist ( 97166 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:08PM (#25155473) Homepage

    I don't know about law, but in various health care professions (I keep my chiropractic license for pro bono patients) and licensed engineers (I know a few), one of the first questions they ask on any application for a license is something along the lines of

    "Has your license to practice ever been suspended or revoked in this or any other jurisdiction, or has any [insert profession] board taken disciplinary action against you? If yes, please provide a detailed explaination."

    That usually means that if you were booted in one jurisdiction, your chances of being licensed in another jurisdiction are sufficiently close to zero to be indistinguishable from zero for all practical purposes.

    Oh, and if you are found out to have LIED on that question, your license is automatically revoked (at least in SC) and you're fined heavily. For some professions, that's even a felony and includes jail time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:08PM (#25155477)

    Would you defend a doctor that frequently kills his patients due to mistakes, or an engineer that signs off plans for buildings that fall down and kill everyone in them? Disbarring Jack is like this. He has, over and over and over, shown he is not willing to follow even minimal proffesional behaviour when practising law.

  • by Zarhan ( 415465 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:10PM (#25155521)

    You can add to that list [] (URL pretty much tells what's that about)


    The Pirate Bay's blocking in Italy is apparently overruled [] after TPB sent in their lawyers.

    This is a *very* good day :)

  • Re:April fools? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:12PM (#25155549)

    I mean seriously - this is just too good to be true. Jack Thompson disbarred. The RIAA loses its first court case on their "making available" theory.

    Wait till you get to the one about your government wanting $2000 of your money to bail out banks who apparently still thought that pyramid schemes were a good idea.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uberjack ( 1311219 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:16PM (#25155615)

    It's about damn time this poor excuse for a human being was disbarred. Maybe now we won't have to hear about him all the damn time. ~t

    Fat chance. Now he'll have his own talk show on Fox

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:16PM (#25155617)

    I hope he gets the help he needs. I think its getting obvious that his mental condition is far from normal and his obsession with finding wrongs in videogames has ruined his life.

  • Re:OMG PONIES! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:17PM (#25155621)

    Ah! There they are. Thanks.

    Now that that's out of the way, where's my copy of Duke Nukem forever? Or my notice of an auction at SCO so I can buy Darl McBride's desk?

    BTW speaking of Slashdot on April Fools day - this would be a really excellent move on the part of the industry.

    Everyone knows /. is completely useless on April 1. Wouldn't it be funny if the industry took use of that fact and posted an important story on April 1st specifically to take advantage of that?

    "RIAA admits to wrongdoing in their ongoing lawsuit cash grab. Offers refund to everyone who contacts them today."

    We'd all say, "Yeah right! OMG ponies." and not email them. They'd be in the clear.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beardo the Bearded ( 321478 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:26PM (#25155769)

    Maybe now we won't have to hear about him all the damn time.


    Not even close.

    Jack is going to call out against video games until he dies or retires. He enjoys the attention and the money.

    He's now completely free to so whatever he wants and say whatever he wants and act in any manner he pleases - he has no professional association to give him any oversight.

    We haven't seen the last of him, not by a long shot.

    Even if we had seen the last of him, that would be a bad thing. He's a raving loon, and if he represents those who are against violent games, that's good for those of us who are 30+ years old, have jobs, mortgages, kids, spouses, and the entire GTA series.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:32PM (#25155859)
    As long as he can't harass people with lawsuits, that crazy fuck can SAY whatever he likes.
  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by COMON$ ( 806135 ) * on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:52PM (#25156175) Journal
    Precisely it is guys like this that keep people laughing at Christianity, they use and abuse the people to make a buck. What is to say he just wont go pass the Bar in another state like Utah....
  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (gnauhc.mailliw)> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:57PM (#25156237) Homepage

    Thompson's response was directly aimed at casting himself as a defender of all things Christian who is being ostracized for his beliefs. He's actually a dumb poopy-head, as my nephew says, but the folks at Fox News would be glad to have someone who has fought against the streak of anti-Christianity sweeping the country (I know, I know).

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Beardo the Bearded ( 321478 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @04:01PM (#25156307)

    Okay, yes, he's been forcibly retired from being a lawyer.

    There's no "Crazy Fucker" Association that can do the same thing and prevent him from getting in front of a camera.

    He fucking loves being in front of a camera and hearing himself talk.

    I guarantee that he'll be all over the news for the next school shooting.

  • Re:April fools? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mr_mischief ( 456295 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @04:22PM (#25156685) Journal

    They want to bail out banks and still let them collect on as many of the loans as they can, too. Don't you think if they're going to cover the loan losses that the loan should be fully forgiven and the people should keep the collateral? After all, the government is paying the loans with the taxpayers' money.

  • by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <.Satanicpuppy. .at.> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @04:39PM (#25157029) Journal

    Considering they basically invented a new type of disbarment for him, I think his lawyer days are over.

    Normally (in florida) they block you from trying to get your license back for 5 years, but the original trial recommended 10 years, and the referee, upon reviewing the evidence, recommended permanent disbarment, because 10 years wasn't enough. Even with the minimum disbarment, it would have been extremely unlikely for him to get re-certified...With this extraordinary disbarment? Impossible.

    He may do something else, but it won't be law, not in this country.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Foobar of Borg ( 690622 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @04:49PM (#25157199)

    If what Fox News wasn't popular with Christians and therefore reflective of modern Christian belief they wouldn't be popular or influential. Jack Thompson and people like him represent modern Christianity even if a few fringe Christians disapprove.

    American fundamentalists != modern Christianity
    The rest of the Christian world != a few fringe Christians
    I guess by your type of assessment, Catholicism is a fringe Christian group and Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't even exist. There is a whole world outside of the U.S. In some parts of it, they even speak languages other than English.

  • Re:April fools? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gothzilla ( 676407 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @05:03PM (#25157415)

    You mean poor Republicans having to fix a problem caused by Democrats that started all the way back with Carter? Have you seen any calls for congressional hearings? Investigations? Know why? Because the Democrats can't find any Republicans to blame it on. The NYT tried to blame one of McCain's aides but their article was quickly debunked as total crap. I'd love it if one day the media started getting sued for the crap they invent.

    Poor Democrats are having to face up to the brutal reality that their beloved socialism doesn't always work so fucking well. A few hundred years of history should have made that obvious though.

  • Re:April fools? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @05:27PM (#25157789) Homepage

    They want to bail out banks and still let them collect on as many of the loans as they can, too. Don't you think if they're going to cover the loan losses that the loan should be fully forgiven and the people should keep the collateral? After all, the government is paying the loans with the taxpayers' money.


    Don't you get it?

    "Personal responsibility" is for working-class peons. They were stupid enough to take loans they couldn't afford (and if they believed the financial planner who said they could, that's also their fault) and they can't get out of that just because the chickens have come home to roost. They need to take responsibility for their irresponsibility, not have the government come in like a dad whose son spent their tuition money on beer.

    "Too big to fail" is the mantra for the movers and shakers in the finance industry. For one, it's not their money they're screwing around with, so it's not personal. For two, building an entire economic edifice on top of the backs of debtors who can't afford their debt isn't irresponsible, it's simply a calculated risk. Taking risks is what the pioneers did, and it made this country great, so we shouldn't discourage that by making them suffer the consequences of that risk. Besides, these people are important.

    Ahem. Sorry. I'm depressing myself in a thread that should be full of glee.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @05:39PM (#25157957)

    Are any hardcore religion fanatics "entirely sane"

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @05:58PM (#25158187) Homepage Journal

    American fundamentalists != modern Christianity

    That depends on your point of view. If you're an "American fundamentalist" or "modern Christian", I am sure you'll think you're miles apart, but seen from e.g. a pagan point of view, the two are as close as to be near indistinguishable.

    Or, to use the obligatory car analogy, you may think that your Honda Civic Hybrid is very different from a Ford Explorer, but for someone normally flying a plane, the difference is minor. And from the point of view of someone walking or using a bicycle, none of them are eco-friendly.

    A "modern Christian" walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and even floats, so what colour the feathers are is rather irrelevant. He's still a monotheist with a Judeo-Christian belief system that he claims also applies to those not sharing the faith. Show me one Christian that's open to believe that I won't be judged because I don't believe, and I'll be open to change my classification. Until then, I only see various Christian denominations as different flavors of ice cream, and I don't want ice cream, whether it's pistachio or rotten herring flavoured.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpiderClan ( 1195655 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @06:19PM (#25158475) Journal

    In other words, if you aren't willing to learn the differences, then those differences either don't exist or don't matter in any context.

    The GGP claimed that Fox News reflects the views of modern christians because it's popular with said modern christians. The GP pointed out that fundamentalist christians in the US are at odds with the majority of the world's christian population, and that Fox is popular to a small subset of christians. So, claiming that if Fox says it it must represent Christianity is untrue.

    Someone being a monotheist with... as you described has nothing to do with what they think about video games, WMD's or whatever else gets talked about on Fox.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @06:43PM (#25158703) Homepage Journal

    The person who modded this "Troll", exemplifies that there's not a lot of difference, seen from an outside view. A fundamentalist Christian might mod me a sinner or Satanist or witch, and a moderate Christian might moderate me Troll, but in any case it shows off what the Christans share as seen from the outside-- a deep and fundamental resistance to accepting outside views as as valid as theirs.

    From my point of view, there's not a lot of difference, even if there is from where you stand. The difference is that I don't consider you to be trolling for having a different point of view. Please show me the same courtesy.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @06:46PM (#25158747)

    It's just ridiculous how some people try to legislate morality this way. I'm a Christian and I do not like the sexual elements of GTA but that is why I do not own it. It's a choice. If other Christians are so upset with the game don't buy it, raise your kids right and pray more.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @06:50PM (#25158803) Homepage
    And source [122] is reliable because... ?
  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Endo13 ( 1000782 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @07:05PM (#25159003)

    Precisely. You can't legislate true Christianity, it completely goes against the definition of what Christianity is. (For proof, you need look no further than the Catholic church in history to see what the result is of legislated Christianity.) Christianity is about choosing the right path (which is never the easy path). This is also why as a Christian I cannot support religious people (Christian or otherwise) as government officials. It puts a true Christian in a no-win situation. As a Christian, it is your duty to do everything you can to try to show others the way... but at the same time you have to let them choose their own way.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Akita24 ( 1080779 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @07:08PM (#25159055)
    "Are any fanatics entirely sane?" There, fixed that for you. -noun 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @07:10PM (#25159075)
    Yes, make your kids to pray to Jesus.

    Soon they'll be reading the porno mags you keep in your closet. Then, they'll smokin' dope and bangin all of the horny girls at bible camp before becoming disillusioned with praying to Santa Claus every night. Lord help you when your kids pick up their first Dawkins book.
  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairykrishna ( 740240 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @07:46PM (#25159523)
    He's religious and therefore obviously at least slightly delusional and prone to ignoring logic.
  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Foobar of Borg ( 690622 ) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @11:49PM (#25161469)

    Define "sudden", please, since the supreme court was on the case since february 2007..

    When it comes to the supreme court (florida or otherwise), 1.5 years *is* sudden.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sortius_nod ( 1080919 ) on Friday September 26, 2008 @01:05AM (#25161953) Homepage


    Fucking wanktard.

    The simple fact the first scriptures were written in THREE languages, NONE of them English, shoots you down in flames.

    I really can't get over this blind arrogance of fundementalism. You people spend so much time with your heads up your arses that you don't even know the history of your own religion.

    Personally, I'd prefer to live next to middle-of-the-road Muslims than Right-Wing-Wanktard Christians.

  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jascha00 ( 1261000 ) on Friday September 26, 2008 @02:50AM (#25162537)
    From where I stand (in Canada, as a non-religious person), there is a *huge* difference homophobic, judgemental, science-rejecting warmongers and mainstream Christians. I have never met the type of people who picket abortion clinics and tell people they're going to hell. Every Christian I've ever asked thinks creationism is outrageous. The fundamentalism in some American Christians (no doubt exaggerated by the media for ratings) is very much an anomaly. The reason you were modded 'troll' is that you lumped together a lot of decent people with an unpleasant partial subset of Christians.
  • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday September 26, 2008 @07:04AM (#25163769)
    I see we are unfamiliar with the use of sarcasm.

    This is a discussion of fundamentalism. No matter how ludicrous or outlandish a statement may be, someone is going to take it literally. That's kind of the point.

  • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Friday September 26, 2008 @08:24AM (#25164301) Journal

    Whether or not its fair, fundamentalists are seen as representative of Christians for a reason, and that reason is difficult to understand from within a Christian perspective.

    Actually, I don't think they're seen as representative by anyone in, say, Western Europe. If you started foaming at the mouth about how "teaching the controversy" (about evolution,) or putting bible studies back into secular schools, or persecuting homosexuals because "God" told you so, here in Germany (and, I _think_, at least in France too) everyone would look funnily at you and wonder what mental institution did you escape from. The impression even among relatively religious people about the lunacies coming from America in the name of religion, isn't as much, "man, those are real christians, we should be like them", but rather along the lines of, "where did America go wrong?"

    The last time any kind of fundamentalist bible thumping had any kind of street cred in Europe was during the Counter-Enlightenment of the late 18'th and early 19'th century.

    The funny thing is that even, say, the Catholic Church, much as a lot of Americans like to think it must be like their own born-again zealots, actually went a very long time ago through what was called the "counter-reformation" to try to stop the tide of protestantism. They learned to be a lot more laissez-faire about, say, science and even sponsored such orders as the Jesuits. Which were and still are primarily an academic order within the church. Those guys actually run universities and research labs. From the very start, Ignatius de Loyola insisted on an academic education to high standards before one could join the order, in a stark contrast to the stereotype of ignorant and poorly educated clergy of the time.

    At any rate, positions like ID or young earth are as foreign to catholicism as it gets. And that's just one of the denominations which, by and large, just looks funny at the bible-thumping puritans from across the oceans and think at best, "Lord, what have we done to you, to be lumped into the same category as _those_?" ;)

    So, no, the USA fundamentalists aren't seen as representative by any christian except themselves. Just as they're not representative for the larger and more moderate mass of US citizens, I think. (Or hope.) Just because a group is loud and vocal, doesn't mean they represent anyone else but themselves.

    And if anyone else decides to judge, say, the largely secular Europe by what the bible-thumpers in America say or do... well, I guess some things can't be helped. Some people are ignorant and ill educated everywhere, and if they want to believe something that hasn't been true for two centuries, it's not my problem.

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!