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!

Jack Thompson Facing Disbarment Trial

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the facing-the-music dept.

Games 258

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.'"

cancel ×

258 comments

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

Cry me a river (4, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491309)

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 (5, Informative)

radarjd (931774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491389)

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 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21491429)

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 (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491685)

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 (1)

Nextraztus (1084719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491763)

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 (5, Insightful)

michrech (468134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492667)

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 (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493063)

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 (2, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493217)

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 (1)

LoadWB (592248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493423)

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 (1)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491997)

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 [mediafamily.org] 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 [gamepolitics.com] without being called a troll.

Re:Cry me a river (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493041)

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 [advancedmn.com] :

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 (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493271)

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 (1)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492651)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21491543)

lol u tk him 2da bar|?

The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs (5, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491601)

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 (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492205)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21492707)

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

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492881)

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 (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493297)

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:Cry me a river (2, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493383)

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! [google.com]

-mcgrew

Can't wait (0, Flamebait)

Orleron (835910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491341)

Good riddance to bad bible beaters.

Re:Can't wait (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491433)

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 (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491513)

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 (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492671)

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 (4, Informative)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492959)

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 (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493503)

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 (1)

Commander South (1139931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491557)

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 (4, Funny)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492719)

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 (0, Offtopic)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492923)

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 (1)

ScrawnyPaleGuy (871759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492177)

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 (1)

ScrawnyPaleGuy (871759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492309)

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 (1)

montyzooooma (853414) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492695)

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

Re:Can't wait (2, Insightful)

dosius (230542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493083)

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.

WHY?! (3, Interesting)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491361)

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

Re:WHY?! (5, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491411)

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

Re:WHY?! (4, Insightful)

coolGuyZak (844482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491443)

Legally, no.

Re:WHY?! (4, Funny)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491477)

Legally, no.

Are you sure? How about dismemberment?

Re:WHY?! (2, Funny)

1001011010110101 (305349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491633)

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

Re:WHY?! (5, Funny)

ag0ny (59629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492305)

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

You obviously play videogames too much.

Re:WHY?! (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492579)

OBJECTION!

It was a fair question... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492729)

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... (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492879)

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.

Owww (2, Funny)

Anomolous Cowturd (190524) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493291)

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

Re:WHY?! (5, Informative)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491559)

Here is some helpful info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney) [wikipedia.org] 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?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21492071)

>> his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith

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

Re:WHY?! (1, Interesting)

mqduck (232646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492233)

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?! (4, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492641)

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?! (3, Informative)

ls -la (937805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493543)

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?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21491589)

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

Apparently he's unprofessional. How surprising.

Re:WHY?! (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491803)

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/ [joystiq.com]

Re:WHY?! (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492133)

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?! (1)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493519)

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

About time (2, Insightful)

godfra (839112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491399)

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 (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491705)

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

-jcr

dog may lose it teeth (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491471)

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 (1)

cskrat (921721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492657)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21491479)

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? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491547)

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

Re:which platform? (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491841)

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

Re:which platform? (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491881)

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.

Save Jack! (5, Insightful)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491487)

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! (2, Funny)

Neotrantor (597070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491583)

a clue about what? what are you implying??

Re:Save Jack! (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491817)

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! (2, Interesting)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492709)

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! (4, Funny)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491673)

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! (1)

fefranca (1000538) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491985)

Agreed, also Capcom would be forced to cancel their next DS game [kotaku.com] .

Re:Save Jack! (1)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492087)

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

Re:Save Jack! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21492559)

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!

Only if we're wrong. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492771)

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

Re:Save Jack! (4, Insightful)

Bandman (86149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492803)

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! (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493361)

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.

Disbarment? (1)

Commander South (1139931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491489)

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

Re:Disbarment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21491567)

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

Re:Disbarment? (1)

rgo (986711) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491797)

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? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492983)

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.

Is there joy in having your opponent removed (-1, Flamebait)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491491)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21491609)

Yes.

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (5, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491661)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21491683)

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 (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491689)

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 (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491727)

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 (1)

Percent Man (756972) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493461)

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 (-1, Troll)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492009)

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 (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493431)

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 (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492151)

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 (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492937)

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 (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492965)

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.

Go on, admit it. (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491735)

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

Re:Go on, admit it. (2, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492191)

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

Re:Go on, admit it. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21493167)

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! (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491747)

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

One down... (1)

thomas.galvin (551471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21491871)

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 (2, Funny)

Fx.Dr (915071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492439)

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.

Why is he being disbarred? Because... (1)

syn1kk (1082305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492469)

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.

Woah (1)

Scorpion265 (650012) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492739)

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

obligatory (1)

austinpoet (789122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21492857)

Fatality!

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21493031)

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... (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493161)

Does that mean it's Tuesday again?

Ahahaha (0, Flamebait)

Machine9 (627913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493183)

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.

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>