Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson Faces Disciplinary Hearing
CoolC writes "Gamepolitics is reporting that attorney Jack Thompson is to face a disciplinary hearing before the Florida Supreme Court. The attorney faces five counts of professional misconduct, three of which are correlated with his ongoing campaign against violent video games. Thompson faces the possibility of disciplinary action up to and including disbarment."
"You're the guy who wants to give (Grand Theft Auto publisher) Take-Two my scalp. You chose to believe people that you knew were thieves and liars, and now you are their useful SLAPP Bar complainant... These are your corporate criminal buddies, Judge Moore. These are the folks with whom you made your bed, the folks whom your good friend said he could fix the case." JT and evidence never have gone hand in hand.
This just proves that Thompson is just an over-hyped nut-job idiot. The fact only 2/5 of these charges have anything to do with video games continues to discredit him in my eyes not only as a lawyer but as a nut who claims that "videogames are evil." Don't get me wrong, I think video-games are awesome, but cameo'ing him in webcomics and screaming his name at people who claim games are evil is like saying all hippies are like Manson, right? This guy's name isn't even worth mentioning in such cases...I feel bad that he has a slashdot article this late in the game even dedicated to him...I don't think its worth it...
Its like saying "lunatic charged of murder cases thinks he should be able to kill people!" Who cares...in both cases its some stupid crazy loon getting what he deserves...
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
In essence I agree with you, sometimes it's better to ignore silly people. But in this case I believe Jack Thompson has quite a following among certain groups of people, if we were to ignore them they might be able to do a lot more damage. Instead, pointing out their flawed reasoning or mistakes such as this and discussing it openly can benefit "the cause".
Perfect is the enemy of done.
He's not been put away yet. And while we're at it, let's not hope for dismemberment, lets hope, that he gets to share a cell with somebody that was put away for a crime that was somehow linked (although incorrectly) to video game violence.
Definitely, but given his history he'll probably sue the Florida Bar (again).
"Daddy, daddy! Teacher says everytime a jackass gets a long overdue punishment, an angel gets an orgasm!"
To describe his conduct as "disgusting" is the understatement of the year. Even outside video games, listening to the things he says (neo-conservative religious freak... I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum, that spells "jackass.") makes me sick.
Disbarment is too good for him, but I'll settle for it.
--What the FUCK?
So, let me get this straight. He sues the Florida Bar Association because he basically says its an evil communist terrorist organization planning to turn everyone gay, and that it's blatantly disregarding the Constitution (Please note: I exaggerate his wording, but either way, it's full of shit) and destroying America.
So he settles for $20,000 out of court. "You're destroying America! Stop it now!" "How about we just give you some money?" "That's fine, too!"
Damn, this guy is the ultimate sleezeball. If you ask me. Jack Thompson is a shining example of everything wrong with America these days (bigoted, sue-happy, uninformed but with LOUD AND STRONG OPINIONS).
If I may quote his Wikipedia article:
"In 1992, Thompson asked a Florida judge to declare the Florida Bar Association unconstitutional. He claimed that the bar was engaged in a vendetta against him because of his religious beliefs, which he said conflict with what he called the bar's pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda."
We may disagree, however, I think this line here pretty much says to me that Mr. Thompson is a huge bigot. He's going for the "persecuted minority" (despite being a Christian, which is hardly the minority) routine. This is incredibly disgusting to me on every level. Is it wrong to wish to see him fact the consequences of his actions?
I admit, we're biased. But we're also human, and we're talking of a man who has personally attacked our character (well, the character of anyone who ever plays games, anyway), our hobbies, and has in general, made himself out to be our enemy, as if he feeds off of animosity. Is it surprising we should take some enjoyment in watching and criticizing his actions, in hopes that they may be his downfall? Sorry if this is a bit of nonsensical rambling, but I see no reason we shouldn't be upset at him.
As much as I'd like to believe that's true, that's not really what this mess is about. And it's important that all involved understand that, because if Thompson was guilty of nothing more than a wildly unpopular - among a certain group, anyway - and conservative worldview, then we'd have no hope of him being disbarred.
No, what this is about is Jack Thompson, a crazy man practicing law. What exact view he presents, and whom he attempts to target with his wild accusations and lawsuits, is not the case here. He's a flat-out frothing-at-the-mouth smearing-shit-on-the-walls lunatic that is nevertheless certified to practice law in Florida solely because the last time they tried this he threatened them with a civil suit.
It's important that the gaming community at large not gloat too much should this go the way I so sincerely hope it does - i.e, that Thompson is removed to a position in society where he can do minimal harm. If we start waving the flags and claiming victory over those who ignore the research and continue to claim that video game violence produces killers, then we risk making a nutjob a martyr, and watching three more spring up in his place. The sensible long-term response is, "regardless of my views on gaming and media censorship, it's good for ALL Americans that this man is out of the discussion, and we can continue to argue for our rights with those opponents who approach the issue with dignity, respect, and above all, sanity."
That's not to say this news doesn't make me happy in my pants. Oh, it does. It VERY MUCH does.
The media has always been where Jack Thompson does most of his "fighting", that he happens to be a lawyer is incidental.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
But... but... can't we PRETEND that he's the example of the everyday neo-conservative uberchristian freak?? I mean, much of the US does that for mid-east terrorists, pretending they're examples of muslims. Why can't I assume Jack Thopson is the official spokesmoron of the religious right?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
"Being conservative does not equate to being stupid"
... is better described as a Liberal; i.e. ... knows whats best for society, and has made it his personal crusade to make the world safe for everybody by changing social laws."
No, but toeing the party line would.
Just so's you know.
"(Jack Thompson)
Hm. You mean like trying to overturn Roe v. Wade? Or perhaps outlawing gay marraige. Yeah. Those damned liberals. Always thinkin' they know what's best.
Seriously. The second I hear 'liberals are like this' or 'conservatives are like that' I know the speaker has immediately gone into an irrational defensive mode.
Jack Thompson is a conservative; he's almost a reactionary. He's trying to use the legal system to 'protect' the citizens from a new form of content, which is a very conservative thing.
The fact that he's a nutjob has nothing to do with that. There are conservative nutjobs and there are liberal nutjobs. Please, accept your own nutjobs. No one else will.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
If you know of an example of his misconduct, and can offer evidence, send it to the Florida Bar.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
that they tried to get someone competent and ended up with JT?
Not all lawyers are media whores like JT, and the few that our are smart enough to stay away from cases like these.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Someone smarter would be just fine - they could be debated on the merits of their arguments."
Not so - someone smart enough to be capable of real media manipulation will dodge any question where logic or evidence will show they're in the wrong. Ole Mad Jack just starts shouting.
That would be disembowelment...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The only reason the Jack Thompsons of our society are even given credibility in the first place is because of all these folks who aren't doing such a hot job in raising their offspring. The kids start acting up but the parents don't really want to take any blame in this, so the Jack Thompsons of this world provide them with a convienient scapegoat; doesn't matter whether that scapegoat happens to be Unreal Tournament, Marilyn Manson or MySpace - just as long as it's anything to give the parents something (other than themselves) at whch to point an accusatory finger. As long as folks are willing to shift the blame for their parental shortcomings (rather than owning up) there will always be another Jack Thompson to make them feel better about themselves (while harnessing this blame-shifting for political reasons, of course).
This space for rent!
Unlike many, I don't actually hate Jack Thompson -- if anything, I pity him. He's trying to do what he thinks is right, even at the cost of his own career, and I gotta admit that that takes balls. However, I do strongly disagree with his methods. Writing caustic, barely-coherent letters to judges and insulting young children on the internet is typically not an advised course of action when you're trying to effect social or legal change. His conduct has been undeniably unprofessional, and for this reason, I hope he gets disbarred.
One thing that we should keep in mind, however, is that crazy old coots like Jack typically don't vanish the moment they lose their jobs (see: Fred Phelps). He'll have a lot more free time all of a sudden, and I expect he will continue to portray himself as a martyr -- a man who sacrificed his own career to protect America's children (and all that drivel). Sure, he won't be as dangerous when he can't blindly sue anything that moves, but I expect that the media will still view him as the resident expert on video game violence.
Oh, but I know there is a difference.
For example, in my own experience, someone who has religion is someone who believes in God/a god/whatever. He follows its principles.
A religious freak is someone who says "I believe this, so follow it, too, or burn in Hell."
There are some key ways to tell the difference. For example, no sane religious person would ever seriously use the term "gay agenda." Mr. Thompson has made it very clear that he's anti-gay, and on a number of occasions spoken like gays are out on street corners, handing out pamphlets to try and convert you.
A religious person finds comfort in his own beliefs. A freak finds comforting in condemning those who don't follow his beliefs.
Part of the reason we don't see many truly religious people in the news is because they're being tolerant and quiet. That's not newsworthy. Some jackass marching down Main Street to have minority group/religion/whatever put in death camps, however, will be plastered all over.
So, Thompson is loud, irritable, stubborn, intolerant, and closed minded. Combine this with his often stated "strong faith" and you've got the model religious nut. Believing in God don't make you nuts. But if you are nuts and believe in God, oh, the shit you can try to pull...
Mr. "5, Informative" said:
>If I may quote his Wikipedia article
You may... but if you're really going to tell us what Jack Thompson thinks, you should quote *Jack Thompson*, who said:
>"wedding of all three functions of government into the Florida Bar, the 'official arm' of the
>Florida Supreme Court, is violative of the bedrock constitutional requirement of the separation
>powers and the 'checks and balances' which the separation guarantees."
from the *same article*.
To paraphrase: A branch of the government, especially a non-elected one, should *never* regulate ITSELF. That actually makes a good deal of sense, don't you think?
I dislike Jack Thompson for his smearing, his wild accusations, and his consistent histrionic bullshit, which can be quoted voluminously (so why quote a paraphrase?), but he is still a lawyer, and he is a *competent* lawyer who understands exactly what's gone wrong with the law.
His tragedy is that he uses that information to get his way, instead of as a point of reform. That's not unique amongst lawyers, because the system does not reward ethical behavior, it rewards whatever sticks to the wall. He knows what's wrong with this country's legal system, and I would welcome his disbarment because it might turn his crusade in the right direction: against that corrupted system.
He isn't a nutjob. People IGNORE nutjobs. He's EFFECTIVE and that bothers us because it shows us how easily the legal system can be manipulated to punish unsubstantiated wrongs.
--
Toro
Because only the ones you agree with and like are "real" christians. Oh the joys of "no true scotsman".
When I say "Christians" I mean people who self-identify themselves as such. Believe me, if I could define people by their actions and not their stated beliefs, there would be many fewer Christians in America. (So, as an example, "Christian" groups who go on and on and on about the "sinful" nature of, say, gays (since I already brought them up). Let's pretend, for a second, that being gay, for some unknown reason, is a sin. What happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged?" By their own faith, they're supposed to leave the judging up to God.
So, yes. True Christians, in my experience, are rare. People who still call themselves as such, however, are not.
At some point each arm of government has a degree of autonomy. Separation of powers means that each arm may not usurp the others, NOT that each arm may not regulate its own activities insofar as they are within the scope of its power.
Oh, and "especially a non-elected one" - you mean one that actually has an incentive to set up favourable rules and regulations to ensure re-election..?
Read Pynchon.
You can slaughter a million people in GTA and still go to heaven. The religious nonsense has got to stop. If Jack Thompson really cares about violence he should be harrassing the president instead, not some kid with a playstation controller.