Jack Thompson Facing Disbarment Trial

pwizard2 writes "Gamepolitics reports that controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson faces the start of an ethics trial this morning, a process which could ultimately see him disbarred. The review board has set aside the entire week to hear details on the case. 'Over the weekend, Thompson turned to the Florida Supreme Court in an apparent effort to block this morning's trial from moving forward. In one court filing Thompson asserted that he was willing to accept a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law. The embattled attorney claimed that such an offer had been on the table, but that the Florida Bar was now seeking his permanent disbarment.'"

Comments

Cry me a river

[faloi]

Should've taken the 90 days when he could, it sounds like. With all his antics, I think a disbarment is pretty much in the cards. The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else.

Re:Cry me a river

[radarjd]

With all his antics, I think a disbarment is pretty much in the cards. The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else. Disbarment is considered an extremely serious sanction -- it basically takes away a person's main livelihood, so it's good that it's a relatively slow and deliberative process. The argument, of course, is that a person's actions render him or her unfit to practice. Fraud against clients or the court are generally considered the most serious infractions. That said, it may well be warranted in this case.

As for being admitted someplace else, each state has different requirements, but all have some sort of ethics requirement. Being disbarred in one state is serious enough that it would likely be quite difficult to pass the ethics requirements of another state.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bad for all of us.

Jack Thompson is a "good thing" and if he gets disbarred he might be replaced by someone more intelligent to fight the cause he is fighting.

Someone is going to make a buck off denouncing the horrors of entertainment, and so far that person has been Jack Thompson. Jack Thompson is so inept and insane that he has made no impact at all. With him gone someone else might take up the fight, someone who knows what they are doing and that could be bad.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

lol u tk him 2da bar|?

Re:Cry me a river

[erroneus]

I doubt that. He's an initiating source. He's not acting as a representative for others as far as I can tell. His disbarment would be something of a deterrent for others not to "take his place" so to speak. If there were 'others' the time to "join the fight" has long since passed. He would have welcomed backers for his cause.

Re:Cry me a river

[Jaysyn]

I agree. Submitting gay porn to the court in order to make the attorney that is practicing against you look bad is generally frowned upon.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/26/jack-thompson-submits-gay-porn-to-court-judge-not-amused/

Re:Cry me a river

[Nextraztus]

I also see it as if someone else gets in there and does the same thing, people will just be like, oh look, another Jack Thompson. I doubt anything will really change if he does get disbarred other than we wont have to hear about him as much. Instead, he'll just start writing letters to the editor and blogging, but his creditability will be shot so it wont matter.

Re:Cry me a river

[Sigma 7]

Jack Thompson is a "good thing" and if he gets disbarred he might be replaced by someone more intelligent to fight the cause he is fighting. The replacement, if that person is more intelligent, would be able to do something without being insulting or counterproductive. For example, passing laws that restrict the sale of video games to minors without violating the first amendment. (This would be difficult, but possible if it doesn't restrict the speech in question.)

Furthermore, the replacement would be able to retain allies such as NiMF and Clinton without alienating them on their next concession.

The replacement would know how to deal with horrible games such as Manhunt 2. Simply say they are substandard without dealing with the violence aspect - end of story. As you know, Rockstar didn't hype the game - the media did.

And finally, the replacement would be able to convince people on message boards without being called a troll.

Re:Cry me a river

[jasen666]

If somebody else wanted to do this, they would be. I highly doubt Thompson's existence is hindering that.
He is so inept, that any intelligent lawyer who felt the same way would be trying to take over his role already, because he's screwing things up.

Re:Cry me a river

[michrech]

Actually, since several major media outlets have already used him as an "expert", I have a feeling we'll see just as much of him. Hell, with the way he's acted, I have a feeling he'll turn into a Cindy Sheehan, so to speak. I fully believe he'll gather up a group of similar-minded people to protest everything he can, and I'm sure he'll do everything in his power to keep showing up on news segments after more school shootings.

No, I don't think he'll go away. I think we'll hear even more out of him. "Ohh.. The gaming industry feared me so much that they manipulated/bribed people to get me disbarred!"...

Bah..

I also see it as if someone else gets in there and does the same thing, people will just be like, oh look, another Jack Thompson. I doubt anything will really change if he does get disbarred other than we wont have to hear about him as much. Instead, he'll just start writing letters to the editor and blogging, but his creditability will be shot so it wont matter.

Re:Cry me a river

[Orange Crush]

The replacement, if that person is more intelligent, would be able to do something without being insulting or counterproductive. For example, passing laws that restrict the sale of video games to minors without violating the first amendment. (This would be difficult, but possible if it doesn't restrict the speech in question.)

Remember Mortal Kombat? That's already very nearly happened:

On December 9, 1993, the ax fell and the public federal hearings scrutinizing the ethics of the video game industry as a whole began . . . In an effort to help diffuse the situation at hand, the collective giants agreed to quickly adopt a rating system for threats . . . [Senators Lieberman and Kohl] claimed that, "If you don't do something, we will", and the rating system . . . would eventually become known as the ESRB rating system within a couple of years.

A nutjob (soon to be former) lawyer is much less of a threat than a couple of busybody senators trying to shore up their concerned soccer mom support.

Re:Cry me a river

[LingNoi]

More likely is that he'll get protesters to gather outside the bar and tell everyone that take-two paid the judges to take away his license, because Jack had "got too deep in the rabbit hole!" and now the "games industry black helicopters are after him!!".

Re:Cry me a river

[sumdumass]

Well, the solution would seem to be, Get a couple black helicopters with Take Two or Vice City logos on the side and have them fly around the the disbarment trial dropping 10% discount leaflets a few days into the trial and the day the verdict comes in.

Then maybe he would blow a gasket and get committed to a mental ward after the fact.

Re:Cry me a river

[king-manic]

A nutjob (soon to be former) lawyer is much less of a threat than a couple of busybody senators trying to shore up their concerned soccer mom support. Of course it's not either or, it's both right now. And after there will just be one.

Re:Cry me a river

[sm62704]

The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else.

If he was a doctor he could!

-mcgrew

Re:Cry me a river

[LoadWB]

Accusations of judicial corruption are extremely bold. To make such an accusation without any kind of evidence could land him in even more trouble.

I have no doubt he'll be disbarred. But he won't lose his livelihood -- people like him cannot be silenced without more extreme measures. He'll take to the media, whore himself out as an "expert" in the field, go on the speaking circuit, and find other ways to corrupt to issue. If only his powers could be used for Good.

He'll probably start his own church, piss of the Scientologists, and sudden disappear... :)

Re:Cry me a river

[Sigma 7]

Remember Mortal Kombat? That's already very nearly happened: As I stated, the restrictions have to not-violate the first amendment. The reason this is the case: the recent batch of "violence-as-porn" laws were declared unconstitutional before enforcement, and the government had to cover legal expenses.

A nutjob (soon to be former) lawyer is much less of a threat than a couple of busybody senators trying to shore up their concerned soccer mom support. Correct. However, at the rate of their progression, the senators shown in the link aren't a threat either and merely increased the popularity of the games they tried to restrict.

As you can tell from my posting, the replacement should be intelligent - not someone who tries the same predictable tactic. A great way to do this is not publicizing the bad games unless absolutely necessary (or if it can be done without making it popular).

Re:Cry me a river

[plague3106]

His only credentals are that he's a lawyer. Take that away, and what would he be an expert in? Its not like he's retiring, he's being told he acted unethically. I think anyone would be hard pressed to try to use him as an "expert" anymore.

Re:Cry me a river

[Orange Crush]

As I stated, the restrictions have to not-violate the first amendment.

Ultimately, yes. But even if Congress does pass an anti-violent-video-game law that violates the first amendment, it stands until a court rules it unconstitutional. Add in a few rounds of appeals and we can be stuck with that law for years.

Re:Cry me a river

[nuzak]

Jack Thompson is a "good thing" and if he gets disbarred he might be replaced by someone more intelligent to fight the cause he is fighting.

Yes, and if they conduct their campaign with the same ethics as John Bruce Thompson, they'll be disbarred too. Fred Phelps was disbarred, and he's still the sort of living boundary marker of the religious right everyone can point to. Don't imagine JT will stop making his silly squawking noises either.

Besides, JT isn't just about videogames -- he was an intolerant, intolerable sanctimonious, bullying, pouting, litigous son of a bitch before he ever heard of Grand Theft Auto. He's just getting some richly deserved payback, and that itself sends a message.

Re:Cry me a river

[bigbigbison]

How is Thompson preventing anyone else from hating videogames? It isn't as if it is a real job that only has one opening or anything.
Regardless, it doesn't matter who opposes videogames because there is no solid argument for banning or making laws against videogames in the American legal system. There have been numerous laws passed (Oklahoma, Illinois, St. Louis, Indianapolis just to name a few) and they have all been found unconstitutional.

Re:Cry me a river

[jinxidoru]

Actually, quite the contrary. He has had plenty of impact. Except the impact has all been positive for the gaming industry.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

How many media outlets really use qualified experts? Especially in the science fields. CNN doesn't even verify that call-ins are actually who they say they are, and occasionally you'll get someone who claims the forest fires in California resulted in a gust of wind out of Howard Stern's ass.

I'm sure Take-Two will be disappointed that he may be disbarred, all the free marketing will be gone. I know I bought some of their games on the basis that they infuriate soccer moms everywhere.

Re:Cry me a river

[MosesJones]

each state has different requirements, but all have some sort of ethics requirement

Errr ethics for lawyers? What is the question "would you sell your grandmother for a BMW or cash?" The "ethical" answer being cash as cars contribute to global warming.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Disbarment is considered an extremely serious sanction -- it basically takes away a person's main livelihood, so it's good that it's a relatively slow and deliberative process

Unlike rendition to Guantanamo, eh?

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn... how messed up are you when you can't even pass the ethics requirements to be a lawyer?

Re:Cry me a river

[Lane.exe]

Nah; if the law is challenged, the first thing a competent attorney will do is seek an injunction to the law going in to force to preserve the status quo while its constitutionality is challenged. Prior restraints on speech (of which such a law would certainly be one) are presumptively invalid and the government bears the burden of proving their constitutionality.

Re:Cry me a river

[LrdDimwit]

I have read the opinions in question. I am not a lawyer, but it is fairly clear these laws will never be upheld, no matter how they're phrased. Any kind of restriction on speech based on its content triggers the First Amendment, and in order to uphold such a restriction you have to prove a) a very compelling interest, b) that the restrictions are directed at, c) in the least restrictive way possible.

To prove this, you basically would need unshakeable evidence the games directly cause violent behavior. Not the 'agression studies' that have been done so far, the kind of murder-simulator stuff Jack spews. First, I believe this will never happen -- because it's just not true. Second, supposing it WERE true, would you really object to regulation?

Re:Cry me a river

[Jeremy Erwin]

Considering that a lawyer may (conceivably during my lifetime) be privy to my secrets (attorney client privilege), control my finances (trust funds),, act as a representative for my interests in negotiations, or be called upon to explain or negotiate contracts, I'd want someone who could keep a secret. could refrain from embezzlement, and keep his or her cllient's interests at the forefront.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Accusations of judicial corruption are extremely bold. To make such an accusation without any kind of evidence could land him in even more trouble.

Unless being disbarred provides a very large bucket of cold water, I just don't see this stopping him. Look at the situation right now: he is being disbarred because (amongst other things) he accused a law firm of distributing porn without any kind of evidence. I think that not only could he make such an accusation, I think his apparent schizophrenia makes it inevitable.

Re:Cry me a river

[mr_death]

Disbarment is considered an extremely serious sanction -- it basically takes away a person's main livelihood

Given all the crap he's been shoveling, I'd say he'd do fine as a ditch digger. 'course, he'd have to lose the $3000 suit.

Re:Cry me a river

[Wakko Warner]

the potentially dangerous outcome of all this is he gets disbarred and becomes a lobbyist, a senator, a spokesman, or some other position that doesn't require any actual skill, morals, or license but which gives him even more opportunity to waste everybody's time. it's not like he's going to give up the fight because of this.

Re:Cry me a river

[ScrewMaster]

but his creditability will be shot so it wont matter.

His credibility is already shot (beyond repair, even), and has been for some time now. That hasn't made much difference in terms of his media exposure, since those boys don't really care much about quality journalism anymore. If they did, he'd never have gotten ten seconds of airtime. However, he is bombastic and sensationalist, and the media folks just eat that right up.

You only have to look at Jesse Jackson to see how that works. Matter of fact, I believe that Jack Thompson received personal tutoring in the art directly from the Reverend himself.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Sand niggers don't count.

The Great Bush has informed us that they are subhuman.

Re:Cry me a river

[The Evil Couch]

Unlike rendition to Guantanamo, eh?

Guantanamo, a.k.a. Godwin v2.0.

Re:Cry me a river

[elrous0]

Lawyers are a shady enough lot to begin with. But when one goes completely rogue and starts using the courts to openly harass, he deserves no sympathy.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, sounds like if he was disbarred he would be perfect for Congress...

Or maybe Florida Secretary of State.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo. He can always work as a greeter at Wal*Mart

Can't wait

[Orleron]

Good riddance to bad bible beaters.

Re:Can't wait

[renegadesx]

I'm no theologian, nor am I a christian but isn't there one part of the bible that says all men are sinners? and another saying no sinner has the right to cast the first stone?

Would that make Wacko Jacko a hypocrite when he calls himself a christian activist?

Re:Can't wait

[ByOhTek]

One thing I've found is typical: the louder they preach, and more specifically, try to force it on others, the less they practice. Although this is not an absolute, Jack is not one of the exceptions.

Re:Can't wait

[Commander South]

Romans 3:23 All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Re:Can't wait

[ScrawnyPaleGuy]

A comment above this one lists those verses. However, there are other verses that basically tell Christians to let others, Christians and otherwise, know when they're making a mistake. Additionally, there are several references to living the right life and letting your actions speak for you. Say it once so that people know what you believe, then live it and show them that you mean it. The most powerful verse for these interactions may be, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another." The general idea, if I read it right, is this: "Do what is right, and encourage others to do the same. However, do not be so foolish as to think that you, yourself, are without blame." IANATE (I'm no theologian either.)

Re:Can't wait

[ScrawnyPaleGuy]

NOTE: The above comment does NOT endorse Jack's actions. It simply tries to clarify _where_ he might have gone off the deep end and provide context. FWIW, I think that his actions have completely destroyed any vestiges of credibility he may have once had and left many others who may share similar beliefs, i.e. Christians in general, looking much worse for his nutty actions.

Re:Can't wait

[Shakrai]

One thing I've found is typical: the louder they preach, and more specifically, try to force it on others, the less they practice.

There's an "offensive" fortune (fortune -o) that goes something like this:

Christian: A man who apologizes to his lord for the sins that he committed yesterday and those that he is going to commit tomorrow. One who feels that the Bible is a divinely inspired book, quite well suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.

Seriously though. I'm not Christian and never will be, but it would seem to me that real Christians would give more then lip service to Jesus' arguments in favor of the poor and downtrodden. Hell, he even came out against creditors and usury. Instead they'd rather rail about the evils of gay marriage and the "War on Christmas". *sigh*

Re:Can't wait

[montyzooooma]

Look hard enough and you use the bible to justify virtually anything.

Re:Can't wait

[pedestrian crossing]

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone

And then a stone came flying out of the back of the crowd and hit Jesus smack in the forehead.

Jesus picked himself up off the ground and grumbled, "Mother..."

Re:Can't wait

[MBCook]

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

I hate that quote. I don't think I've ever heard someone use it correctly in real life. It's a warning against being a hypocrite. It does not mean that if you have ever messed up you don't have the right to criticize someone else. It means don't tell people stealing is wrong when you just took a five finger discount on a stereo.

I'd also like to point out, it is only about hypocrisy. If you used to steal, served your time, repented, are sorry, etc.. it's OK to tell other people stealing is wrong if you have learned not to and are not doing it now. You are not condemned forever for your one sin.

Re:Can't wait

[KDR_11k]

It's from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary.

Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

Re:Can't wait

[dosius]

Look hard enough and you use the bible to justify virtually anything.

Doesn't mean that it *does* justify it, and most of the time a closer reading will reveal otherwise. But a lot of people who thump the Bible don't really read it.

-uso.

Re:Can't wait

[sm62704]

Pat Robertson has converted far more Christians to athiesm than atheists to Christianity.

My sins have been paid for and are forgiven. In return I must forgive others who harm me. Seems a fair enough deal to me, since I'm imperfect. If I was a banker or a lwayer or a $5000 suit-wearing preacher I might have cause to worry.

Re:Can't wait

[sm62704]

Yes yes and yes

("slow down cowboy it's bee 8 seconds since you hit reply" grumble grumble... ironic that only on slashdot, "news for nerds" are you punished for reading fast and typing fast.)

Re:Can't wait

[stratjakt]

You are incorrect. Even if you've done your time for your theft, and learned your lesson, you have no right to "throw stones" at a current thief.

If you were given the chance to redeem yourself, then they deserve it too.

Re:Can't wait

[plague3106]

Obviously with THAT attitude you are not a Christian!

Re:Can't wait

[GlL]

Actually, It is a lot more than a warning about being a hypocrite. It is a warning against passing judgement. While I agree that it is OK to tell people that something is morally wrong and even to attempt to dissuade them from committing an action that we perceive is morally wrong, we are not God's police force. God is perfectly capable of enforcing his law and needs absolutely no help from us.

Re:Can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, I thought it was the Muslims that couldn't take a joke!

Re:Can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not Christian and never will be, but it would seem to me that real Christians would give more then lip service to Jesus' arguments in favor of the poor and downtrodden. Hell, he even came out against creditors and usury. Instead they'd rather rail about the evils of gay marriage and the "War on Christmas". *sigh*

I am a Christian (of sorts), and I totally agree with you. Nearly every high-profile so-called Christian is a hypocrite who has betrayed every principle of the religion in order to gain power, fame, or money -- and an easy way to spot such anti-Christians is to listen for them denouncing gay marriage, evolution, etc.

It's interesting to observe that there is no record of Jesus ever even mentioning homosexuality. On the one sole occasion where he was called upon to speak out against other forms of sexual immorality, he flatly refused to do so.

There is a very simple message to be drawn from this: anyone who believes that what Jesus said was in any way divinely inspired, must accept that God has better things to worry about than which organs people choose to rub against one another.

Re:Can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was a banker or a lwayer or a $5000 suit-wearing preacher I might have cause to worry.

If I was a $5000-suit-wearing preacher, I'd be more worried by things like "One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor."

If Christianity is true, then anyone who uses it to make himself rich or comfortable is going to have a very nasty surprise waiting for him: "Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented."

Sometimes I wonder if these super-rich superstar preachers ever bothered to read the Bible they pretend to love...

Re:Can't wait

[freakmn]

Come on, give him a chance. As a Catholic, I thought that was extremely funny.

Re:Can't wait

[mr100percent]

That's because America is religious, but not 'religiously literate.' People will tell you they love the bible, but don't know what it actually says.

Re:Can't wait

[Anzya]

So true.
And I belive that the only one in NT who has anything to say about homosexuality is Paulus who did it after he visited Rome. The most common form of "homosexuality" in Rome at the time was what we now days would call pedophile.

It's said to see how much influence Paulus got and how he changed. He started as an reformed farasee and preached the equality of men and women and basicly over the years changed back to being a farasee.

Re:Can't wait

[sm62704]

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Re:Can't wait

[renegadesx]

Actually the "dont be a hypocrite" thing is when the alleged Jesus upped the pharasies calling them hypocrites because they grew some morals and realized killing disobedient brats is wrong.

"And thus make the word of god of none effect by your tradition, ye hypocrites"

Re:Can't wait

[renegadesx]

On the war on christmas stuff. I am supprised Fred Phelps and his loony bunch arn't launching a "God Hates Christmas Trees" campaign citing Jeremiah 10:1-5 as there reason.

WHY?!

[Bromskloss]

How can you post this without mentioning why they want him barred?

Re:WHY?!

[EveryNickIsTaken]

So.. "Because he's a douchebag" isn't an ample reason?

Re:WHY?!

[coolGuyZak]

Legally, no.

Re:WHY?!

[Bromskloss]

Legally, no.

Are you sure? How about dismemberment?

Re:WHY?!

[Asic Eng]

Here is some helpful info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney) From their page:

In February 2007, the Florida Bar filed disbarment proceedings against Thompson over allegations of professional misconduct. The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them.[115] According to the complaint, Thompson accused attorney Cardenas of "distribution of pornography to children," claimed that the Alabama judge presiding over the Devin Moore case "breaks the rules, even the Alabama State Bar Rules, because he thinks that the rules don't apply to him," and sent a letter to Blank Rome's managing partner, saying, "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.

Re:WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1170928966137

Apparently he's unprofessional. How surprising.

Re:WHY?!

[1001011010110101]

For some reason I read dismemberment instead of disbarment in the article summary and I was all like "whoa".

Re:WHY?!

[Jaysyn]

Submitting graphic gay porn to the court docket (which is publicly available information) without the permission of the court & to make an opposing lawyer look bad, is generally a bad idea. He's pretty much fucked considering he's already pissed off the judge who will be presiding over his disbarment.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/26/jack-thompson-submits-gay-porn-to-court-judge-not-amused/

Re:WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith

The world would be a better place with less "faith" of all brands.

Re:WHY?!

[sammy baby]

Sorry - minor quibble. It's disbarred. The "bar" here refers to a body of people legally recognized as being permitted to practice law - in this case, the Florida Bar.

Re:WHY?!

[mqduck]

According to the complaint, Thompson accused attorney Cardenas of "distribution of pornography to children," claimed that the Alabama judge presiding over the Devin Moore case "breaks the rules, even the Alabama State Bar Rules, because he thinks that the rules don't apply to him," and sent a letter to Blank Rome's managing partner, saying, "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith. I hate Thompson as much as anybody, and he may well deserve to be disbarred, but I don't think it's fair to do so for the reasons stated. He didn't invent claims out of nothing, he made interpretations of real things that were quite, uh, inflammatory. His reasoning was ridiculous, but not patently absurd. There's a logic to them that can't be categorically called false.

Re:WHY?!

[ag0ny]

For some reason I read dismemberment instead of disbarment...

You obviously play videogames too much.

Re:WHY?!

[Donniedarkness]

OBJECTION!

Re:WHY?!

[oahazmatt]

I hate Thompson as much as anybody, and he may well deserve to be disbarred, but I don't think it's fair to do so for the reasons stated.

You don't think it's fair that someone be punished for slander or libel about the distribution of child pornography?

Remember, until some evidence proves otherwise, it is an unfounded claim.

Re:WHY?!

[Tom]

He is Jack Thompson. What else do you need to say?

Re:WHY?!

[ls -la]

He didn't accuse them of "distribution of child pornography," he accused them of distribution of pornography *to* children. Not the same thing at all.

Re:WHY?!

[garett_spencley]

I'm not picking sides here. Only making a correction. None of his accusations went anywhere near CP. He accused the guy of distributing porn to minors. A very big difference between the two.

Re:WHY?!

[bckrispi]

^No, but it's still a Felony in many states.

Re:WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Christian, this troubles me. In my experience, the 'real' Christians are the people who build your houses, mop your floors, pick up your garbage, etc. I must admit a certain amount of skepticism when someone does something and proclaims it's because they're a Christian. If something is worth doing, what does that have to do with it? Just do it and be done with it. Good deeds shouldn't be advertised, they should just be done for the sake of doing them. (Not that I am familiar enough with this guy to know if what he's up to could be considered 'good', it sounds like probably not.)

Re:WHY?!

[Torvaun]

Faith is fine, zealotry is the problem. Faith is when religion prompts people to do the right thing and live their lives in pure and wholesome ways. Zealotry is when you tell everyone else what they should be thinking and doing, while simultaneously thinking and doing the things you're speaking out against.

Re:WHY?!

[plague3106]

No, you're way off the mark. The only way to "distribute porn to children" would be to actually hand them porn. That's not what the law offices did, they defended their client.

Re:WHY?!

[PhoenixOne]

Yes, but it is still slander. I think that lawyers that knowingly lie in a court of law should not be allowed to practice.

Re:WHY?!

[nuzak]

Disbarred. He's currently a member of the Bar, they want him off. Where the name "bar" comes from is something an actual lawyer will have to chime in and tell you. Probably an abbreviation of "barrister", though I don't know what that means either.

Actually, the specific sanction they're looking for isn't publicly known. But he's been up in front of the disciplinary panel before, and there's supposedly 50 separate ethics complaints, from different states, including claims of lying to clients and judges. I imagine the complaint is on pacer somewhere, but I'm too lazy to look for it right now (and pacer gets expensive whenever Jack Thompson is involved due to his love of numerous rambling polemic filings)

Re:WHY?!

[cpt kangarooski]

Where the name "bar" comes from is something an actual lawyer will have to chime in and tell you.

In England, all barristers traditionally are members of one of the inns of court. The name is fairly literal: they're the inns in London where lawyers tended to congregate, live, have their offices, etc. Nowadays, as I understand it, they're big enough to be akin to a college campus. Anyway, so they would have a hall in which students were on one side, and the barristers and judges who ran it were on the other side, and there was a railing dividing the hall in two. When a student graduated and was allowed to practice, he symbolically crossed to the other side of the railing.

At least, this is what I've heard; we don't really have anything like this in the US, and it seems pretty odd to me. Perhaps there are some British lawyers who could go into more detail. As for non-common-law countries, I have no idea.

Re:WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, woah. Don't bring me into this. -- God.

Re:WHY?!

[oahazmatt]

While we're splitting hairs on the issue, I will admit that I did misread the content. It has been a long few days with very little sleep.

Re:WHY?!

[dpiven]

Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.

I suggest Mr. Thompson read up on the Gospel of Matthew, noting especially Chapter 22, and remember whose park he's in and whose ground rules he's playing under.

Re:WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, douchebag.

Re:WHY?!

[mqduck]

You don't think it's fair that someone be punished for slander or libel about the distribution of child pornography? I don't get it. What I very clearly said is that it can't be categorically called incorrect. I'm not POSITIVE about the meanings of slander and libel, so maybe it still counts (which is pretty silly). If I'm wrong, please correct me.

(Also, what sort of asshole modded me down for my comment? I don't even LIKE the guy. Yikes.)

Re:WHY?!

[Anonymous Coward]

He himself distributes pornography in his filings to the court which become public record. The record is open to all, ergo he distributes pornography to children himself. Hypocrite.

Re:WHY?!

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Well, both should lead to an extensive beating followed by castration through the "2-bricks"-methode.

Re:WHY?!

[mollymoo]

I hate Thompson as much as anybody, and he may well deserve to be disbarred, but I don't think it's fair to do so for the reasons stated. He didn't invent claims out of nothing, he made interpretations of real things that were quite, uh, inflammatory. His reasoning was ridiculous, but not patently absurd. There's a logic to them that can't be categorically called false.

It's not that what he said is categorically false, it's that it's not categorically true, which is what he claimed. He didn't say "I suspect..." or "I have information which may suggest...", he said "X has done [very serious illegal thing]" with essentially no evidence, certainly no proof, that that is the case. For a lawyer to make claims like that, they had better be very fucking sure they're right and able to prove they're right.

Re:WHY?!

[Darby]

Faith is when religion prompts people to do the right thing and live their lives in pure and wholesome ways.

No it isn't.

Faith is blind belief in the unprovable with no evidence or reason.

Now in very rare situations it actually works out the way you say, but that's the exception, not the rule.
If that weren't true, then there would be a lot of good and little evil done for religion instead of reality which is the opposite.

Zealotry is when you tell everyone else what they should be thinking and doing, while simultaneously thinking and doing the things you're speaking out against.

No, that would be hypocrisy.
That is also the rule with few exceptions among those of faith, but it's a different thing.

Re:WHY?!

[CopaceticOpus]

...and I was all like "whoa".

You obviously play videogames too much.

Re:WHY?!

[Workaphobia]

Cue "You must be new here...". Thompson is the most blatantly childish, condescending, self-righteous, illogical, idiotic, opportunistic, and biased lawyer known as a public figure. His arguments are absurd and unfounded (my favorite was when he accused Will Wright of cooperating with the porn industry to distribute it to minors), yet he still attracts a ludicrous amount of attention and spreads FUD about the issues of violence and sexuality in games and other media. He makes it a point to generate as much legal uncertainty as possible about any given situation by distorting the intent of the law, so as to try to intimidate his opponents; this rarely succeeds as, to any rational individual on the planet, his arguments are transparently flawed and harmless. He also doesn't know a damned thing about IP law - I heard him confuse trademark and copyright on a radio show, and I was left to wonder what areas of law he can actually demonstrate competency in.

About time

[godfra]

This idiot is pushing his own short-sighted moral agenda and abusing his standing as an attorney to do it. He does not deserve the veneer of credibility that is currently afforded him.

I hope he starves.

Re:About time

[jcr]

Sorry to nit-pick, but it's not a moral agenda. It's a self-aggrandizing agenda.

-jcr

Re:About time

[sm62704]

Minor correctiuon... his agenda is not moral.

Re:About time

[camusflage]

He does not deserve the veneer of credibility that is currently afforded him.

So let's say he is disbarred. That doesn't, nor should it, preclude him from representing himself in court. Now, calling himself an attorney may be a bit of a stretch, if he isn't admitted to practice in any of the fifty states. Same with lawyer. He could say he's a "law-talking guy", but that doesn't seem to carry the same credibility that attorney or lawyer are afforded. He could (assuming he successfully completed law school [which is not a prereq to sitting for the bar exam in all states]) say he holds his J.D., which is something that can't be taken away.

In a nutshell, while he won't be able to offer legal advise to folks who have been "harmed" by video games, he is still, as a private citizen, perfectly free to sue whomever he pleases for whatever reasons, sad and demented they may be, he sees fit. He can still send nutter letters to congress. He can still file complaints with the FCC. Most importantly, he can still act like a total asshat. The only restriction being disbarred places upon him is the inability to act like an asshat while representing anyone other than himself.

Re:About time

[atraintocry]

The great thing about Thompson is that he manages to combine the two seamlessly. Not that he's really innovative there.

Re:About time

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

This idiot is pushing his own short-sighted moral agenda

So are you. The difference is that he just happens to be an attorney, which is no reason why he shouldn't speak up.

dog may lose it teeth

[techpawn]

But he'll still seen as an authority on the topic of video game violence. Just because he can't bring or be a lawyer for these lawsuits the media companies will still talk to him and use him as a face man.

Re:dog may lose it teeth

[cskrat]

Without his ability to practice law, I can imagine him running the talk-show circles for whatever he can get.

"Free buffet lunch and airfare, count me in." -- Jack Thompson in the near future.

which platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

So which platforms is this game coming out for? I can't wait to plunk down 60 bucks for a chance to smack Jack Thompson around.

Re:which platform?

[ByOhTek]

He's facing a disbarment trial, not a crowbar trial!

Re:which platform?

[LiquidCoooled]

Well whats wrong with hitting him with 'dis bar in my hand or 'dat bar over there?

Re:which platform?

[cthulu_mt]

He's facing a disbarment trial, not a crowbar trial! So its a Half-Life 2 mod? I'd rather use the Gravity Gun and a toilet, but what the heck.

Re:which platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they separate the men from the boys at Jack Thompson's house?

With a crowbar!

Save Jack!

[poena.dare]

Jack Thompson is one of the best things ever to happen to Penny Arcade, the ERSB, Gaming Journalism, and communist pedophiles who make snuff films. He makes such a spectacular punching bag that we need to keep him around. Be warned, the guy who ends up taking his place might have a clue, and then we'd be fucked.

Re:Save Jack!

[Neotrantor]

a clue about what? what are you implying??

Re:Save Jack!

[aadvancedGIR]

Don't worry, in the end, Gabe and Tycho will save him by making a donnation to the Crazy Attorney Fund in his name and he will react by suing them for extorsion.

Re:Save Jack!

[Aladrin]

A clue about the legal system and the best ways to win unreasonable cases.

I seriously doubt the poster meant that Jack is correct in his lawsuits.

Re:Save Jack!

[fefranca]

Agreed, also Capcom would be forced to cancel their next DS game.

Re:Save Jack!

[spleen_blender]

Except for the fact that we're aren't and haven't done anything wrong.

Re:Save Jack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, that's what all communist pedophiles who make snuff films say. Didn't fool the great McCarthy, and you won't fool Jack, either!

Re:Save Jack!

[poena.dare]

Exactly!

Good grief, nobody wants someone that crazy to be a good litigator!

Suffer the Pucks for they displace the Torquemadas.

Well almost...

Re:Save Jack!

[Bandman]

I always hear people saying this, but I don't agree. I just can't.

The arguments aren't flawed because of the people spitting them forth. The arguments are flawed because the premise is ridiculous.

Video games don't turn impressionable kinds into raving maniacs any more than ultra-violent Warner Brothers cartoons did, or playing cowboys and indians did. The premise is flawed, but there's money to be made and TV time to be had in putting it forth, and there will be as long as scare tactics are used to cajole an uninformed public.

  No, don't worry about whoever replaces Jack in this fight. The next person will look just as ridiculous, but it'll be because of what they say, instead of how certifiably crazy they are.

Re:Save Jack!

[king-manic]

Jack Thompson is one of the best things ever to happen to Penny Arcade, the ERSB, Gaming Journalism, and communist pedophiles who make snuff films. He makes such a spectacular punching bag that we need to keep him around. Be warned, the guy who ends up taking his place might have a clue, and then we'd be fucked. There is room for many nut cases in the US. The fact no one has shown up seems to show he won't be replaced.

Re:Save Jack!

[sm62704]

Jack Thompson is one of the best things ever to happen to Penny Arcade, the ERSB, Gaming Journalism, and communist pedophiles who make snuff films

How about a clown/policeman/big brother/preacher/child molester? Yes, I'm referring to Klutzo the Clown who was recently tasered to death in the Sangamon County Jail (links to news articles included in that journal).

Somehow I was amused as hell and thought you guys might be, too.

Re:Save Jack!

[nuzak]

> extorsion

Is that when someone untwists your knickers?

Re:Save Jack!

[Lord Apathy]

I agree. This is a sad day for the gaming industry. Think about it, without Jacks ringing endorsements how would we know which games are really, really good? I mean even with all the positive review and all my friends raving about it , I really didn't think I would be interested in GTA until Jack started croning about it.

So here's to jack. So long asshole, you did good.

Re:Save Jack!

[soup_laser]

I can hear it now...
"Next on FOX News Jack Thompson, 'former Florida lawyer and expert on violence in video games', weighs in with his opinion..."

Re:Save Jack!

[Kingrames]

If the guy replacing him had a clue, he wouldn't be replacing him.

Re:Save Jack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, he was frothing at the mouth about Manhunt 2, which just isn't a very good game.

He was also Howard Stern's bete noir, and that guy's never really been funny.

Re:Save Jack!

[RealGrouchy]

Be warned, the guy who ends up taking his place might have a clue, and then we'd be fucked. Clue or no, he still won't have a case.

- RG>

Re:Save Jack!

[Hercules Peanut]

The arguments aren't flawed because of the people spitting them forth. The arguments are flawed because the premise is ridiculous. Are you sure?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/

Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20070124/Feature1.asp

Despite what these readers say, many scientific studies clearly show that violent video games make kids more likely to yell, push, and punch, says Brad Bushman. He's a psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Bushman and his colleagues recently reviewed more than 300 studies of video media effects. Across the board, he says, the message is clear. "We included every single study we could find on the topic," Bushman says. "Regardless of what kids say, violent video games are harmful."
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/new_viol/videos_brain.html

Recently released medical studies indicate that violent video games damage the brain, possibly permanently.
It's funny how this much evidence proves global warming but the link between violent video games and violent behavior is still a myth.

I think the saddest thing here is that the above comment got a 5 for insightful when the facts seem to clearly contradict the statement. Is it because we like video games that we ignore the facts and promote the fiction?

Re:Save Jack!

[Bandman]

Alright, since you brought it up:

Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.

In those studies, they specified that the youths responding adversely to video games were already aggressive, or otherwise disruptive. It's in the first sentence of the actual report, if you don't want to rely on MSNBC's scaremongering.

Despite what these readers say, many scientific studies clearly show that violent video games make kids more likely to yell, push, and punch, says Brad Bushman.

Reading this paper he produced for Iowa State University, it seems that
many types of violent media produce identical reactions (2nd column, 1st page), and that video games are only the "most recent type of media violence to come under the research microscope". Again, scaremongering.

Recently released medical studies indicate that violent video games damage the brain, possibly permanently.

Actually, if you read the link you pointed to, it uses the exact same study as the first post you linked to, and even mentions the same shortcomings. Regarding Mr Akio Mori's study, according to him, the risk is to gamers in their "earlier years", people who shouldn't have access to the kinds of violent video games that are suggested to cause these problems. I found the quote here (page 13, left column).

As I've effectively countered your claims with only mild Google research, feel free to reply with further arguments, or admit that the ill effects of video games is largely the fear they cause unfamilar adults.

Re:Save Jack!

[Hercules Peanut]

Regarding Mr Akio Mori's study, according to him, the risk is to gamers in their "earlier years"...
and
...many types of violent media produce identical reactions So you are agreeing, conditionally and saying you countered my claims.

I link to sites reporting that it does damage.

You respond that it does damage in "earlier years" or that it does the "same damage as other violent forms of media". You didn't counter anything, you've just agreed with me.

Again, the saddest statement here has nothing to do with the facts, you state a popular side of the story and are modded up, I state an unpopular (but founded) side and I am a troll. I'm on topic and backing up my statements with sources. You don't have to agree but reaction around here is pretty sickening and shows that we are not open to discussion on the subject. When that happens good things rarely follow.

I think the next Jack Thompson could have a very dramatic impact on the industry.

Disbarment?

[Commander South]

Whoa, I thought that said dismemberment when I first read it...

Re:Disbarment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that could be arranged, too, I suppose...

Re:Disbarment?

[rgo]

Maybe someone has played waaay to much Manhunt 2 lately.

You can thank that Thompson doesn't hang around here, cause I bet Thompson would sue Rockstar for adding subliminal messages to the game that make people want him dismembered. The weird thing is that I firmly believe that Rockstar are capable of doing that kind of thing.

Re:Disbarment?

[jamstar7]

I'm thinking that'd be a case of 'too little, too late'. They shoulda done it before he had the chance to breed.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on him doesn't give any family details, so there's no way to assess the damage done to the gene pool.

Re:Disbarment?

[Lord Apathy]

Is that a little wishfull thinking I smell?

Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Heir Of The Mess]

I'm not sure about this, I mean really it's not like he's truly evil, I know other lawyers who really are truly evil, the worst kind of people, who I think should burn in hell. Jack is someone who felt they found their cause in life, it's just that his cause positions him such that he's an opponent to those who partake in the enjoyment of action games. Yes he's an annoyance, but take away they guy's career completely, especially when there's such worse out there practicing law. Wouldn't just some kind of restraining motion to limit his outbursts be sufficient? I mean really he's been fed by the media to a certain extent. Should he lose his right to practice his profession? Is there truly joy in seeing your opponent defeated as such?

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[gEvil (beta)]

Do you feel that people should be held accountable for their actions? This disbarment trial is due to specific grievances that have been filed against him. If he is found guilty of those, then he loses his license. It's not like this is something that "just happened" to him. This whole process is a direct result of actions that he has chosen to take.

As for your "I mean really he's been fed by the media to a certain extent" comment, remember that more often than not, he sought out the media as a platform to pound his chest (and bible). Again, his actions, not anyone else's.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I believe that evil is attempting to forcibly impose your beliefs on others and/or force others to behave according to your beliefs. I feel that JT meets this definition.

The fact that he's not trying to kill people only makes his actions less heinous, it doesn't make him not evil.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Asic Eng]

Well if he states stuff like "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." He shouldn't be surprised if that firm defends complains about him. On top of that, he is trying to take away some of our freedoms, so I understand why he is not getting any sympathy.

Should he lose his right to practice his profession?

I don't know - it's up to the bar association to decide that. Lawyers are in a powerful position - there need to be checks so that they don't abuse that position to reduce the freedom of their fellow citizens. I don't have the impression this works particularly well in the US, so I appreciate if the bar association tries to uphold some standards. I hope they do it in a fair and equal manner, and if that's the case I'm ok with whatever he gets.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[jcr]

I mean really it's not like he's truly evil

Yes, it is. An evil person, by definition, is one who does evil things. Thompson seeks to impose his values on others through malicious, frivolous litigation, slander, and harassment. That's evil, even if he himself believes otherwise.

-jcr

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Hatta]

The road to hell is paved by good intentions. I'm sure Hitler and Stalin thought they were doing what was right for their people too.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[NickFortune]

Jack is someone who felt they found their cause in life, it's just that his cause positions him such that he's an opponent to those who partake in the enjoyment of action games.

Interesting. His actions may be motivated by his faith, but his actions appear to routinely involve lies and deceit and it is these activities for which he is being called to account.

I have to say, your defence of the man sounds an awful lot like "the end justifies the means" to me. Is that what you really mean to imply?

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[SanityInAnarchy]

I mean really it's not like he's truly evil

Yes, he is. His actions speak for themselves -- and I don't mean just because I disagree with his opinion, I mean I despise his methods.

I know other lawyers who really are truly evil, the worst kind of people, who I think should burn in hell.

And so is he.

Now, I wouldn't condemn anyone to burn in hell, if there were an alternative. But this isn't hell, it's only unemployment.

Jack is someone who felt they found their cause in life, it's just that his cause positions him such that he's an opponent to those who partake in the enjoyment of action games.

I'm an opponent of people who require and produce DRM. That doesn't mean I'm willing to slander, sue, and outright lie every chance I get. Jack is willing to do all that and more.

Yes he's an annoyance, but take away they guy's career completely, especially when there's such worse out there practicing law.

Oh, I agree, there are worse who should be gone. But that doesn't excuse Jack.

Wouldn't just some kind of restraining motion to limit his outbursts be sufficient?

We tried that. He violated his restraining order.

Should he lose his right to practice his profession?

Yes, absolutely. Not because I'm vindictive, but because the way in which he practices his profession reflects poorly on the whole profession -- and that's saying something, when we're talking about lawyers. And because there are people who will take him seriously simply because he's a lawyer -- say someone goes to him for legal advice. Should they have to suffer just so Jack won't have to find a new job?

Say it was murder. We don't always jail people to punish them -- sometimes, we jail people because they are actually a danger to society.

The only remaining question is why it took so long.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[mabhatter654]

the grievances listed by various posters seem to be for abusing court proceedings (that he is often not a party to?) to attack judges and lawyers personally following their LEGALLY assigned duties and not the plaintiff or the case or the issue at hand. Many of the things seem to be in the line that a lawyer doesn't have the right to defend the case, and he's filing abusive, unsolicited motions to prevent the lawyers from presenting evidence, because the defendant is "morally" bad and doesn't deserve Constitutional defense... completely out of line for a lawyer and they ALL know this.

These are far more legally specific, serious accusations than his suits being "frivolous" that we bellyache about here. These are beyond the realm of "opinion" and it's judges and lawyers that are brining the charges, not slashdotters.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[spun]

Even Mike Godwin thought he was doing the right thing, but his so-called 'Law' is obvously just the sort of fascist crap Hitler would come up with.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Percent Man]

malicious, frivolous litigation, slander, and harassment. That's evil

Yes it is - but be careful that you don't list seeks to impose his values on others as an evil characteristic alongside the others you mentioned. Seeking to impose our values (honesty, forthrightness) on another (Jack Thompson) is what this disbarment case is all about. The imposition of values of ethics, morals, religion, tolerance, what have you, onto others is done every day by every person of every culture. Even saying, "You can't force your values on me!" is an assertion of our value of freedom against another's wish to compel us.

I'm not saying that you have called seeks to impose his values on others "evil," just a caveat.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Anonymous Coward]

>Is there joy in having your opponent removed

Hell, yes.

Next question?

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[jcr]

I think you're a bit confused about the definition of "impose", particularly when that imposition is done by slander and malicious litigation. Preaching is fine and dandy, I can ignore it trivially. Litigating is another matter altogether.

-jcr

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[OptionalMayhem]

He's a bad lawyer, i.e. he makes procedural and ethical mistakes.
He said things, in court and in the media, that are slanderous/libelous.
Why should he continue to practice law?
OTOH, at least he can get work at FNC.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[sm62704]

Yes, it is. An evil person, by definition, is one who does evil things. Thompson seeks to impose his values on others through malicious, frivolous litigation, slander, and harassment. That's evil, even if he himself believes otherwise.

"Tou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Slander is one of the "big ten", right up there with thievery, adultery, and murder. I may hire the occasional prostitute (hey, I'm single) but JESUS!!! I'd say this guy was evil if it weren't for the injunction against judging others...

-mcgrew
(formerly owner/webmaster of the Springfield Fragfest Quake site... anybody still remember me after all these years?)

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Anonymous Coward]

s/Hitler/Chaney/
s/Stalin/Bush/

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, it is my understanding that the bar has emptied their toolbox trying to work this out. They have given him warnings, specific instructions and legal orders to follow the bar's code of conduct but he has consistently decided to ignore those instructions. He has left them no choice but to accept his behaviour or to disbar him.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[nuzak]

I'd agree that there's such a thing as a good moral code, but I think you'd have to agree there's a difference between legislating a repressive moral code on society at large versus enforcing a code of conduct on an individual ostensibly agreed to it beforehand.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack is someone who felt they found their cause in life, it's just that his cause positions him such that he's an opponent... to streetwalkers that value their own lives...

Oh, I'm sorry, it's Jack Thompson, not Jack T Ripper we're talking about... I'm sorry, but if you believe it's ok to do something most people find repugnant if you do it out of strong religious convictions, then you must believe the actions of most terrorists are perfectly ok too... after all, they're only killing people in order to defend their faith!

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Thompson seeks to impose his values on others through malicious, frivolous litigation, slander, and harassment. That's evil, even if he himself believes otherwise.

Yes, but people who seek to cut through the deeply laid foundations of sin by any means necessary are not evil, even if you believe otherwise.

Of course, I don't actually believe that, but then again, I don't truly believe yours either.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[mazarin5]

s/Hitler/Chaney/
s/Stalin/Bush/ Leave Lon Chaney out of this!

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Hatta]

Sometimes Godwin's law gets in the way of making a valid point. This is one of those times. The people we think of as evil hardly ever think of themselves as evil, and quite often their motives are just and good. It doesn't make their actions any less evil.

I wish you slashbots would think a little before modding troll.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[spun]

Hey, don't blame me! I never get mod points anymore. I thought it was stupid to mod you troll, too. And people don't even know Godwin's law, all it says is that given enough time, all threads will reference Hitler. That's it. You don't 'lose' the argument by mentioning Hitler.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Hatta]

Oh I didn't mean you specifically, you couldn't have modded me down since you commented of course. Actually I quite like your contributions to /., yours is one of the few nicks I recognize and enjoy seeing here. But anyway, I'm going home.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[DragonWriter]

Should he lose his right to practice his profession?

Practicing law is not a right. It is a privilege, one that includes several subsidiary public privileges, and which is contingent upon ethical behavior. And gratuitously and without just cause accusing other members of the profession of distributing pornography to children, among the other things Thompson is charged with, is clearly far out of the bounds of the ethical requirements that go with that privilege.

Anyhow, he'll no doubt get a job as a public spokesman for the same causes he's always championed, which seems to be as much of his "profession" now as the actual practice of law. There's no ethical requirement for being a public propagandist, so he'll have no problem there.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[Heir Of The Mess]

Your's is the most sensible reply. I get your point, and if JT is giving lawyers a bad name ...which is hard to say without smirking... then he should be tossed out of the club so to speak. Of course if this happens he might pop up again as a media correspondant, or as a member of some political lobbying group :-( but I guess that's life.

The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[SmallFurryCreature]

The 90 days disbarment was an 'offer' from his side, it has NOT been offered to him, so it was not HIS to take but rather the bar's(?)

The fact that he tried this, suggests he really is worried. He might have good reason.

He is making lawyers look bad, yes "they replaced rats with lawyers in lab experiments, because the scientists don't bond with them like they do with rats" lawyers and I can't help but feel that NOT finding him guilty won't make them look any better.

I think he will go down on this. Offcourse that won't stop him, just because he is no longer a lawyer doesn't mean he can't speak up.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[TubeSteak]

I think he will go down on this. Offcourse that won't stop him, just because he is no longer a lawyer doesn't mean he can't speak up. It means he can no longer speak from a position of *authority.
I imagine this will make him much less popular on the talk show circuit.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Examples_of_appeals_to_authority

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

What does appeal to authority have to do with Thompson's antics?

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[iminplaya]

I imagine this will make him much less popular on the talk show circuit.

He'll be great for the National Inquirer. Or he could start his own talk show. He could be the next Wally George.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[sumdumass]

National Inquirer? That could be a bad thing. The National Inquirer has a large readership base that is more along the lines of believing the hype he puts forth. Aliens, Elvis, Monika all were/still are alive and well because of the National Inquirer at one time. It would be like asking "Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me" (homer Simspon)

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[Tom]

I think he will go down on this. So do I. I'm fairly sure this is the kind of hearings that you don't even open unless you are fairly sure of the outcome already.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[nomadic]

I think he will go down on this. Offcourse that won't stop him, just because he is no longer a lawyer doesn't mean he can't speak up.

It also doesn't mean he can't represent himself pro se, which I believe is how his crazier lawsuits were handled.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[rahvin112]

You don't get disbarred for making lawyers look bad, lawyers in general always look bad because one side always loses. You get disbarred for ethical violations. His use of deliberately misleading, unscientific and downright false data in his lawsuits along with frivolous and baseless lawsuits simply apparently only for press attention is what's going to bring him down.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[netruner]

Someone with a law background correct me if I'm wrong, but being disbarred just means that he can't represent other people in court. IIRC, you can always represent yourself with or without a law license (no matter how bad an idea it is).

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read your own link?

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[nomadic]

Someone with a law background correct me if I'm wrong, but being disbarred just means that he can't represent other people in court. IIRC, you can always represent yourself with or without a law license (no matter how bad an idea it is).

Yep, pretty much. In a very few cases a court will issue an injunction against particularly annoying pro se litigants (like the kind who file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits) prohibiting them from filing anything without it going through a lawyer first, but this is rare.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Yep, pretty much. In a very few cases a court will issue an injunction against particularly annoying pro se litigants (like the kind who file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits) prohibiting them from filing anything without it going through a lawyer first, but this is rare. Now who do we know that might file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits I wonder?

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[nomadic]

Now who do we know that might file dozens or hundreds of frivolous lawsuits I wonder?

It has to REALLY be bad, though. I've only seen that done in the case of severely disturbed individuals who file delusional, conspiracy-laden complaints, stuff that makes Thompson's stuff look sane by comparison.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[rtechie]

just because he is no longer a lawyer doesn't mean he can't speak up. It's a big deal, because it means he can't legally threaten the games industry anymore.

The only reason these threats go through at all is because Jack Thompson is willing to risk is reputation and career as a lawyer to pursue them. I seriously doubt that he'll be able to convince another lawyer to do the same.

Also, being disbarred is an ENORMOUS hit on someone's reputation. A lawyer who is disbarred no longer can speak as a legal authority, and there is a general assumption that he's a "bad person" because he must have done something bad to be disbarred. Every singe interview he has from now on will mention it.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[adminstring]

One more thing that will get Thompson disbarred: repeatedly picking fights with judges.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[iminplaya]

That could be a bad thing.

For us, yes, but not necessarily for the Inquirer. You certainly are right about the followers being more dangerous, though. The leaders are powerless without them.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[Dread_ed]

I take the contrary viewpoint.

He will probably lose what is left of his mind if he gets disbarred. Since sensationalism is so much easier to pull off when you have gone totally batshit crazy and because nothing sells ad spacce on talk shows like ranting nutballs with controversial opinions, I expect he will make quite a good living going on talk shows.

I mean who wouldnt tune in to see him go all Balmer on some EA Games rep.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Thompson's stuff look sane by comparison. Now that's just plain disturbing. I can't say that I've ever been bothered to look at his career but even over the past few years that I've seen him in the media spotlight, he's only gotten more delusional and "conspiracy theory"-laden.

Huh, I just noticed that 'conspirarcy' has 'piracy' in it... coincidence?! ^>^

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[Tetsujin28]

IIRC, you can always represent yourself with or without a law license (no matter how bad an idea it is)

True enough, in most circumstances a person can represent himself. Bar admission is what allows one to work for others as an attorney. If Thompson isn't too busy trying to make a living at some other trade, he can spend his time filing suits pro se.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[mink]

Fred Phelps managed that one.

Go on, admit it.

[Sponge Bath]

Everyone here initially and wishfully read that title as "Dismemberment Trial".

Re:Go on, admit it.

[Sockatume]

Dibs on his heart, I want a perfect black body for some physics demonstrations.

Re:Go on, admit it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think dissmemberment! Hours of playing those violent video games have made you an ultra violent threat to others. You are proof that what thompson says is true!

Great!

[clang_jangle]

So that's one (nearly) down, just a few million to go. Well, it has to start somewhere...

One down...

[thomas.galvin]

Now if we can just get the lawyers for the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone in Washington disbarred, we'll be on to something.

This trial

[Fx.Dr]

Jack Thompson's trial has been rated 'M' for imMature

May contain sniveling, whining, pandering and groveling.

Online experience may vary and is not rated by the ESRB.

Re:This trial

[powerlord]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Slim PSP ... $170
Manhunt 2 for the PSP ... $30
Plane ticket to Miami ... $300
Car Rental while in town ... $200
Playing Manhunt 2 in the Gallery while Jack Tompson gets Disbarred ... Priceless.

Why is he being disbarred? Because...

[syn1kk]

I would have to guess that he is being disbarred because he continues to come to court with a case that is not based on substantial evidence and is not supported by the law.

1.) He tries to put the ESRB in court for selling games to minors. But the ESRB has nothing to do with selling games to minors. The retail store is responsible for not selling games to minors. Yet he doesn't go after the retailers. I'm not sure why.

2.) He tries to stop the game "Bully" from being released in Florida / Miami. But the case he brought to court was basically 'the content of this game is bad we need to censor the content by not releasing it'. First, he was wrong that the content was not that bad. Second, he was wrong because you can't just censor something just because you deem it 'bad'.

-----

I think the real reason for disbarment is because he is advocating Censorship on a specific type of media as opposed to Censorship on content. He thinks that just because something is in the form of a video game it is bad... he doesn't actually look at the content of the media.

-----

Oh ya and there is the fact that all of his claims that 'video games negatively affect society' have no scientific foundation to stand upon.

Re:Why is he being disbarred? Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're misunderstanding the situation entirely. Thompson is in disbarment proceedings because of complaints made by other lawyers *and* judges because of his actions in court. It has little to do with the basis for his cases, and everything to do with the way he is pursuing them.

It is kind of like saying that the inmates that run the prison are trying to decide if Jack needs to be locked in a cell because of his consistently bad behaviour.

This is definitely one of those "You know it's bad when..." moments.

Re:Why is he being disbarred? Because...

[KDR_11k]

1.) He tries to put the ESRB in court for selling games to minors. But the ESRB has nothing to do with selling games to minors.

Additionally there is no law that prevents selling M rated games to minors and it has been ruled unconstitutional to enforce that.

Re:Why is he being disbarred? Because...

[Plaid Phantom]

If you could give a nice reference for the latter, I would greatly appreciate it.

Re:Why is he being disbarred? Because...

[KDR_11k]

There have been a crapload of laws trying to enforce some kind of age limit, every single one was struck down. There was a list on Wikipedia I think. One specific case is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Association_v._Foti but I can't find a comprehensive list at the moment. I wasn't referring to stores deciding not to sell to minors BTW, only laws forcing them to obey any ratings. Why it's legal for porn to be restricted but not violence I don't know.

Re:Why is he being disbarred? Because...

[Plaid Phantom]

Awesome. Thanks!

It was a fair question...

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's obvious why they want him disbared. The question is, why did anyone let him pass the exam in the first place -- in other words, why did anyone want him bared?

Re:It was a fair question...

[jamstar7]

Because, like all lawyers starting out, he was a nobody back in the day. They had no clue he'd turn out the way he did. The Bar isn't a bunch of fortune tellers, they're a bunch of fortune stealers.

Re:It was a fair question...

[Lord Apathy]

Some one mod this fucker up. This is the most Insightful thing I've seen in days.

Woah

[Scorpion265]

How is this not front page news? I mean, this is amazing!

Only if we're wrong.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I imagine no one who had a clue would seriously consider replacing him.

obligatory

[austinpoet]

Fatality!

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, "FATARITY".

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling his possible disbarment may be due to his unusual (nigh unorthodox) practices. "Gimmie a copy of your game for free before its release or I'll sue you" doesn't sound like something lawyers could be able to do. If it is, I'm switching over to law school, damnit.

So Jack's having trouble with the Florida Bar...

[Minwee]

Does that mean it's Tuesday again?

Ahahaha

[Machine9]

and also

HAHAHA

and further

EL OH EL.

you must feel pretty moronic now eh Jack? or is this just another "great injustice" ?
Get it through your fat head, you're an asswipe, and everyone hates you.

Owww

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Trying not to imagine a visual of a bared Jack Thompson.

BE careful

[hey!]

You may find yourself agreeing with him inadvertently.

It's not really about his agenda. A lawyer can, if he wishes, pursue an agenda of turning the US into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. It's not unethical for him to believe this would be a good idea.

What's unethical is pursing his agenda -- any agenda -- by illegal means.

Mr. Thompson would love us to believe he is being targeted for his agenda, specifically for being what he calls "a Christian". Apparently this version of Christianity does not involve observing the commandment about bearing false witness. However a Constitutional right such as freedom of religion or expression is not a license to break the law.

Re:So Jack's having trouble with the Florida Bar..

[PhxBlue]

Inasmuch as Tuesday ends with "day," yes.

Re:Parent needs moded informative.

[Technician]

I read the article. I am not too much into games. I was going "Who is this guy and what did he do to get into this mess?" The parent mentioned the event. I remembered the event, not the name attached to it. Thanks for the information the article is lacking and the link. It saved me from having to do a Google search.

You see?

[xENoLocO]

I'm hoping he gets disbarred then offs himself violently... that way, gamers can show the world what we're *really* about by merely cracking up at the notion.

Re:You see?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson might be a dick but its that kind of attitude that makes people think he's right. I hope that was your attempt at some sick joke. I too hope he gets disbarred not because he's against video games, no one could make a gamer look more sane than Jack Thompson, but because he's running a muck of the legal system

Oh PLEEEEEASEEEE be the anti-game authority!!!

[PhoenixOne]

An easy to discredit 'authority' of video game violence.

"Interesting point Mr Thompson, but isn't true that you have been found in a court of law to be a habitual liar? One who will say any crazy thing to try to push an agenda?"

Re:Oh PLEEEEEASEEEE be the anti-game authority!!!

[techpawn]

If you're invited to a debate or a talk show that's pushing an agenda to be an expert on a topic after all of this, more than likely those questions about it won't get brought up or if they are they'll be spun to make it look like the video games are to blame.

Re:Oh PLEEEEEASEEEE be the anti-game authority!!!

[PhoenixOne]

In which case it doesn't matter if the use The Pope or Kermit the Frog.

This is also why I *hate* news-as-entertainment. They figure out which "truth" will sell the most ad-space and then collect only the "facts" that support it. But this is a rant for another day...

But hopefully, video game laws will be passed in a Court of Law and not "Fox 'News'". In which case, Thompson's rants should hold as much water as a slotted spoon.

This just has to be said:

[Azuma Hazuki]

*Ahem:* WAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHA!

I hope the bastard gets disbarred, and good riddance; he's one step away from Fred Phelps levels of idiocy. The collective IQ of the lawyersphere will go up several points. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Re:This just has to be said:

[CompMD]

You bring up a good point. While we're at it, let's see about having everyone in the Phelps family disbarred also. I don't think anyone would complain, and the Kansas Bar will be far more respectable.

Re:This just has to be said:

[Azuma Hazuki]

I just got modded 0, Flamebait for this. Since WHEN does Jack Thompson hang out on slashdot anyway? I didn't know he knew how to use a computer! ...or was that Fred Phelps?

So who's going to lead the crusade now?

[Mr_eX9]

It was kind of nice having an ignoramus like Jack Thompson as a loud voice in favor of video game censorship. Nobody can take a lunatic like him seriously--he hurts his cause every time he opens his mouth.

Sad thing is, I don't think there's anybody else moronic enough to fill his shoes should he be disbarred/discredited. Does this mean that anti-game laws might actually pick up steam?

Motivated by his Christian faith?

[cpu_fusion]

> "Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith."

I wonder which part of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" he doesn't understand.

Funny how nearly all of our public figures who espouse Christianity (including the guy in the White House) conveniently forget these teachings.

Well, Christ is said to have gone willingly to the cross. I wonder if Jack will follow that example? It looks like he's trying to cut a deal with those he perceives as his Pilate.

I hope he gets a reprieve and rethinks his tactics to achieve what is arguably a reasonable goal (decreasing the exposure of children to violent games.)

Sorry to bring up religious philosophy in a tech discussion board, ;-)

Re:Motivated by his Christian faith?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to bring up religious philosophy in a tech discussion board, ;-) Don't worry, that's never stopped kdawson.

I've got my fingers crossed!

[neo-mkrey]

No signature -- just a typeture.

I don't get it.

[anlprb]

He is fighting for something he believes in. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him and I think he is causing more harm than good. Why go after him, when there are lawyers out there who will get an obviously guilty man off for double murder even with DNA evidence pointing to him doing it. Ohh, and by the way, my gloves don't fit when I have a rubber glove on either, especially after they have shrunk due to being soaked in a liquid and dried. I want that lawyer disbarred. So, get a murderer off on a technicality, he is a hero, try to remove an evil (perceived by him) and improve society, disbar him. Gotta love it.

Re:I don't get it.

[Zorque]

He's not facing disbarment because he doesn't like video games, he's facing disbarment because of the way he acts. His numerous ethics violations make the Bar Association and lawyers in general look really bad, as well as contributing to a frivolous lawsuit-happy society.

Re:I don't get it.

[danzona]

He is fighting for something he believes in.... Why go after him

You are entitled to believe what you want to believe of course, but I think that most of the rest of us here do not believe that he is fighting for something he believes in.

We think he is an arrogant self aggrandizing douche who will remorselessly take advantage of tragedy and the sorrow of others in order to make himself more famous.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, get a murderer off on a technicality, he is a hero, try to remove an evil (perceived by him) and improve society, disbar him. Gotta love it.

You're absolutely right, fuck all this stupid procedural shit, lets just go back to lynch mobs.

Re:I don't get it.

[hyades1]

Forgive me for saying so, but perjury, evidence-tampering and claiming accurate results from a crime lab almost as sterile as a bus station toilet aren't "technicalities".

Re:I don't get it.

[Stray7Xi]

Yea, lawyers shouldn't defend people they think are guilty. In fact lets just skip trials all together, waste of tax money when a noose is cheap.

Re:I don't get it.

[Steve B]

He is fighting for something he believes in.

His ego.

Re:I don't get it.

[chrismcb]

"obviously quilty?" The defenders are just doing their job. And they are doing it legally. Just be glad that there are compentent defenders out there if you are every accussed of doing something wrong. If you really feel that the defendant is quilty, then the fault lies with the prosecutor and the police, not with the defender.

I was hoping for a dismemberment trial

[cylcyl]

That's what I thought the title said initially when I was scanning thru

Suicide Linked to Gaming Industry

[happyfrogcow]

Jack will commit suicide after being disbarred, then come back to blame the gaming industry for the suicide.

You mean like...

[Poromenos1]

Jack Thompson walks into a bar, and the bartender yells "get out, you!"?

Reeeeaalllly.....

[Cervantes]

Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.

That's right folks. You can be a douche, as long as you do it in the name of Christ. Jack Thompson confirms it.
Douchebaggery == bad
GodDouchery == good

As much as I disagree with him...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... it'd be a shame to see a public figure with genuine ethical convictions leave the public spotlight.

Re:As much as I disagree with him...

[MozeeToby]

Oh please god I hope you're joking. Mods, please, please mod him funny. I'm begging you. His "genuine ethical convictions" includes slander, libel, illegal munipulation of evidence, not to mention making copious amounts of homosexual pornography freely (and even legally) available to children.

Re:As much as I disagree with him...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I never said I liked his methods or his message, I just thought it was a refreshing change of pace to see someone who publicly and proudly holds beliefs that isn't just what he thinks others want him to believe.

Re:As much as I disagree with him...

[TubeSteak]

... it'd be a shame to see a public figure with genuine ethical convictions leave the public spotlight. If he gets disbarred, that'll be the only ethical conviction he has.

Maybe you meant moral convictions?
They're two very different things.
You can have moral convictions without being ethical.

Re:As much as I disagree with him...

[GTMoogle]

I've yet to see any evidence that either he or almost any publicly religious official actually hold the beliefs they state.

It's not really any wonder that politicians love a block of voters that believe anything you say because you say you believe a book. Or in Jack's case, audience attention that gets him paid air time on major news networks.

An example:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/mysterious_case_of_ethical_myo.php

sucks to be a dumb asshole, donit?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're such a disgrace to fl bar they need to disown you now.

Thomps. still to enter plea in most supreme court

[gd23ka]

Jack will commit suicide after being disbarred, then come back to blame the gaming industry for the suicide.

In accordance with his christian believes, Jack Thompson will lie peacefully in his grave awaiting the restoration in flesh on Judgment Day. He might point out a couple of people while they drag him to that fiery lake of damnation but that should be it.

Disbarment != no livelyhood for lawyers.

[Anonymous Coward]

All being on the bar does is allow you to practice law in a courtroom. One can still do lawyerly things that do no involve acting like Matlock. Example, teaching. There are MULTITUDES of law profs who have never set foot in a courtroom, and yet are the ones training the new crop of lawyers. Tax lawyers, patent law, etc. And quite frankly, trial lawyering is really a small part of the law scene.

Re:Disbarment != no livelyhood for lawyers.

[radarjd]

All being on the bar does is allow you to practice law in a courtroom. That is absolutely not true, at least in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar. For example, the Indiana Code prohibits "engag[ing] in the business of a practicing lawyer" in addition to "conduct[ing] the trial of a case in a court" and "profess[ing] to be a practicing attorney" IC 33-43-2-1. It is true that you can teach without passing the bar, but of the jobs you mentioned that's the only one.

Re:Disbarment != no livelyhood for lawyers.

[Tetsujin28]

All being on the bar does is allow you to practice law in a courtroom.

That's not correct.

In every jurisdiction I'm familiar with -- and I'm admitted to practice law in three of them -- being disbarred means a lot more than not being allowed to practice law in a courtroom. It means you can't hold yourself out as an attorney or practice law in any capacity. That includes negotiating contracts, providing professional legal advice, and all the other things attorneys do outside of court.

Just to clarify, a lawyer is someone with a law degree. An attorney is someone admitted to the bar -- that is, licensed to practice law, in or out of a courtroom.

Sure, there's no rule saying that a disbarred lawyer can't teach law. But I doubt many law schools would be eager to hire a lawyer who was kicked out of the bar. (To say nothing of Thompson, who is also notorious for being a bullying, authoritarian git.)

-T.

What's the definition for "Muslim"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you or Bierce has the brass balls to say it.

Re:What's the definition for "Muslim"?

[KDR_11k]

I already tried to look it up, no entry. Wouldn't be surprised if it had been a copy-paste with the names changed. It's pretty US centric (and written from 1881 to 1906) so there are entries for Mormons and such but not Muslims.

A person who represents himself...

[bikin]

has an idiot for a client.

Never better said.

Mostest impotent threat evar ;)

[Moraelin]

Well, seriously, he AFAIK doesn't actually work as a lawyer, his wife works.

So it's basically sorta like taking my AA sergeant rank away. (Yeah, technically I'm a reserve one.) Who the fuck cares? I haven't had anything to do with that in just short of 20 years, it's not my source of income, and I never was that good a soldier to start with. Short of a world war starting, it will never make any difference. Yes, go ahead. Take it away. Please.

It's like that with Jack Thompson and lawyer work. He hasn't actually done anything lawyer-related in ages. He doesn't make a single cent out of _that_. Even if he were to go back to it, anyone with any money would want a lawyer with, you know, any experience at all in the last decade. So he'd have to work his way up from doing cases for broke drunk drivers, and have his... colourful reputation working against him at every step.

And, yes, all this being an arse-clown in public might actually work against him, if he goes back to working as a lawyer. I don't care what the shrink examination said, if I ever have a lawyer representing me, the _last_ one I'd want is the guy who's been faxing people his drivers' licence with Batman's head pasted as the photo. I can't be the only one.

Yes, I'll accept pot-smoking admins, schizophrenic coders, IT guys who never grew past the teenage rebellion years (even when they're in their 40's), etc. But if my freedom or life ever depended on a lawyer, I'd want a _sane_ one, dammit. Same as if I ever needed surgery, I wouldn't want the surgeon who's spent the last decade and a half running around with pencils up his nose thinking he's an airplane.

So what would it mean to him, if they disbar him? Well, great. His kid is eventually going to grow up, and his wife will ask him to resume working. As what? As the lawyer with a reputation for acting like a completely deranged lunatic that lives in his own funny world? Disbarring him might actually do him a favour.

Disbarment = surgery

[Luketh]

I didn't RTFA but I can only hope and assume that disbarment is an exciting new medical procedure where doctors will endeavour to remove the very large stick from Thompson's rectum.

Rectum? Damn near killed'im.

Disbarment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I keep reading the title as "Jack Thompson Facing Disembowelment" or "Jack Thompson Facing Dismemberment?" Either I've been listening to too much death metal, or video games *do* cause violence. Nah, this guy really is just an annoying prick and needs to just go away... to put it extremely mildly. Words cannot express my hatred for this man.

Thoughts of violence are caused by many things... and in my experience, video games are not one (unless you count hitting the wall or some other inanimate object after missing the high score). On the other hand, Jackass Thompson is quite good at causing violent thoughts to race through my mind with his sheer stupidness and pointless attacks on games.

Rockstar should have put a model of him as one of the enemies in Manhunt 2, preferably one of the tougher ones... it would be an EXCELLENT way to relieve anger. And as long as Mr. Jack keeps opening his mouth, there will be a continuing need to take it out on something.

Hopefully this disbarment goes through, and he loses his power to screw us over (Manhunt 2 delay and censorship, anyone? Luckily there are cheat/hack devices are out there).

I sure hope you double majored or at least minored

[XNine]

in something else in college. Cos if this sticks, Jacky-boy, you're pretty much fucked. I think I might be able to get you a job at the call center, though...

Weak vision strikes again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whe I first saw the headline, I misread "disbarment" as "dismemberment". It made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

an alternative career

[OldZombie]

Don't worry Jacky if you get kicked out you can always work as a game tester since you have spent such a lot of time "looking" at games

And Al Qaeda are fighting

[Anonymous Coward]

for what they believe in. Heck, they believe in it so solidly, they are willing to risk their lives for it.

Different? How.

Remember, Jack is the one on trial here

[Shauni]

Jack Thompson is on trial for actively and willingly making a mockery of the justice system. I don't care what your agenda is or how much you believe in it; the zeroth rule of social change is: no matter what happens, you act like a goddamned adult. Jack Thompson's multiple antics, both in and out of court (threatening emails to satirists, his little gay porn stunt, etc) show that he does not possess the maturity to babysit a five-year-old, let alone make important decisions in a court of law.

"Fighting for what you believe in" does not give you license to act like a moron.

Rats vs. lawyers

[Jaxoreth]

"they replaced rats with lawyers in lab experiments, because the scientists don't bond with them like they do with rats"

You forgot to add, "Besides, there are some things even rats won't do."

Who tagged this "schadenfreude"?

[mstahl]

While it may be a misfortune for him, it's a win for all of us and the legal system as a whole. I don't call that schadenfreude. I call it reason to celebrate!