Jack Thompson To Face Contempt Charge

Gamasutra has the story (by way of the currently-down GamePolitics) that Jack Thompson could be facing a contempt charge over his antics during the Bully fiasco. From the article: "According to the report, the contempt of court request could find Thompson facing jail time, though it is more likely that 'fines, judicial admonishment or censure' would result from this most recent turn of events. The report also notes that attorneys representing the Philadelphia law firm Blank-Rome have filed a 'Petition for Order to Show Cause,' which requires Thompson to illustrate to a judge why he should not be held in contempt."

Comments

Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I know people have the right to freedom of speech, but I wish he'd use his right to remain silent for once!

Re:Rights

[IcyNeko]

Oh yes Oh yes oh yes! Jail that tard.

Is it just me?

[Fozzyuw]

This guy has some issues. Problably from playing too many games as a kid.

Re:Is it just me?

[rjung2k]

"This guy has some issues. Problably from playing too many games as a kid."

I think his problems come from not playing enough games as a kid, actually.

Re:Is it just me?

[Fozzyuw]

HA! From another article linked from the orignal article...

He also commented in the course of his email to GamePolitics: "When kids start showing up in ERs with slingshot wounds at the hands of Bully enthusiasts, don't blame me."

I play D&D and I can tell you... slingshots do crap damage!

Re:Is it just me?

[drinkypoo]

I play D&D and I can tell you... slingshots do crap damage!

Yes, but level 0 children only get 2d2-1 hit points. (No idea really, just making this up - for the one purist who actually knows how many hit points level 0 children get.)

Re:Is it just me?

[Admiral Justin]

I play D&D and I can tell you... slingshots do crap damage!

Yes, but level 0 children only get 2d2-1 hit points. (No idea really, just making this up - for the one purist who actually knows how many hit points level 0 children get.)

They may have low hit points, but they have extremely high stamina and charisma.

Re:Is it just me?

[wgaryhas]

1d4 + 0 to -3 (depending how much their constitution is reduced for their age)

Re:Is it just me?

[Nimey]

He probably had to play with himself a lot.

Hmm.

Every time you masturbate, Jack Thompson sues another game publisher. Please, think of the publishers.

Re:Is it just me?

[goodenoughnickname]

Please, think of the publishers.

But publishers make me horny! What am I to do?!

Re:Is it just me?

[X0563511]

Hmm, whats that noise? A slightly thunderous applause sounding as if just over the horizon...

Re:Is it just me?

[Control Group]

Nah. Level 0 NPCs with a class get an automatic max roll on that class' appropriate hit die. Level 0 NPCs without a class get 6 HP (default hit die is 1d6). Yes, this does mean that a non-classed NPC will have more HP than a level 0 or 1 magic user, but them's the breaks.

At least, that's how it work at my table.

Re:Is it just me?

[hclyff]

Now that you mention it, I think maybe Tim Buckley had it right...

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20050 808

Re:Is it just me?

[Mister Whirly]

"It's as if millions of gamers all laughed out loud at once and then said 'ha-ha'."

Re:Is it just me?

[wgaryhas]

I got stuck thinking about this, here is a more detailed list

for a child -6 to constitution score (I think) so range between 1d4-5 to 1d4 + 1

• 85.30% 1 HP
• 9.38% 2 HP
• 4.05% 3 HP
• 1.16% 4 HP
• 0.12% 5 HP
• average: 1.21 HP

for a youth -4 to constitution score (I think) so range between 1d4-5 to 1d4 + 2

• 69.79% 1 HP
• 15.51% 2 HP
• 9.38% 3 HP
• 4.05% 4 HP
• 1.16% 5 HP
• 0.12% 6 HP
• average: 1.52 HP

for a juvenile -2 to constitution score (I think) so range between 1d4-4 to 1d4 + 3

• 50.00% 1 HP
• 19.79% 2 HP
• 12.62% 3 HP
• 9.38% 4 HP
• 4.05% 5 HP
• 1.16% 6 HP
• 0.12% 7 HP
• average: 1.92 HP

Re:Is it just me?

[budgenator]

yeah extremely high stamina, but charisma, kids? Generally the porblem with their stamina is their lack of charisma; do you have any idea how many questions a sugar-rushed three year old can ask in five minutes?

Re:Is it just me?

[asylumx]

You want slashdot readers to become celibate?

Re:Is it just me?

[Deef]

I play D&D too, and I can tell you... how much damage they do depends a great deal on what you choose to launch with them. (Suggestions: ink, flour, glue, oil, holy water, acid, caltrops, alchemist's fire, thunderstones, poison darts, scorpions, etc.) Add rapid shot and multishot, and it starts to get to be some serious damage. The weapon requires a bit of creativity, but I think hearing the GM say "you're launching WHAT at the monster?!?" makes it totally worth it. :-)

Re:Is it just me?

[the_weasel]

Unless he rolls a 20, of course.

Re:Is it just me?

[SCPRedMage]

With their hands, yes.

Re:Is it just me?

[ultranova]

Yes, but level 0 children only get 2d2-1 hit points. (No idea really, just making this up - for the one purist who actually knows how many hit points level 0 children get.)

In 3.5, level 1 Commoner (adult) gets 1d4 hit points. A slingshot makes 1d3 points of damage (1d4 if used by an adult), so a very lucky kid can take 4 hits before dying, but can die from the first and is likely to die at the second hit.

Of course this all assumes that the kid is really a kid and not a skull child or some other hideous monster in disguise. And there's nothing quite like when the sunlight suddenly gets blocked by a shadow, allowing you to see that the theird markings on the kid you've been making fun of for the past half an hour are really scales, and then noticing that the shadow that's getting bigger all the time really looks like a pair of giant wings ;)...

And the sad thing is that I've never played the game, but just read the rulebooks for kicks ;(.

Re:Is it just me?

[brouski]

And we all know what a low score in constitution Jack Thompson has.

The circle completes...

Re:Is it just me?

[Esion Modnar]

It's called "a disturbance in the farce."

Wow. He has officially flipped.

[MuckSavage]

In an email to GamePolitics, Thompson has responded to this request, writing, "You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."


Jesus.

Re:Wow. He has officially flipped.

[MarkGriz]

"Jesus."

Nope, don't think even Jesus can save him.

Re:Wow. He has officially flipped.

[kinglink]

I was going to quote that because it sounds like he's a bad super villian, or a horrible hero saying stuff like that. He makes Static Shock look like a good idea for "super hero".

Hell, isn't this just another threat? I have used this type of phrase before, but it's usually when every single fact backs me up and usually it's one of those times I'll flame back someone who's completely made fun of me, and willing to scorch the earth. But who actually attacked Jacko? Who made him look stupid in public except himself.

I nominate Thompson, to be known as Wacko Jacko, giving Michael Jackson a rest from the nom de plume. He certainly has the insanity to go the distance.

In other news Jack Thompson is crying bloody murder about the fact Bully allows the main protagnist to kiss boys. Because of this he thinks it has to be a Mature game now? I really think someone has to put his foot down and say "stop bothering us". It can be the press, the public, the politicians, the courts, or the companies. Hopefully this is the first step.

Re:Wow. He has officially flipped.

[Rob T Firefly]

"You want to play hardball...?

No, Jack, I don't. It's a violent sport which, through the constant throwing of small but unyielding missiles toward children, and supplying them with large club-like weapons, would only inspire mild-mannered old me to become a crazed bat-wielding psychopath who goes on a rampage through my school.

Re:Wow. He has officially flipped.

[nuzak]

"You're at the brink..."

The brink? The brink?? The brink of what?!?!

Curse you Jack, for keeping me in suspense! Come rant some more! Please?!?

Re:Wow. He has officially flipped.

[Keith Russell]

IANAL, but I can't see how it could be relevant. Contempt of court usually means the judge said either "Do X" or "Don't do X", and then the person did the contrary in violation of the order.

Well, there's a sort of Zeroth "Don't Do X" Law in any courtroom: Don't go off on a foaming-at-the-mouth rant about the judge's decisions/competence/parentage, or your whiny ass is headed to jail.

Re:Wow. He has officially flipped.

[jasonditz]

Somebody's got to, either Jesus can do it, or Gabe and Tycho can do it. So long as Jack repents.

I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[faloi]

The report also notes that attorneys representing the Philadelphia law firm Blank-Rome have filed a 'Petition for Order to Show Cause,' which requires Thompson to illustrate to a judge why he should not be held in contempt."

But can someone more legally inclined tell me why his response shouldn't be "because I'm innocent until proven guilty"?

It sounds like they've issued a petition to force Thompson to show he did no wrong.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[UbuntuDupe]

Not a lawyer (won't use the abbreviation, because it's gross), but a "contempt finding" is a separate matter from a criminal conviction. Basically, as a means to allow courts to "take care of their business", judges are given wide lattitude in punishments they can use to keep people in line while they're in the courtroom. All that is necessary is that a judge issue a finding of "contempt of court" and he can issue a variety of usually-lower-grade (compared to criminal convictions) punishments. Now, you can certainly say it's wrong that judges should have this power, but as it stands, most contempt findings don't need a jury trial, so to ask that, he'd be asking to overturn quite a bit of tradition.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[Babbster]

Well, it depends on the exact reasoning behind the petition, which the referenced news bite (can't call it an article) admits it doesn't have. For example, if I walk into court and call the judge a flaming asshole, I can be held in contempt of court and put in jail. There's no necessity for my guilt to be proven further because what I did was right there in court and on the record. The same might apply to a situation where a lawyer is under a "gag order" and goes on TV in defiance of the order. That lawyer can be held in contempt and, again, there's no trial involved once the violation of the judge's order is in evidence. Such situations can still be eligible for appeal, but a trial per se isn't necessary for the judge to make the initial decision.

Again, I don't know the details of this specific claim, but there's a reason why many (most?) lawyers want to be judges. A lot of power comes with the robe, even in this age of "mandatory minimums" and the like.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[smooth wombat]

My legal education is a bit fuzzy but your last sentence hits the nail on the head. The petition does exactly what the article states: Thompson has to tell the judge why he shouldn't be held in contempt for doing whatever it is the court told him not to do.

I haven't read the details but for the sake of argument let's say that the judge told both parties they couldn't do media interviews. Jack then turns around and does an interview with a family-friendly web site. That would be a contempt of court issue. The law firm is now trying to force Jack to explain why he shouldn't face whatever penalty the court said it would impose if either party talked to the media.

This is different from whether Jack has been shown to be guilty. In essence, the law firm is telling the court, "Jack did what you told him not to do. I want you to force him to tell you why he shouldn't suffer the penalty."

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

['nother poster]

But it does have checks and balances. There are other judges, and panels of judges, that can, and do on occasion, overturn a contempt citation from another judge. That said, the laws governing the powers of a sitting judge in his courtroom were set by the legislators and the Constitutuon of the United States.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[AceCaseOR]

He tried that when he ran for Florida State Attorney General against Janet Reno and lost. He then tried to get Ms. Reno to admit she was a lesbian being blackmailed by the mob. He failed. He accused her of it (being a lesbian that was being blackmailed by the mob) anyway.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[c_forq]

There is a check and balance system: appeals courts, superior courts, and supreme courts. Now the structure varies state to state, but every state has an system to appeal cases and charges.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[Nimey]

Are you going to scream about activist judges?

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[DDX_2002]

It would be pretty sad if judges DIDN'T have the power to take immediate action against parties to litigation they're hearing and their counsel. Most every system of justice recognizes that courts have the inherent power to control their own processes.

There are plenty of checks and balances, most notably that the normal citizen going about his business is never in a position to be bound by the order so he can't be in contempt of it. If you're subject to the court's order, you're either a party, or one of the parties' lawyers, or a third party that has been dragged in to this mess. Third parties generally don't get orders made against them without the right to appear and argue why the order should or shouldn't go. Usually, people get added to these things when it's a question of implementation of orders made against/between parties - the court orders A to do X for B, but C actually holds the money and isn't doing jack squat without an order requiring them to.

You do occasionally get John Doe orders against any and all people currently illegally occupying a property, or whatever, but they're not especially common outside the labour context and environmental protests.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[nomadic]

Non-elected position having no checks and balances? Gee, where have we heard this before?

a) The judge in this case has been elected.
b) The "check" on this is immediate appeal to an appellate court, which frequently throw out contempt findings.
c) Judges in Florida can be impeached; another check.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[asuffield]

But can someone more legally inclined tell me why his response shouldn't be "because I'm innocent until proven guilty"?

While "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental component of any sane legal system, it's not the only such component. Another closely related one is called "prima facie" evidence. This is evidence that by itself proves guilt if no proper rebuttal is forthcoming from the other party. Once prima facie evidence has been supplied by the plaintiff, the defendant *has* been proven guilty if they cannot rebut it.

While I can't find a copy of this petition to read, it seems likely that it is of the form: "Thompson did these things: [quote from the court record]. This is prima facie evidence of contempt". At this point, it is indeed Thompson's task to show he did no wrong - if he cannot rebut such evidence, then he's guilty. There's no need for a trial to establish whether or not part of the court record is true (the court presumes that it knows what happened in its own courtroom). The judge will review the petition, and if he agrees that it is prima facie evidence, then the only bit left is for Thompson to defend himself.

Re:I dislike him as much as the next guy...

[mstone]

---- But can someone more legally inclined tell me why his response shouldn't be "because I'm innocent until proven guilty"?

Because the motion in question basically says, "here's what we consider to be proof that he's guilty." Now it's Jack's turn to present his side of the story.

The law is an adversarial process. The courts define 'truth' as being any statement both sides agree to allow into the record (though technically they use the word 'facts' rather than 'truth'). Then the judge's decision has to follow logically from 'the facts' and the law.

Both sides in a case have the power to present any facts they want to have put in the record, and both sides have the power to shoot holes in any facts that the other side has put forward for consideration. First one side makes a motion, then the second side gets to make a response. Then the first side gets to state its argument again, taking the response into account, and finally the other side gets to make a second response. Then the judge decides what facts will go into the record, and everyone moves on to the next issue.

In this instance, Take-Two's lawyers have presented a motion that says, "Jack has acted in contempt of court, for these reasons," and now it's Jack's turn to poke holes in their argument.

---- It sounds like they've issued a petition to force Thompson to show he did no wrong.

Courts don't deal in notions like 'did no wrong'. They deal in dates, times, statements on record, and the law. Jack can respond by saying, "I never said that at all, and here's proof," or, "Take-Two took my statement out of context, and in-context it shows no contempt for the court," or he can admit to making the statements and argue about the rules of when judges are allowed to impose penalties for contempt. In fact, he can do all three at the same time. It's called 'arguing in the alternative'.

Regardless, though, this isn't about forcing Jack to prove his innocence. This is just Take-Two presenting an idea to the court, and the court giving Jack a chance to tear down as much of their argument as he can.

That's how the law works.

Prison Sodomy!

[Fuckin ROBOTS!]

Huzzah for the overcrowded US Prison System! JT is certain to have his hoop stretched to an uncomfortable size 9 by someone who was imprisoned for Grand Theft Auto!

Joe Pesci

[Don'tTreadOnMe]

I want Joe Pesci to play Thompson in the upcoming movie, "Game Wars".

Can you imagine Pesci saying, "You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."

Re:Joe Pesci

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine Pesci saying, "You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."

You have no chance to survive make your time.

Come out of the closet, Jack Thompson.

[Tackhead]

> In an email to GamePolitics, Thompson has responded to this request, writing, "You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."

"You don't know the history of barratry! I do! You're just being glib!"

Since "jump the couch" is taken by Hollywood UFO-cultists, I hereby declare that Jack Thompson has officially "thrown the chair".

Re:Come out of the closet, Jack Thompson.

[jb.hl.com]

How about "drank the coffee".

For the love of christ

[Hubbell]

Never before have I advocated a severe beating for another person until I discovered who Jack Thompson was.

Re:For the love of christ

[MarkGriz]

"Never before have I advocated a severe beating for another person until I discovered who Jack Thompson was"

See??! Jack Thompson was right.... look what video games are doing to you.

Re:For the love of christ

[AceCaseOR]

For the sake of irony, it should be with a baseball bat.

Re:For the love of christ

[KDR_11k]

For the sake of irony I'd suggest an iron.

Re:For the love of christ

[WilliamSChips]

Ten thousand disappointing situations, when all you need is an actual irony...

I want to play hardball!

[RyatNrrd]

...but it was banned due to violent content.

This guy clearly.......

[8127972]

.... Needs some hot coffee.

Know who you're dealing with

[ENOENT]

From Wikipedia:

"In sending documents to opponents, Thompson would frequently attach a photocopy of his driver's license, with a photo of Batman pasted over his own, just to make sure they knew who they were dealing with."

Re:Know who you're dealing with

[Firehed]

Only an article on someone like Jack Thompson could make me even consider the idea that that wasn't the result of a page vandalism.

Re:Know who you're dealing with

[Chryana]

Sorry, I tried to mod you funny and I selected troll by accident. I'm just posting so that my moderation will be canceled. Moderators, feel free to ignore me, or mark me offtopic :(

Jack Thompson works for Take 2......

[onkelonkel]

His guerilla maketing campaign for Bully has been nothing short of brilliant. Thanks to Jack, Bully has been at the top of the headlines for weeks and weeks prior to its release.

Well done, I say.

Re:Jack Thompson works for Take 2......

[shigelojoe]

Now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. Take a controversial public figure, pay him to do what he's famous for, and set up a false conflict. Gamers will flock to your product out of spite for your 'enemy', and anyone who's convinced by his rhetoric wouldn't be buying your games in the first place. Genius!

Well, except for the judicial system wanting your head on a pike after they find out you've been using the courtroom as a PR outlet. Nothing a few campaign contributions wouldn't fix, though...

The judge didn't say this - Take-Two did.

[billstewart]

RTFA. This wasn't the judge telling Jack the Dripper to show cause that he shouldn't be thrown in the slammer for contempt. This was Take-Two Games's lawyers filing a motion to ASK the judge to do that. IMHO, it's a bit tacky, but then this *is* Jack Thompson they're asking it about, so he's not in any position to take the high road here.

Re:The judge didn't say this - Take-Two did.

[is as us Infinite]

You are technically correct. However, Take-Two is just pointing out to the judge where Jack had been in contempt and the judge missed it. To continue the GP's example, just because the judge happened not see the media interview that Jack took part of during the trial doesn't make Jack any less in contempt-of-court. It just means that the judge happened to be watching a different channel that night (or maybe the interview didn't air until later, for example.)

Oh, this it too funny

[dthree]

In an email to GamePolitics, Thompson has responded to this request, writing, "You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."

Does he think Blank-Rome is some kind of hick law firm in a backwater town? I seriously doubt they are underestimating what Thompson can "unleash" at any given time. How many different ways does everyone have to tell this guy to STFU?

RTFA - This was the lawyers, not the judge

[billstewart]

This wasn't the judge accusing Thompson of contempt of court - this was Take-Two's lawyers asking the the judge to do that. They rattled Jack's cage, and he snarled at them. If they thought there was any realistic chance of the judge taking them up on it, it *would* have been hardball; the much more normal thing for them to have done would be to file some motion about frivilous lawsuits and ask the judge to award them legal costs. If Jack were a brighter guy, he'd have filed some response about "See, Judge, this just shows what Bullies these gamerszzzz are, and why they're a threat to society", but no, he's just snarling.

(I wanted to write "no, he's just snarling like the shark he jumped" or something along those lines, but you can only twist a metaphor so far, given that sharks don't actually snarl....)

Anyone else getting the idea that..

[DeadboltX]

Jack Thompson must have had some severely traumatizing experience with video games as a child.

Maybe he had a brother that played too much pacman, chowed down on some pills and then ate his mother.

Re:Anyone else getting the idea that..

[evilviper]

Maybe he had a brother that played too much pacman, chowed down on some pills and then ate his mother.

It's her own fault for putting a blue sheet over her head...

i am locution - and bored

[hxnwix]

"You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."

That's pretty contemptible remark there, bully boy. You know, the judge didn't even make his last ruling with prejudice. I think that the next time you are struck down, you won't even be appealing to him anymore. Sure, you'll be able make all the noise you want, but he won't hear you!

One really shouldn't be playing brinksmanship when he has so many holes in case. But really, on the hole, I think this judge is feeling pretty good. Eh hole? Hahahah. Yeah Jack, I'm flaming you. Burn in hell.

So... beautiful...

[Pancake Bandit]

This is the greatest thing I have ever read on slashdot. I have been waiting for years to see him get what's coming to him.

He probably bought...

[NeuroManson]

And actually tried to play "E.T." on the 2600 when he was a kid.

Atari! What hath thou wrought?!