Referee Recommends Disbarment For Jack Thompson

spielermacher writes "GamePolitics is reporting that Jack Thompson — the lawyer every gamer loves to hate — has apparently lost his court case and is facing disbarment. The Referee in the case has gone beyond the Florida Bar's request for a 10-year disbarment and is recommending a lifetime ban. From the Final Report issued by the court: '... the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes. He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior ...' All I can say is that it's about time."

Comments

so what

[heptapod]

He'll probably make more cash being a commentator on Fox News pushing their particular agenda. He's been defanged but no one's cut his vocal cords.

Re:so what

[merreborn]

He'll probably make more cash being a commentator on Fox News pushing their particular agenda. He's been defanged but no one's cut his vocal cords.

His disbarment would discredit him in a very real way. For a major television network to present him as a credible expert after this, they'd have to think their viewers complete idiots.

It remains to be seen just how low an opinion fox news holds of their viewers.

Re:so what

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words - Nancy Grace.

Re:so what

[Sponge Bath]

...they'd have to think their viewers complete idiots.

There might be a place for him as White House press secretary.

Re:so what

[segfault7375]

... For a major television network to present him as a credible expert after this, they'd have to think their viewers complete idiots.

Yeah, I think that's about right these days.

Censorship?

[Brian Gordon]

Who tagged this story "censorship". Jack Thompson can think or say whatever he wants, but abusing his legal standing to further his cause is not acceptable to the Bar. Also he's acted unprofessional numerous times.

Re:Censorship?

[JCSoRocks]

It's not tagged Censorship because the gov't is censoring him... it's tagged Censorship because that's what he's always pushing for and he's finally getting the throttling he deserves.

The ruling is a trip.

[SatanicPuppy]

I love reading legal documents where it's clear that the person being deposed is batshit crazy, and they're trying not to use pejorative language while stating the facts.

As an example, the line "During his testimony, the undersigned Referee asked for clarification of Mr. Thompson as to which of the four binders of exhibits in evidence he was referring. Once clarified, Mr. Thompson spoke at length, before re-addressing the issues" is footnoted with the following:

What followed the Court's inquiry regarding clarification as to in which binder the document was located, is twenty-three (23) pages of testimony by Mr. Thompson involving matters such as: why he had not shaved that day for court; referring to the "Twinkie" case about the killing of a Mayor in San Francisco; a lawsuit filed by him in Kentucky in 1999 involving allegations regarding a video game entitled, 'Doom'; an interview with Matt Lauer from NBC's Today show; the killings in Columbine; information about a Lt. Colonel David Grossman regarding his book, On Killing; information regarding addressing the American Bar Association and his shared Christian values with David Grossman; former President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s radio address regarding David Grossman (sometime during the Clinton administration years); an appearance with now deceased CBS reporter Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes; comments by Peggy Noonan-former President Ronald Reagan's speech writer-and an article she wrote for The Wall Street Journal; comments about the movie starring actors Russell Crowe and Al Pacino, called The Insider; issues regarding products liability and 'Big Tobacco'; the alleged targeting by Mr. Thompson by Blank Rome; information about Doug Lowenstein described as the president and chief lobbyist for the parent company of the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board)--which Mr. Thompson alleges now "represents gun running cartels." T 1068, line 7; an article published in Reader's Digest with actor Tom Hanks on the cover; Mr. Thompson's meeting with convicted murderer Devin Moore on death row; a contention of a racial component in defendant Moore's case, "they certainly have it to contend with in Alabama being a slave state," T 1070, line 15, 1071, line 1; information that allegedly occurred the week of the Final Hearing in this disciplinary matter regarding comments made by a law enforcement officer in Australia and New Zealand equating a spike in teen violence with interactive violent video games; an article which purportedly appeared in Time magazine quoting David Grossman; the connection of violence towards law enforcement officers and interactive video games that simulate the killing of officers; and the numerous civil lawsuits filed across the country in various jurisdictions which lead to the filing of the Strickland case in Fayette, Alabama.

I'm almost going to miss the crazy bastard. This stuff is too good to be fake.

Good riddance to bad advocate

[91degrees]

It's really a shame that the anti-violent game lobby has someone like JT as a de-facto spokesman.

Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate

[Bane1998]

It's really a shame that the anti-violent game lobby has someone like JT as a de-facto spokesman. Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.

We'll have to agree to disagree that it's a reasonable position. I think it's unreasonable to make that jump that it's 'bad.' Further, even if I agreed, it's not up to the government to decide this, it's up to the parents and families and individuals. The Video Game Industry, afaik, has always been reasonably responsible in rating their games, and parents can decide if thier kids can play M-rated games or not. I really don't understand the basis for the 'anti' argument at all. Don't like it, don't play it, and don't let your kids play it.

Though I think sheltering your kids is far more harmful to their development than letting them play M-rated games, you don't see me insisting we pass laws saying you should let your kids play whatever games they want to. It's not my business to tell you how to raise your kids.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate

[CodeBuster]

i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games

So be a good parent and don't let them. The price of convenience for lazy parents cannot and must not be the end of free speech for everyone else. The ratings system was and is a good compromise, it puts the tools into the hands of the parents to make their own decisions with regard to the welfare of their children and it should have ended with that. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to be on the side of limiting freedom of speech. The founding fathers were extremely wise in the considered trade-offs they made in those first ten amendments to the Constitution. They knew that some people would say things which they didn't agree with or didn't like hearing, but they had the foresight to realize the tremendous upside potential and value of free speech, even potentially objectionable speech, to the continuation of freedom and the democratic way of life. If you have to suffer the reality of violent video games, pron, and Rush Limbaugh so that free speech can continue then I say so be it.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate

[Gideon Fubar]

There's a lot more to military conditioning than target practice or tactical training. While these things are comparable in some ways, there are significant differences.

For example, gamers are not subject to the same regime of fitness and discipline as recruits, and can stop at any point without fear of retribution. A soldier cannot stop training simply because he is tired, bored, hungry, there's something on TV, etc.

There is a point to what you're saying, but the anti-games lobby (and JT in particular) tend to blow it way out of proportion.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate

[hedwards]

There's a lot more to military conditioning than target practice or tactical training. While these things are comparable in some ways, there are significant differences.

To be fair, even target practice and tactical training have to be done over when moved to the real world.

You're not going to learn to shoot well enough to pass the marine corps' firearms tests through a video game, no matter how much time you spend or how much some people would like to believe that's the case.

Last time I shot, over a decade ago, I was a fair shot, but I wouldn't personally think that the limited experience I had with a real rifle would prepare me for trying to pass that test. And that's real weapons work, not simulated conditions.

Likewise with the tactics, a lot of that ends up being muscle memory and training in using ones senses as part of the strategy, you aren't going to learn that via a video game, ever. Perhaps one could learn the very basics, but I doubt that it would take even a day to teach that.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been a gamer since I was 4 yo, and been in the Army, I can say with 100% truthiness that the assertion that games are like military training methods is absolutely ridiculous.

If you want to see something that is similar to the US military's training methods, go look at a religious organization. Both are based on transferring the trainee's self worth onto the approval of the group. Military just uses "corrective training" (i.e., exercise as punishment) to "simulate the stress levels of a combat situation".

The main thing that games train is hand-eye coordination and reaction times. General problem solving/analytical skills too.

In the Army at least, marksmanship is one week long, sometimes slightly longer maybe.

Firing an actual rifle is *nothing* like playing any of the games that have weapons in them, rifles or not, America's Army game or not. Not even *close*. The two activities are so far removed from one another that there is little similarity beyond the fact that both deal with "weapons" (despite one being really merely a representation of a weapon via pixels). For instance, most FPS games do not even accurately represent binocular vision, which is fairly key in actually firing a weapon (not to mention the field of view of games is typically 75-90* while a human's FOV is 260* or such). Most also have the character firing from the hip, never or rarely using the sights. Most do not take into account proper ballistic physics etc. Hell, most of them don't even have accurate reload animations for the supposedly authentic weapons they're simulating.

The idea that using a mouse and keyboard somehow improves your marksmanship is incredibly absurd.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate

[jwilcox154]

Indeed. Video games seem to have taken the place of tabletop roleplaying games as THE NEXT BIG EVIL THAT WILL TURN OUR KIDS INTO PSYCHOPATHS AND AWAY FROM JESUS!!!! It's the same sort of cranks with the same kinds of junk science, badly interpreted or even completely fraudulent statistics and with the same underlying support from the enemies of freedom; the Religious Right.

Wow, I didn't know Hillary was a part of the Religious Right. All this time I thought she was a leftist who is trying to ban the sale of violent video games to children. This is one step closer towards a total ban on video games someone doesn't like. IMO, Hillary is no different than Jack Thompson. Seems to me there is little difference between the right and the left as they both have their share of those who cry "Won't somebody please think of the children?"

BTW, I am a Christian who doesn't support bans on video games.

Take Two must be sad on this.

[SYSS Mouse]

Take Two must be sad that he will no longer do free advertisement.
Well, he may still, but no one will listen to him.

Singlemindedness

[mitch.swampman]

Since I'm relatively unfamiliar with Thompson's history, I went and read his Wikipedia page, and I have to give him this: he certainly pursued his goal singlemindedly. I figured he would be in some right-winger's pocket or something, but the guy really went after EVERYONE. It's not often you see someone who sincerely doesn't care about anything except the axe he's grinding.

Re:Singlemindedness

[gujo-odori]

Why a right-winger? Left-wingers are at least as hostile to freedom of speech when the speech is something they dislike.

Re:Singlemindedness

[Gideon Fubar]

As a supposed left winger, i agree. People who put their causes above all else are the problem here. Defending ideological territory at any cost is akin (isomorphic?) to religious zealotry.

Displaying my supposed left-wingedness, i'll say that religions are fine, provided you don't shove them down everyone else's throats. The same goes for ideological platforms. Thankyou.

money, the ultimate show stopper

[khallow]

Is there anything to stop him from making the exact same amount of noise, but just hiring other lawyers to do the legal mumbo jumbo?

I doubt he'll be able to find anyone to work for free. Tilting at windmills is cheap only if it's your windmill and you're doing it on your own dime.

Re:Who will replace him?

[geekoid]

It's not like he has a job and when he's gone someone else will apply for it.
If someone was really good at this, they would already be doing it.
Not that someone won't step up for some other reason.

Re:Thank Goodness

[Anpheus]

Wouldn't either the sudden outbreak of common sense or anaphylactic shock in politicians and lawyers be ideal outcomes?

Re:But...But...

[hedwards]

Give Bill a break, it's not like we don't have Steve B. to mock. And to be fair, Steve is at least 3x the schmuck that Bill ever was.

Re:Who will replace him?

[Kharny]

It reminds me of a dutch politician some 10 years ago. He was an extreme right party (pretty much a 1 man party, atleast, he was the only one ever elected to the dutch house of representatives).
The guy was so hilariously extreme and obnoxious that just his being there, was making sure extreme right would stay a fringe political movement.

Unfortunately, he retired, got replaced by a more competent, charismatic person(pim fortuin) and the mess of that incident still has reprecussions 4 years after that party crashed and burned.

not the end

[Tom]

You think we've seen the last of Jack?

I don't think so. They guy has found out you can make a living out of being an asshole, he's not likely to drop that recipe for success. My bet is that he'll be doing the pundit round next. He'll found some institute so his CV can read "former lawyer, now chairman and founder of the No More Violence Institute" or something like it, and then he'll go from TV station to TV station and spread his crap. Very few of them will tell their viewers about his disbarment.

You will see him on TV or in churches...

[Dekortage]

Is there anything to stop him from making the exact same amount of noise, but just hiring other lawyers to do the legal mumbo jumbo?

Chances are he will hit the talk show circuit, particularly among conservatives, to give speeches about video games and the decline of civilization (or law) as we know it. I half expect him to show up at a local church and be proclaimed a prophet.

And he'll write a book.

Re:You will see him on TV or in churches...

[Real1tyCzech]

The evangelical Right is now the evangelical Left. The moral christian platform has never fit well with limited government conservatism and they've slowly started getting pushed to the Left. Now if only we could get Arnold to join 'em.

Re:Free Speech?

[drinkypoo]

While I can understand why we should not censor what someone else creates, a game doesn't really qualify as speech.

Please go crawl back under your bridge. Speech means expression, video games are expression, you are not even a particularly interesting troll.