Thompson Says Florida Bar Requested Psych Test

MBCook wrote with a link to a GamePolitics story about another chapter of the Jack Thompson saga. Sheila M. Tuma, a person associated with Thompson's Florida Bar evaluation, has requested that the colorful lawyer 'seek psychological testing and accept a 91-day suspension of his law license.'. Though they attempted to confirm this with the Bar, no one was inclined to give the site a comment. "The e-mail explaining the situation was sent to GamePolitics by Thompson himself. The recommendation comes following issues stemming from Thompson's Bully case last year where there were issues regarding his professional conduct."

Comments

What a Goof

[MightyMartian]

The man is a complete nut; an attention-seeking media addict. Who really needs psychological testing are the media outlets that continue to give this lunatic a platform.

Re:What a Goof

[endianx]

Who really needs psychological testing are the media outlets that continue to give this lunatic a platform. Like Slashdot? And you and I?

Re:What a Goof

[Red Flayer]

Who really needs psychological testing are the media outlets that continue to give this lunatic a platform.

Why is that? The media companies that give him an outlet make money off his attention-whoring -- they are acting quite rationally.

The real problem are the people who listen to, and believe, the demagogues -- in Thompson's case, because it's easier than addressing causes of violence other than cultural acceptance of it. This is particularly true of those in positions of power.

Going a little further, the problem (in the US) is that our electoral system + apathetic populace + corporate mass media == positive return on demagoguery. But I really don't want to get sidetracked down that road, so:

Jack Thompson is not a fool; he might even be unstable; but he fights for something he believes in, and does so pretty well, albeit via use of questionable methods. To belittle him is to belittle the effect he has on free speech issues wrt gaming, and that is a foolish thing to do. If you consider him an enemy, you should analyze his strengths as much as his weakneses.

Re:What a Goof

[provigilman]

I actually think it's benificial that /. talk about his goings ons because when it gets out of line we're prepared to deal with the inevitable aftermath that I'm sure most of us see from friends, family, and co-workers who just happened to see some expert on TV the other day who said that....

Talking about Jack Thompson on GP and /. isn't giving him a "platform" anymore than talking about Hitler in history class gives nazism a "platform". This man is attacking our chosen form of entertainment, to ignore him and not talk about his would be counter-productive. 99% of the people reading these stories on GP and /. oppose Jack Thompson's efforts, so shouldn't we be as informed as possible in regards to what he's doing?

Jack Thompson is not a fool; he might even be unstable; but he fights for something he believes in, and does so pretty well, albeit via use of questionable methods. To belittle him is to belittle the effect he has on free speech issues wrt gaming, and that is a foolish thing to do. If you consider him an enemy, you should analyze his strengths as much as his weakneses.

Exactly. To ignore Jack Thompson is to allow him to go on spreading his lies to everyone who listens to him...and before you discount those who listen to him as fools who don't matter, take a look at how many bills he has helped to draft. The parents listen to him and the politicians listen to him, and those are the two groups behind the recent wave of legislation and the anti-videogames movement.

Jack Thompson depends on media support to make his point. If you've ever actually read one of his letters, you would see that it reads like a freaking resume of programs that have had him on and bills that he's helped to draft. If the Florida Bar finds that he has engaged in professional misconduct and that he is an unstable individual incapable of performing his duties as an attorney, then he could probably be stripped of his ability to practice law. Consequently, he would be stripped of his ability to use the media as a tool to his advantage.

Re:What a Goof

[MinutiaeMan]

"The multitude of books is a great evil. There is no limit to this fever for writing; every one must be an author; some out of vanity, to acquire celebrity and raise up a name, others for the sake of mere gain." -- Martin Luther predicts the Internet, ca. 1530

what?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

they want him to undergo psych evaluation and so to prove he's not crazy, he goes and tells the media about it?

yeah, that sounds like a real good way to prove your sanity there, asshole. For your next trick, i suggest a chicken costume while singing opera and walking around daytona beach. That'll teach 'em to think you're crazy.

Fuckwit.

Been done before

[orclevegam]

He's actually been ordered to take Psych test before and he managed to pass them. The guy is a moron, but unfortunatly he's not clinically insane. What will happen this time is probably the same thing that happened last time. He'll go do the test, pass it (although probably give the psychologist giving the test some interesting data to work on), and then make a huge PR event out of the fact that he's legally sane. He's got a few screws loose, but he's not missing any of them so they can't actually diagnose him with anything. They need to just disbar the guy and have done with it.

Eh, this is going nowhere fast

[Steeltalon]

Psychological examination probably won't prove anything and his mental acuity isn't even really the thing that seems to cause problems. It is his professional demeanor or lack of therin. His conduct is unacceptable and his disbarment should be based on that. I'm sure that they're just hoping that he fails in order to give them "solid" justification to get rid of him.

That makes sense.

[Valdrax]

And we dig it just as much as the rest of the world digs Paris Hilton's everyday antics.

Really? I thought that Paris Hilton got so much attention was because there were people who actually liked her.
That argument actually makes a lot more sense than the impression I had.

I don't know. I've never been able to understand celebrity worship.

It all depends:

[Cadallin]

I have some knowledge about State Bar Association Ethics Boards, from first hand accounts. It all depends on what they want to know. In the case I know about, the guy being investigated got to pick two doctors, the Board one. His Doctor's testified that he "was not a threat to himself or others" which is doctor-speak for "I couldn't justify to a judge having him involuntarily committed." It doesn't mean any more than that. Fortunately the Ethics board was well aware of that. When asked if they believed he would do the things things that prompted the inquiry again, they admitted it was possible (in the usual non-committal sort of way, but lawyers, unlike juries, understand what that stuff means). The Board's Doctor said the same things in a more formal kind of way. The Board recommended in their report to the State Supreme Court, that he not have his license ever reinstated (he had already been suspended from practicing law due to his actions).

It really depends on the Board. I think its very possible, given his previous history of warnings in the Florida legal system, that Thompson is about to get slapped pretty hard. They aren't happy with him already. As I said, he's received a number of warnings, and has been removed from cases by judges for his behavior.