Jack Thompson: DISBARRED
September 25th, 2008
|
| Share |
A judge in Florida has recommended that Jack Thompson be permanently disbarred. The decision is one of the strongest actions that can be taken against an attorney. Normal disbarment is normally of a limited time period and allows for the attorney in question to reapply, normally after five years maximum. In this case, the court has ordered that Thompson be disbarred for life from practicing law in the United States (and generally this will also make it impossible for him to do so in foreign countries as well.) Even if he attended lawschool again, took the bar exam again and passed with flying colors, he will NEVER be able to practice law of any kind and will be extremely limited in his ability to take legal actions of any kind.
The judge took things one step further with the permanent disbarment and also levied $43,675 of fines on Thompson to cover the costs incurred by the State of Florida by his actions and the subsequent prosecution. Thompson may be paying much much more, however. This may open the door to counter suits and criminal charges have also been considered.
Thompson does have the ability to appeal this decision, but given the nature of the case, it seems unlikely that any higher courts will take it on.
For those who don’t know Jack Thompson a self-proclaimed moral crusader and hardcore Christian traditionalist lawyer who has made a lot of noise about his general disdain for the US’s First Amendment and for the principle of free speech and freedom of expression in general. He’s been on a wacked out vendetta against popular music, ‘immorality’ in the media, pornography, video games and generally what he considers unworthy of being put in front of everyone’s virgin eyes.
Thompson has been involved in many of the same kind of frivolous lawsuits that were discussed here recently in relation to Judas Priest. Only in Thompson’s case, the litigant was generally the video game industry. Thompson has blamed nearly every act of youth crime and violence on exposure to video games and has taken several cases to court, suing for those effected by violent acts he attributed to video games. He invariably has lost.
He’s worked to lobby for legislation blocking video games that are not “modest.” He has also made several dubious complaints of harassment to the police over those who have spoken against him or otherwise opposed his agenda in one way or another.
Some of the plaintiffs of his numerous lawsuits include: Sony Studios Games, Sony Computer Entertainment America, Take-Two Interactive, Rockstar Games, Wal-Mart, GameStop, Midway Games, Spin Magazine, Microsoft, The Chicago Transit Authority (over advertisements at bus stops), id Software , The Entertainment Software Association, Howard Stern as well as numerous bands, television stations, radio stations and other media outlets.
He’s been a tireless campaigner for “decency” on television and radio. He worked to get the Howard Stern show removed from several radio stations by threatening lawsuits and filing endless complaints to the FCC. He filed one lawsuit against a Florida community group charging that they had distributed “homosexual-education tapes” into public schools. The Florida Supreme Court responded by issuing an order that Mr. Thompson undergo a psycological evaulation.
Thompson has been fond of talking about his Christian values and his attempts to promote what he calls “Christian Morality.” He’s repeatedly spoken out against Islam and atheists alike. He has made claims of a conspiracy within the corporate world to undermine Christianity in the world at large.
He has suggested the Florida Bar Association was unconstitutional and that it had been in a twenty year long conspiracy with the government of the state to discredit him. He suggested that the bar association and other entities were out to get him because of their “pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda.” In one extremely bizarre episode, Thompson sued the Florida Bar Association and included several extremely hardcore gay sex images in the court filings. The judge in the case ordered the images sealed and declared them irrelevant to the content of the case. The action caused a federal court judge to order Thompson to show cause for the use of the content in his suit or face a filing with the court’s Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review and Attorney Grievance.
It’s worth noting that Thompson has a strange obsession with homosexuality and claims that homosexual messages, pro-gay messages and homosexual behavior can be found in video games and other content he disproves of. He’s been known for making some outlandish claims about violent video games also being intertwined with homoerotic themes and has indicated his suspicions that numerous organizations have an underground agenda to promote homosexuality or convert Americans from straight to gay.
Earlier this year, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that any future suits by Thompson be signed by another member of the Florida Bar Association before their submission to any court in the state. This is a highly unusual move, but the court cited his repeated harassment of parties with frivolous suits as well as a dishonest statements to the court. They also noted that some of his lawsuit filings included such things as swastikas, pornographic images and cartoons which were generally of no documentary or evidential value to the cases. The court was unusually frank in the assessment of Thompson’s actions, calling his suits “bizarre and idiotic.”
Pornography is something that many people dislike or find distasteful, but there also are those out there who have what can only be described by as an unhealthy obsession with keeping what they consider obscene out of the hands of others and preventing anyone from being exposed to it. Personally, I always kinda wondered about such individuals. This is especially true with someone like Thompson who’s actions seem to stem from some very deep and disturbing issues. Perhaps there’s something more to it than it seems to such people.
I consider this to qualify as a “bad science” subject topic, because amoung other things, Jack Thompson has long promoted the notion that video games and media violence are directly responsible for violent crime. Serveral studies refute this and current evidence shows that people are capable of telling the difference between fantasy and fictional violence and the real thing. Those who are stimulated to violence by video games are generally those with violent tendencies and stability issues to begin with. Also he’s quite the religious nut and conspiracy theorist!
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 at 5:43 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Culture, Good Science, Politics, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
September 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Perhaps he thinks that if he can prove that the world at large is in some kind of conspiricy to turn everyone gay, that absolves him of responsibility for certain disturbing urges he can’t seem to stop entertaining.
Quote Comment
September 25th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Well, I guess we know what tomarrow’s Penny Arcade is going to be about.
Quote Comment
September 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
An obsession with the moral wrongs of homosexuality seems to show up in those who have homosexual urges deep down but are in conflict because they believe it is unchristian or that it’s ‘wrong’ or ‘unholy’ or something. It leads them to try to deny their own urges and to obsess over stopping homosexality.
One of two things seems to happen often. Either A) after living a life in denial for a long time and trying to convince themselves they don’t have such urges they cave to it. Or B) They end up living a double life the whole time. If you went to this guy’s house I would not be surprised if you found a load of homosexual porn and the phone numbers of some local gay swingers clubs.
Quote Comment
September 25th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Sweet.
Quote Comment
September 25th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
As a big video gamer, I can only say one thing: THANK YOU FLORIDA BAR ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I never really understood the argument that violent video games and media causes violence. It just seems to me like it’s very mild compared to other things that have been around forever.
When I was a little kid, I remember a lot of my pretend games were violent or involved guns, like playing cops and robbers or army or something or playing with GI Joe’s and such. I guess I’m a bit too young to play cowboys and Indians, because when I was a kid (1970’s) the basic idea of cowboys killing Indians was starting to go out, and probably was insensitive anyway.
That’s when I was real young though and played those kind of fantasy games. It actually seems more violent to me because you’re actually going through the actions physically and that’s how kids mimic things to learn them. Every kid did that though. (I hope kids still play outside and stuff). But we had forts and stuff like that.
And then think about television and everything. Looney toons had plenty of fantasy and humor violence. Before TV there were movies with violence. What about the three stooges? What about before that? Books had violence. All action adventure stories had gun slinging and punches and kicks and bombs going off. Movies or television or books or campfire stories since the beginning of time.
Despite the Road Runner and Speedy Gonzales always causing injury I’m a very non-violent person who has not been in a fight since kindergarten.
How do video games really inspire violence anyway? Most of the scenes are so absurd and out there it doesn’t translate to real life. Video games are so often filled with shooting aliens or mutants or something.
I think it’s a good way to have some fun, distress, vent, let off some steam in a healthy way. I would argue that kids should do more physical activities, but nothing against video games per-se.
I do think some may be too graphic and obscene for little kids, the same of course of movies and television shows. Once upon a time this issue was handled with something called “parental responsibility.” Anyone remember that?
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Excellent news! This man is not only a problem for the gaming industry, but has attacked all the things he thinks are immoral and has been a horrible harrassing zealout of persecution! Three cheers for the justice system! For once it has gotten things right!
You should real here what his response was http://kotaku.com/5054801/thompson-responds-to-disbarment
He sent out an email as a press release that says
“The timing of this disbarment transparently reveals its motivation: This past Friday Thompson filed a federal civil rights action against The Bar, the Supreme Court, and all seven of its Justices. This rush to disbarment is in retribution for the filing of that federal suit. With enemies this foolish, Thompson needs only the loyal friends he has. “
This is odd to me how he uses the third person. I think he’s trying to pretend he is part of a large organization or something maybe?
The other press release is good too and longer.
I don’t know if I can post it here but look at the link. He’s very self-oriented I think and playing the victim and trying to grandstand.
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 11:42 am
The idiot had this coming to him for a LONG time. You can only push things so far even with lawsuits and the bastard is finally going to get some decisive action which is long overdue. I am sure he’ll still try to make a stink and talk and whine in the media but I think now he’ll find them becoming less and less interested in what he has to say.
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Buzz: Not that this is directly relevant here, but just being curious about your political leanings, what are your feelings on gun control/gun rights and that kind of thing?
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Q said:
Well, I’m not sure why it matters. However, I would say I’m pro gun regulation and control, eventhough I’m libertarian leaning in general. This is another instance where I don’t favor lots of regulations but I favor GOOD regulations. I don’t have a problem with guns though or fear them or think they’re ‘bad’
My reasoning is this:
A gun is a device which is simple to operate (less simple to operate well, but simple to operate poorly), portable and which will discharge a projectile which can very easily kill or injure anyone it is pointed at within up to hundreds of yards. A gun makes the task of killing someone or killing or injuring onesself easy and fast. It’s something which when fired, without appropriate precautions (such as knowing the area where it’s discharged and the location of people around the area etc) has a very good chance of killing someone. A gun is inherently unsafe when operated or otherwise used by someone who is not responsible and using it appropriately.
The same could, of course, be said about an automobile. Every time I get in a car, I have the opportunity to wield a deadly weapon. If I so choose, I could plow my car into a crowd and kill people. If I use it improperly I could kill others or myself. I could drive it off a bridge. A ton of steel moving at a mile a minute can be just as deadly as a little lead slug moving at mach 3.
However, with cars, we have a lot of oversight and regulation. To drive a car on any public road it must meet safety requirements and have breaklights, rear view mirrors etc. Registration is required of all cars and in order to drive a car you have to have a license, which requires a basic road test, a vision exam etc. It varies by state, but when I got mine i had to take a weekend course and I had to have had a learners permit for a period of time and I had to take a written test and a road test. The road test was short, but it actually took me a good month of practice to be able to handle the car well enough to pass the test. (arguably though license requirements are too lax in some cases.) Cars also have mandatory insurance, prohibition of driving after certain hours for brand new drivers. Cars need license plates. etc etc etc.
My feeling is that given that a gun is at least as dangerous as a car and that a gun probably has LESS utility than a car and is less necessary for every day activities, that it is entirely legitimate to regulate, license and permit firearms at least as completely as automobiles.
Therefore, I think that universal licensing, permits, tests and background checks to own and operate a gun (possibly with the exception of licensed firing ranges) is entirely legitimate.
The other thing is I think things like handguns are especially necessary to regulate. That being becase they’re generally defensive weapons for use on humans and nobody should ever be issued a gun for self-protection without knowing very very well what they are doing with it. Above all else, I think it should be difficult enough to get a permit for one to deter casual people who want to be a ‘tough guy’ from buying it. Lets face it: There is a segment of the population who would be attracted to guns because they want to think of themselves as a John Wayne or like the idea of defending their home like a fortress or something. Those people, who may not really know much about it or take much responsibility should not have a gun. If you’re a former police officer who wants one for protection: fine. Former military: fine. Body guard, armored car driver, private investigator: Also fine. But it should be difficult enough to get to dissuade those who don’t really need one from getting one.
This would be even more true for concealed weapons. Carrying a deadly weapon on one’s person with the intent to use it for defense is an enormous responsibility.
The other thing: They say that regulations don’t matter because criminals won’t care and will get firearms with or without a permit. It’s also said that most crimes are not committed with legally registered firearms. That may be true, but these guns all had to start somewhere. They may have been stolen or bought through an intermediary from a legitimate gun owner or shop or something like that. However, the way you can keep them out of the hands of criminals is to insure that they are not in the hands of irresponsible people to begin with. If guns are only in the hands of those who keep them safely secure and locked up and don’t go selling them to their friends brother in law and don’t leave them in their glove compartment in an unlocked car, then we won’t have them finding their way into the wrong hands.
Also, it helps to just keep their numbers minimal and limited in the types deployed by application and that kind of thing.
Lets not forget that despite claims that guns are safe when operated safely that this must come with a mechanism to assure they are. The Vice President nearly killed someone by not paying enough attention with a gun. If a person hit someone and nearly killed them with a car, they’d have a very good chance of having their license to drive suspended or losing it completely. It would also mean the likelyhood of steep fines and possibly criminal charges.
It may also be worthwhile to have persons need to have a record with a lower end gun before getting a handgun or a semi-automatic. Just like you need to be a good driver for two years with a regular license to get a truck or commercial license.
To me, there’s a large difference between a single-action .22 rifle that you have to manually put a new round in each time versus a small semiautomatic 9mm with an extended amo clip. Anyone who wants to get the later having never owned or fired the former is probably not the kind who should be trusted with that responsibility.
So again, I think people should be able to get guns, but it should be very well regulated, because many can’t be trusted and may be attracted for the wrong reason.
Also, in regards to the right of the individual to own firearms somehow keeping the government from becoming too oppressive or allowing empowerment of the citizens, I call bull**** on that. If the government wanted to take away your rights, your firearms will not stop them. Just try defending yourself if the feds roll up to your house in an M1A2 tank.
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
drbuzz0,
Brilliant. Because of my rather *ahem*, vocal nature on things, I’m often asked this as well, and I arrive at the same conclusion.
Regulation, in and of itself, is not bad. Though a society should strive to be as free and unfettered by government as it can, there are sometimes overriding concerns that must be considered if you are to achieve some sort of reasonable level of safety.
I generally place myself in a “libertarian” category, but I also have to be realistic about the balance between freedoms and social welfare (in the economic sense.)
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Disbarred forever? Very nice. Long overdue.
Quote Comment
September 26th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Fool in the Rain said:
That’s SOP for a press release–if he sent out a release saying “I think [x]” he’d be laughed at. I agree that there’s a fine line between sending out a press release as a public figure (which he is, so he should send out press releases) and sounding like Bob Dole–my instinct would be to use the press release to call a press conference, include the first two sentences from the quote but not the third sentence, and use the third sentence (reworded, of course; there’s no reason to use the third person outside of the press release) at the press conference as part of the general effort to paint himself as a victim of the big bad system. He could also have quoted himself–an accepted practice in a press release–with the quote itself being in the first person, but being disbarred and suing the Florida Supreme Court is a big enough deal to call a press conference. I am also surprised that he doesn’t have some sort of organization set up, even with a skeleton staff, even if it’s only a PR creation, to lend this crusade more credibility.
But, then, Thompson has sent out more press releases than I have.
Disbarring one guy, though–as long as the system is set up to reward people who act like this (perhaps a little slicker than this), some bright-eyed and bushy-tailed recent law school graduate is going to be there to take his place.
Quote Comment
September 27th, 2008 at 3:12 am
A ‘Press Release’ is meaningless. It just means you sent something to the press and/or one of the open release sites. I could send a press release calling attention to the fact that I took an especially satisfying number 2.
I think it’s funny though that he goes along to send out a formally worded ‘press release.’ It’s just him sitting pathetically alone. Nobody cares.
He can call a press conference if he wants. Maybe I’ll call one in my house next time I take a good dump. We’ll see if the BBC shows up.
Quote Comment
September 27th, 2008 at 3:27 am
The last comment here was deleted not because it was disagreed with but because it was choking the system and preventing any further comments from being placed. Shame because much of it I would have been willing to respond to but there wasn’t any way to get it right without just outright deleting it.
The proper way to use the quote feature is to use the quote in brackets complete with the number citation of the quote. You can cut out pieces of text and such if there is only part of a previous comment you want to address but always end each block with the /quote close-tag.
Sorry but it wasn’t letting me edit it to fix any errors.
Quote Comment
September 28th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Jack Thompson is so disbarred… he can’t play basketball, because it’s on a court.
Jack Thompson is so disbarred… he can’t appeal an orange.
Quote Comment
September 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
So a guy walks into a disbarment… his name is Jack Thompson
Jack Thompson is so disbarred…. When they throw out his suits they throw out his tie too.
Jack Thompson is so disbarred….
Quote Comment