Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Referee Recommends Disbarment For Jack Thompson

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the disbar-is-such-a-harsh-word dept.

PC Games (Games) 280

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."

cancel ×

280 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thank Goodness (5, Funny)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#24125901)

At least the US Gov. managed to do one thing right today.

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24125991)

At least the US Gov. managed to do one thing right today.

It's not the US government, it's the state of Florida.

-jcr

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126041)

It's not the US government, it's the state of Florida.

Speaking as someone living in Florida, the idea that the state of Florida did something right is even more astounding than the idea that the US government did right.

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126405)

Yeah, as someone who lives right smack in orange county I'm pretty much struck fuck dumb by this. It's like something gave them a violent allergic reaction and it manifested as common sense, decency, and good taste instead of anaphylactic shock.

Getting rid of the competition (5, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126631)

Well of course they made a move to disbar Jack Thompson. There can only be one king asshole and they certainly weren't going to let some schmuck hold the title.

Re:Thank Goodness (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126889)

And to think that it only took them eleven years to wake up and smell the coffee.

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Funny)

stfvon007 (632997) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126923)

is it hot coffee?

Re:Thank Goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24127115)

I often applaud the creative (!) insertion of four-letter profanities into sentences, however the use here doesn't make any sort of sense nor does it have "a nice ring to it."

Two out of a possible five stars. It would've been one star but I applaud your (albeit vain) effort.

Re:Thank Goodness (2, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127117)

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

Re:Thank Goodness (3, Interesting)

elemnt14 (1319289) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126043)

Does this mean he can appeal to a higher court to try to get it turned around? Thats not a pleasing thought.

Re:Thank Goodness (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126207)

He could try suing the Florida bar in federal court, but the chances of the circuit court taking the case are pretty slim.

-jcr

Re:Thank Goodness (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126589)

He could try suing the Florida bar in federal court, but the chances of the circuit court taking the case are pretty slim.

Yes, because of violent gay gamer conspiracy operating at all levels of the courts working against him!

Hey, with Jack out of the picture, someone has to step up to the plate at Crazy Bastard Memorial Field.

Re:Thank Goodness (1)

joyfeather (1167073) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126095)

It's about time the court system in Florida got something right. (And I speak as a FORMER resident.)

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126217)

It's not the US government, it's the state of Florida.

It's not even the state of Florida. It's the Florida Bar, which is a professional organization set up by the Florida Supreme Court. So while it was granted authority by the government of Florida, it isn't part of the government of Florida.

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126995)

It's the Florida Bar, which is a professional organization set up by the Florida Supreme Court.

It's not even the Florida Bar. It's just some guy named Frank.

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Funny)

stebalo (316987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126019)

Game over man, game over!

Re:Thank Goodness (1)

f8l_0e (775982) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126963)

I wish he was on an express elevator to hell, going down.

Re:Thank Goodness (5, Funny)

JordanL (886154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126177)

Allow the government to spy on us without haebeus corpus or warrants... Permanently disbar JT...

We might have gotten the better end of that trade.

(I kid...)

It's not just lifetime disbarment (5, Informative)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 6 years ago | (#24125909)

The Judge also wants him to cough up $43,000 to cover the Bar costs because the whole thing was so outrageous.

Re:It's not just lifetime disbarment (5, Funny)

bloobloo (957543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126181)

The Judge also wants him to cough up $43,000 to cover the Bar costs because the whole thing was so outrageous.

That's a lot of beer

Re:It's not just lifetime disbarment (3, Informative)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126285)

107,000 gallons if you like home brewing very good American swill. A little less if you go for real beer. Less if you go for chinkweiser and not enough if it's German beer. ;)

Re:It's not just lifetime disbarment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24127037)

3500 gallons of German beer (2EUR per liter).

Re:It's not just lifetime disbarment (1)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126711)

It seems too good to be true.

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?

money, the ultimate show stopper (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126789)

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:It's not just lifetime disbarment (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127145)

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 can't see any competent lawyer touching him with a 10' pole.

so what (4, Insightful)

heptapod (243146) | more than 6 years ago | (#24125957)

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 (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126091)

People stopped listening to him a long time ago.

Re:so what (3, Interesting)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126349)

People stopped listening to him a long time ago.

Ah no, there you're wrong. Never underestimate the entertainment value of a nutbar in vocal mode.

What they've done is stop taking him seriously. I'm a long way from being tired hearing about him.

In my opinion, one of the best treatments of his obviously deranged state is that done by de-rez http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/de-rez/55-Jack-Thompson-The-Movie [escapistmagazine.com]

Serious coffee on keyboard time.

Re:so what (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126439)

Personally, I'd like to see Jack Thompson gay it up with Ted Stevens on youtube. Or not...

Re:so what (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126597)

They put things in the out-tubes?

Re:so what (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126649)

Nice to see someone paying homage to Adams with a suitably obscure sig.

My three years at college were spent with a sign containing that phrase on my door. I lost count of the number of times clueless fellow students asked me what it meant.

Re:so what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126307)

Give the kids some time to play more video games. They'll get around to it.

Re:so what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126385)

Weak troll effort. Who modded this up to a 5?

Re:so what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126635)

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.

They had to remove the parts demanding his vocal cords be removed and castration to avoid him reproducing. Several member thought it went too far but it was a split decision.

Re:so what (3, Insightful)

merreborn (853723) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126863)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126939)

Two words - Nancy Grace.

Re:so what (3, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126953)

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

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

Re:so what (2, Funny)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126955)

We don't want him, we think he's nuts. Send him to CNN their the ones with the wacky agendas.

Censorship? (5, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24125959)

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 [slashdot.org] numerous times.

Re:Censorship? (5, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126009)

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.

Re:Censorship? (-1, Offtopic)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126141)

Please - learn how to spell. loose != lose.

Yeah, loose is what your girlfriend is, and lose is what she did with her virginity when I met her back in middle school.

Re:Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126263)

Maybe Jack Thompson thought he was being censored when the courts objected to him including gay porn in his legal filings.

Btw, he really did this. And he likes to dress up as Batman.

Sorry, but I just have to do this... (5, Funny)

SiriusStarr (1196697) | more than 6 years ago | (#24125965)

Ding-dong the witch is dead
Which old witch? The wicked witch
Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead
Wake up you sleepyhead
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up the wicked witch is dead
She's gone where the goblins go
Below - below - below
Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead

:-)

Re:Sorry, but I just have to do this... (1)

Bomarc (306716) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126591)

One contract that I was at had an incompetent DBA. (The first time I began to question her abilities was when she asked if changing the desktop bitmap would impact system performance). When I found out she was terminated (about 15 minutes before a meeting I was going to host) I found a .mid file with this on it. Only my manager knew the real reason for the song playing in the background...

Yo-ho

Re:Sorry, but I just have to do this... (2, Informative)

allanw (842185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126679)

One contract that I was at had an incompetent DBA. (The first time I began to question her abilities was when she asked if changing the desktop bitmap would impact system performance).

It does. At least on very old computers with little RAM, if you had a large desktop image, it'd have to swap it from disk to display it, so the desktop would take very long to display. I still remember the days...

All I can say is.... (1)

BZWingZero (1119881) | more than 6 years ago | (#24125973)

It's about time! I really hope they make sure he pays the court costs.

Muahahahaha! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24125995)

The Florida Bar Wins.

Fatality

Window Dressing (-1, Flamebait)

pcfixup4ua (1263816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126021)

Hopefully this is not just window dressing to cover deeper rights abuses by this and future administrations.

Re:Window Dressing (1)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126885)

Wait, what?

Owned (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126023)

I believe I speak for all of us when I say, "OWNED!"

Hopefully, no one will listen to him any more if he gets the disgrace of permanent disbarment. Some crazies might, but with that kind of mark on his record, I can't imagine any mainstream press would touch him.

Re:Owned (2, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126139)

Some crazies might, but with that kind of mark on his record, I can't imagine any mainstream press would touch him.

Well there's always Fox News.

Re:Owned (3, Informative)

Edward Teach (11577) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126153)

Shouldn't that be "PWNED!"?

But...But... (4, Funny)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126113)

Bill G. retires. And now Jack T. is being disbarred. Who will be the slashdot editor post about for us to all agree on in our complaints?!

Re:But...But... (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126423)

There's still George B. for a little bit longer.

Soon, Jack Thompson for Senetor/representative (3, Interesting)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126159)

Don't think it's the last time we see this guy lobbying for the elimination of xyz. Just a little bump in the road.

Or not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126375)

Let's let good news be for once, hmm?

The ruling is a trip. (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126167)

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.

Re:The ruling is a trip. (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126303)

I've got to admit, after reading that, I'm really rather curious as to why he didn't shave!

Shaving was the problem. (1)

T-Kir (597145) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126791)

He probably realised that shaving tools can be considered 'weapons' and after visualising a game called "Barbers 101 - Virtual Tutorials" his mind nearly asploded.

He is that batshit crazy he probably even thinks people can kill other people using an electric shaver!

Re:Shaving was the problem. (5, Funny)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126913)

If you can't kill someone with an electric shaver, you're not trying hard enough.

yea but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24127127)

That paragraph should have ended with "only to end by saying 'so clearly the document has to be in the bonder on the left'" purely in the name of legal thoroughness.

Dismemberment? (4, Funny)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126227)

Dang it! I totally thought that said "dismemberment"!

Re:Dismemberment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126305)

I can honestly say, I'm not the only one who hoped that happened to him, can you?

Re:Dismemberment? (1)

JohnnyGTO (102952) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127009)

Put the Clydesdales away pa, the man said disbarment. Dang, thought we'd have us a good old draw and quarter!

Good riddance to bad advocate (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126275)

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 (5, Insightful)

Bane1998 (894327) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126401)

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 (3, Informative)

cephah (1244770) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126763)

I used to think it was a silly position as well, but after reading a post on slashdot recommending this book [bookdepository.co.uk] I've gotta admit that I've changed stance on the subject. He compares video games with the military's conditioning. Say what you want, the guy knew a lot on the subject. PS: It's only the last chapter of the book that's about video games / movies and their effects but the rest is an interesting read.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (3, Interesting)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126451)

It may be a reasonable position, but is it a correct one? So far nobody's been able to come up with any hard numbers agreeing with it. All the results are either "no correlation" or "kids who play violent video games are slightly less likely to be violent than average".

The position that if you're standing in the airlock of the ISS and give a good shove off, sending yourself flying away from the station and towards Earth, you'll burn up in the atmosphere is also a reasonable one. It just happens not to be correct. One orbit later you'll find yourself bumping off the ISS again. Common sense might say one thing, but orbital mechanics says another. I suspect the same thing's at work: common sense might say that violent games should beget violent acts, but reality and psychology don't work the way common sense says they should. Nothing new there, lots of things that're true violate common sense.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126659)

What's reasonable about their position? Children shouldn't play violent games unsupervised? Ok, I'll but that. But what's reasonable, that video games are primarily at fault, and reasonable adults should change their entertainment habbits for the unsupported emotional convienence of others. Or could it be that children are not subject to supervision they need. Let's not confuse superstition for reason.

I know who to blame. The parents. All of them. Children are the same as they always were. Nature has seen quite ably to that. Parents for whatever reason, have changed their priorities. Their children just aren't as important as they were. They are 1st in rhetoric only. It's why there should be special child licences and taxes. Make parents pay more, a lot more, at every opportunity. They'll think about and appreciate what they're spending the reasources and eventually time on more. And that will result in better children becoming better adults. The idea that someone's narccasistic view of their own genetic tailings is in any way obligates me to some sort of self-sacrifice is ridiculous.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126707)

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

Not unless one supports that lobby, who remind me of the anti-comic book loons when I was young (eons ago).
IMO they richly deserve him.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127055)

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.

I remember being a kid and having my parents all concerned that because I was playing D&D and Battletech that I was well on the way to the lunatic asylum. There were no lack of Jack Thompsons back then who were simply liars and lunatics.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126761)

Sure, the position is reasonable, but that's for parents to decide, not legislators. It's not like movies are similarly restricted.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126855)

"they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games"

How and when this became a reasonable position?

It is *adults* very seriously playing violent games (ie: war) which it is bad.

I see no reasonable position claiming there's any kind of relationship between playing indians and cow-boys or looking at how many times Wile E. Coyote ends crashed at the bottom of so high cliff and Irak war.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126949)

First of all, where's the evidence that playing violent video games is actually bad? In Rome, people used to take their kids to the arena to watch gladiators kill, or be killed, by each other, elephants, lions, tigers, bears and so forth. The fact is that violence, and sometimes rather extreme violence, has been part of human entertainment for millennia. Heck, during wartime, educating the kiddies in violence has long been a tradition, just in case they're needed to either fight in battle or defend their homes.

Beyond that, it's the parent's job, not some legislator giving a psychological blowjob to religious fundamentalists (whose holy book is filled with all kinds of murder on small and large scale). I resent any lunatic lawyer, politician or religious fruitcake telling me how to raise my kids.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126993)

"...generally bad for kids to play violent games."

Please cite the study that comes to that conclusion. Be specific as to the age range the studies includes.

Re:Good riddance to bad advocate (3, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127109)

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.

Take Two must be sad on this. (2, Insightful)

SYSS Mouse (694626) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126309)

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

My greatest fear... (1)

painehope (580569) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126447)

...is that he finds a respawn spot.

Humor aside, we all know that he'll end up as a "moral pundit" or some similar shit on FOX News.

Darn (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126491)

I read that as "dismemberment" - oh well, disbarment works too.

Re:Darn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126813)

I did too...though I was in for a very interesting story.

Who will replace him? (4, Interesting)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126573)

Penny Arcade made a very good point [penny-arcade.com] a few years ago, when Thompson was threatening them:

We are actually fortunate that the current actor is so impotent in his role. Imagine what might happen if some charming, efficacious attorney took his place. The more I consider it the more I think we may be lucky to have Jack playing the part of the alarmist. The alternative might be someone who is actually capable.

Now that it is even more obvious that Thompson is a nutcase, who is going to take his place? Someone competent in that role? That is a scary thought.

Re:Who will replace him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126847)

There might just be no replacement for Jack Thompson that is indeed capable. Why would a sane person do what he has tried to?

Re:Who will replace him? (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127031)

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.

Singlemindedness (1, Insightful)

mitch.swampman (1216614) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126603)

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 (5, Insightful)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126743)

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

Re:Singlemindedness (2, Informative)

mitch.swampman (1216614) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126973)

Well, I knew he's a hardcore-conservative born-again Christian and I saw the recent story where he sent pictures of hot gay sex to the court, and not in a "hey, check out this hot, hot gay sex" way. So I allowed myself a little speculative license.

I hope he got well paid (3, Funny)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126621)

I hope he got well paid by Take Two for all his work in publicising Grand Theft Auto.

ugh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126695)

I'm reading the magistrate's report, and even though I thought I was used to his craziness I'm shocked by what he's done. Take Two can easily weather the bad publicity, and even benefit slightly if they handle it right. The kind of garbage he pulls with the lawyers who "cross" him (i.e. file any sort of court pleading that he doesn't like) is beyond absurd. Sending letters to lawyers' wives accusing them of selling pornography to children, for example.

Re:ugh (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126829)

He sent the letter to the lawyer's wife indirectly because he'd been barred from contacting the lawyer's client. Crazy stalker loony, he is.

Re:ugh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126893)

He sent the letter to the lawyer's wife indirectly because he'd been barred from contacting the lawyer's client. Crazy stalker loony, he is.

His vendetta against Tew Cardenas is even more disgusting than his other actions; it's a well-respected firm down here. I went against them in a case once and they were consummate professionals who deal fairly and cordially with me, and I can't imagine going through what those lawyers had to put up with from Thompson.

Nice Tags (1)

AnalogyShark (1317197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126717)

"court, pcgames, censorship, suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, haha (tagging beta)" I swear sometimes the tags on stories make me laugh more than the story themselves. But good riddance to bad rubbish as they say. But, it won't be long for someone new to come and take up the reins where he left off.

So.. (1)

Madsy (1049678) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126725)

Will his "victims" get their money back and their cases reopened, if this is supported by the court's evidence?

IANAL (4, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126887)

This seems to be in Florida only.

If he is disbarred there, can he pass the bar in another state?

Re:IANAL (3, Informative)

StaticEngine (135635) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disbarment [wikipedia.org]

"However, under the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been adopted in most states, disbarment in one state or court is grounds for disbarment in a jurisdiction which has adopted the Model Rules."

Sounds famil-iaa-r (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24126933)

'... 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 ...'

Does this description vaguely remind aanyone else of the behaaviour of certiaan groups? I caan't put my finger on it...

Did anyone else read the headline as (2, Funny)

skribe (26534) | more than 6 years ago | (#24126999)

Referee recommends dismemberment for Jack Thompson?

I know. Too much Dexter.

RIAA and MPAA? (1)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127007)

That's all good (and well deserved), but when are they going to get around to the RIAA and MPAA lawyers? They're just as bad at predatory practices and push the limits constantly. Disbar all of them as well!

Big problem though... (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127029)

Jack Thompson will simply reinvent himself as a lobbyist and if you think he was bad as a lawyer, wait until he has no rules by which to follow. I'm not so sure if just keeping him an ineffective lawyer would have been better.

Summary line (1)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 6 years ago | (#24127081)

My fiancee just read that as "Referee Recommends _Dismemberment_ For Jack Thompson".

And while that may be slightly harsh from my perspective, I'm sure it'd get quite a few votes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>