Jack Thompson's Last Stand (We Hope)

tarnok

I know a lot of you are getting tired of hearing about him, but this could be the last JT thread ever. How's that sound?

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/11/26/jack-thompson-faces-trial-before-the-florida-bar-today/

tl;dr: Jackie's case is finally before the court and they've dedicated the entire week to deciding whether or not to disbar him.

I think even he may realize he's in trouble as he has reportedly said that he's willing to accept a 90 day suspension, but it looks like the court's going for the whole enchilada.

Rizzi

Last stand huh..
I demand a gunfight!

Henroid

This will be quite the week because of this. I know a lot of people are all concerned about someone else taking his 'place' in the video game nonsense, but I really think we should just worry about that when it happens. I want him disbarred because he's a terrible lawyer, not because he has something against video games. He sets a shitty example.

UncleSporky

Henroid wrote: »

This will be quite the week because of this. I know a lot of people are all concerned about someone else taking his 'place' in the video game nonsense, but I really think we should just worry about that when it happens. I want him disbarred because he's a terrible lawyer, not because he has something against video games. He sets a shitty example.

Yes, this is true. If somebody does take his place, hopefully they'll be intelligent and competent and possibly even help our cause. There are indeed some things that could be fixed.

Also I am sick of the "NOBODY PAY ATTENTION TO HIM HE WILL GO AWAY YOU ARE ALL FEEDING THE FIRE" sentiment, so let's not go there.

Henroid

UncleSporky wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

This will be quite the week because of this. I know a lot of people are all concerned about someone else taking his 'place' in the video game nonsense, but I really think we should just worry about that when it happens. I want him disbarred because he's a terrible lawyer, not because he has something against video games. He sets a shitty example.

Yes, this is true. If somebody does take his place, hopefully they'll be intelligent and competent and possibly even help our cause. There are indeed some things that could be fixed.

Also I am sick of the "NOBODY PAY ATTENTION TO HIM HE WILL GO AWAY YOU ARE ALL FEEDING THE FIRE" sentiment, so let's not go there.

If somebody steps in that has a very reasonable stance toward whatever they persue, I'd be fine with it. And maybe if they don't maybe a reasonable outcome will result from it anyhow. The point is that Thompson simply wasn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

And yeah, let's not have any "stop paying attention to him!" posts here. This is largely significant.

Axen

I ain't to worried about someone taking his place. If there was someone better than Jack Thompson then they would already be in the limelight. Uh, by better I mean being better at being Jack Thompson. Whatever that is.

Worst case scenario we get someone even less effective than Jackie Boy.

tarnok

I think the problem with the "we don't want someone competent" argument is that anyone smarter than Jack would realize what an idiotic position he's arguing and so would not argue it.

Polago

Henroid wrote: »

This will be quite the week because of this. I know a lot of people are all concerned about someone else taking his 'place' in the video game nonsense, but I really think we should just worry about that when it happens. I want him disbarred because he's a terrible lawyer, not because he has something against video games. He sets a shitty example.

Can't help but fully agree with this.

shryke

Wait, shouldn't we be AFRAID of someone competent actually taking up the reins of the whole "Anti-Video Game" thing?

MKR

I wonder how long the Florida bar has been assembling a case against him.

Also, someone competent wouldn't be so anti-game. They would seek reasonable compromises (like clearer ratings and such).

LeumasWhite

"Maybe there are some things kids shouldn't see" isn't a particularly bizarre position to take, and it's what you get when you strip the insanity away from Jack. Encouraging developers to be a bit more responsible is a good thing; banning everyone in the known universe from so much as looking at vidja games is not.

shryke

A better rating system would be nice.

Hey, how about one that has multiple categories? You know, so I'd know if the 16+ or whatever the fuck was because of blood gushing everywhere or digital tits.

Gosling

shryke wrote: »

Wait, shouldn't we be AFRAID of someone competent actually taking up the reins of the whole "Anti-Video Game" thing?

If it leads to a meaningful, reasonable, and above all constructive ruleset concerning game legislation, I welcome a worthy opponent should one be found.

Jack, meanwhile, is only worthy of mockery and derision.

tarnok

Something occurs to me though. What is GP going to do with no Jackie? I don't think I've ever read an article on GP that wasn't about Jack Thompson.

MKR

tarnok wrote: »

Something occurs to me though. What is GP going to do with no Jackie? I don't think I've ever read an article on GP that wasn't about Jack Thompson.

Don't worry, the gap will be filled.

Hevach

Question: I know he's been prohibited from practicing law in at least one other state, but is Florida the last one he can practice in? He might just move to a different venue again.

Also, as somebody pointed out in the GP thread: Even disbarred, he can still do a lot. He can't represent every client in sight and sue everybody except the perpetrators, but he can still be very loud and obnoxious, which is all he ever did anyway.

Henroid

shryke wrote: »

Wait, shouldn't we be AFRAID of someone competent actually taking up the reins of the whole "Anti-Video Game" thing?

If someone competent takes up the reigns of putting restrictions or laws on video games, then bad things shouldn't happen, right? At most we'd see a reworking of the ESRB rating system (or maybe a replacement of it).

MKR

Hevach wrote: »

Question: I know he's been prohibited from practicing law in at least one other state, but is Florida the last one he can practice in? He might just move to a different venue again.

Also, as somebody pointed out in the GP thread: Even disbarred, he can still do a lot. He can't represent every client in sight and sue everybody except the perpetrators, but he can still be very loud and obnoxious, which is all he ever did anyway.

But then he's just some loony with a grudge, not a practicing lawyer. It's harder to get on CNN or Fox if you're just plain loony. An "expert gaming lawyer" is better for news than "barely noteworthy anti-game crusader."

Axen

LeumasWhite wrote: »

"Maybe there are some things kids shouldn't see" isn't a particularly bizarre position to take, and it's what you get when you strip the insanity away from Jack. Encouraging developers to be a bit more responsible is a good thing; banning everyone in the known universe from so much as looking at vidja games is not.

I don't think developers need to be more responsible. I mean what should they do? Not make MA-rated games? If a kid plays a violent video game its not the developers fault. Its whoever bought it for him and or sold it to him. If a kid is caught watching porn people don't go blaming the porn industry. If minors are caught in a rated R movie the movie producers aren't blamed. If a minor is caught smoking cigarettes people don't go blaming the cigarette company- oh wait, nvm that one.

The Rocking M

I hope he gets disbarred so he can just shut the fuck up.

tarnok

If you have some time and brain cells to kill here is a wikiquote for JT. Warning: It's loooong and stupid.

Mr Bubbles

tarnok wrote: »

If you have some time and brain cells to kill here is a wikiquote for JT. Warning: It's loooong and stupid.

Theres not enough in the world

LeumasWhite

Axen wrote: »

LeumasWhite wrote: »

"Maybe there are some things kids shouldn't see" isn't a particularly bizarre position to take, and it's what you get when you strip the insanity away from Jack. Encouraging developers to be a bit more responsible is a good thing; banning everyone in the known universe from so much as looking at vidja games is not.

I don't think developers need to be more responsible. I mean what should they do? Not make MA-rated games? If a kid plays a violent video game its not the developers fault. Its whoever bought it for him and or sold it to him. If a kid is caught watching porn people don't go blaming the porn industry. If minors are caught in a rated R movie the movie producers aren't blamed. If a minor is caught smoking cigarettes people don't go blaming the cigarette company- oh wait, nvm that one.

I meant with advertising and stuff, make it clear which games are for which age group. I don't want censorship of any kind, but they should make people aware that some games just aren't for kids.

Axen

Mr Bubbles wrote: »

tarnok wrote: »

If you have some time and brain cells to kill here is a wikiquote for JT. Warning: It's loooong and stupid.

Theres not enough in the world

I couldn't tell if most of those quotes are made up or real. . . I don't think I want to know.

edit- In response to above.

Oh yes totally. I was just using your quote as a stepping stone of sorts. Because of people like Jack who try to sue Developers.

Khavall

MKR wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Question: I know he's been prohibited from practicing law in at least one other state, but is Florida the last one he can practice in? He might just move to a different venue again.

Also, as somebody pointed out in the GP thread: Even disbarred, he can still do a lot. He can't represent every client in sight and sue everybody except the perpetrators, but he can still be very loud and obnoxious, which is all he ever did anyway.

But then he's just some loony with a grudge, not a practicing lawyer. It's harder to get on CNN or Fox if you're just plain loony. An "expert gaming lawyer" is better for news than "barely noteworthy anti-game crusader."

That's a pro-JT stance to take even. He's not some loony, he's a loony who was disbarred for harassment. Try and sell a crazy aggressive loony who was disbarred on the news to talk about how video games cause aggression. That's even harder.

Undead Scottsman

Hevach wrote: »

Question: I know he's been prohibited from practicing law in at least one other state, but is Florida the last one he can practice in? He might just move to a different venue again.

The Florida Bar is what gives him the right to pratice law, IIRC. He got a Pro hac vice thingy to pratice law in Alabama using his Flordia Bar credientials, but that got revoked.

Basically, if he gets disbarred in Florida, he's no longer able to practice law.

Plus, you know, huge disgrace and a major blow to the weight of anything he'd say after that.

"I think game developers should be sued for violent video games!"
"...and we care what you think WHY exactly? Your conduct got you stricken of your biggest qualification."

Drez

Thompson abuses the law. I would be lying if I said I wasn't specifically annoyed by him because of his preoccupation with games - a hobby I enjoy and would like to see become a protected form of artistic expression - but, all in all, it comes down to the fact that Jack wields the law like a weapon which is not how it is intended to be used.

I hope they throw the book at him.

Magic Pink

UncleSporky wrote: »

Also I am sick of the "NOBODY PAY ATTENTION TO HIM HE WILL GO AWAY YOU ARE ALL FEEDING THE FIRE" sentiment, so let's not go there.

Can we also not have people telling the more level headed amongst us what to do?

Because that's the same shit, different smell.

The man thrives on attention. It's a fact. No one but the truly stupid are giving his diatribes any consideration at all. He is, quite literally, no threat anymore. And I can guarantee you that has nothing to do with a bunch of forum posters going LOOK LOOK AT THE CRAZY MANS.

redfenix

I'm actually working on an extensive paper regarding the ESRB's rating system, and how much of a mess it is. This will be some nice fodder for that.

Also, I'm glad JT may finally get what's coming to him.

Hevach

MKR wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Question: I know he's been prohibited from practicing law in at least one other state, but is Florida the last one he can practice in? He might just move to a different venue again.

Also, as somebody pointed out in the GP thread: Even disbarred, he can still do a lot. He can't represent every client in sight and sue everybody except the perpetrators, but he can still be very loud and obnoxious, which is all he ever did anyway.

But then he's just some loony with a grudge, not a practicing lawyer. It's harder to get on CNN or Fox if you're just plain loony. An "expert gaming lawyer" is better for news than "barely noteworthy anti-game crusader."

Haven't watched Fox News lately, have you? The last three video game related stories they had all had washed-up actors in place of everything from disgruntled users to Sony representatives. They've always let loonies with grudges on (Phelps), but lately you don't even need to be that anymore.

Dark_Side

Don't forget though, that he was largely responsible for that whole anti-music/anti-rap crusade in the early 90's, of which is speculated that he only started as an underhanded jab at Janet Reno, of whom he had a massive grudge against at the time. He's simply latching onto whatever counter culture he can selectively pick juicy targets from and make lots of headlines. And now, it's pretty much come to him getting disbarred, and given his history, I'm certainly not going to be surprised when it happens. But it won't stop him, he'll certainly find something else to rail against, and lazy news producers will still put him on the air.

Athenor

We should mail this information in to Fox News, considering they had him on as little as a month ago.What's worse, the Fox anchor supported his stance and what he was saying! Yes, I know, it's Fox, but he is VERY dangerous if he starts becoming a "talking head." As this whole thing with Kanye West's mom proves, media outlets aren't exactly selective in who they use as a talking head.

cloudeagle

Dark_Side wrote: »

Don't forget though, that he was largely responsible for that whole anti-music/anti-rap crusade in the early 90's, of which is speculated that he only started as an underhanded jab at Janet Reno, of whom he had a massive grudge against at the time. He's simply latching onto whatever counter culture he can selectively pick juicy targets from and make lots of headlines. And now, it's pretty much come to him getting disbarred, and given his history, I'm certainly not going to be surprised when it happens. But it won't stop him, he'll certainly find something else to rail against, and lazy news producers will still put him on the air.

Indeed. It's not that he actually thinks vidja games are a menace, he just thinks bashing them is his ticket to fame. And it's worked.

Glad he's getting disbarred. His tactics make him sound like a horrible lawyer in general.

Athenor wrote: »

We should mail this information in to Fox News, considering they had him on as little as a month ago.What's worse, the Fox anchor supported his stance and what he was saying! Yes, I know, it's Fox, but he is VERY dangerous if he starts becoming a "talking head." As this whole thing with Kanye West's mom proves, Fox News isn't exactly selective in who they use as a talking head.

Fixed. Not that other media outlets are saintly mind you, but Fox News seems particularly egregious in editorializing and finding shitty "experts."

Also,

Furu

Magic Pink wrote: »

UncleSporky wrote: »

Also I am sick of the "NOBODY PAY ATTENTION TO HIM HE WILL GO AWAY YOU ARE ALL FEEDING THE FIRE" sentiment, so let's not go there.

Can we also not have people telling the more level headed amongst us what to do?

Because that's the same shit, different smell.

The man thrives on attention. It's a fact. No one but the truly stupid are giving his diatribes any consideration at all. He is, quite literally, no threat anymore. And I can guarantee you that has nothing to do with a bunch of forum posters going LOOK LOOK AT THE CRAZY MANS.

Actually I'm pretty sure forum posters sending things to the Florida bar is how this got started to begin with.

Hevach

Furu wrote: »

Magic Pink wrote: »

UncleSporky wrote: »

Also I am sick of the "NOBODY PAY ATTENTION TO HIM HE WILL GO AWAY YOU ARE ALL FEEDING THE FIRE" sentiment, so let's not go there.

Can we also not have people telling the more level headed amongst us what to do?

Because that's the same shit, different smell.

The man thrives on attention. It's a fact. No one but the truly stupid are giving his diatribes any consideration at all. He is, quite literally, no threat anymore. And I can guarantee you that has nothing to do with a bunch of forum posters going LOOK LOOK AT THE CRAZY MANS.

Actually I'm pretty sure forum posters sending things to the Florida bar is how this got started to begin with.

Yes, it was. The bar was quite happy to let him continue forever otherwise. They'd tried to stop him once before, and lost big time, which he took as carte blanch to continue. Which, effectively, it was, he got away with it for years before complaints about his statements forced the bar association to look at the case again.

Never, ever ignore a lawyer who's trying to do something, because they're pretty much guaranteed to pull it off without opposition. Several forms of outdoor sport that never even existed (remote/internet hunting for example) are illegal because nobody paid attention to the crazy people campaigning to stop the barbaric practice.

JihadJesus

cloudeagle wrote: »

Fixed. Not that other media outlets are saintly mind you, but Fox News seems particularly egregious in editorializing and finding shitty "experts."

Also,

To be fair, the Fox News dictionary defines 'expert' as 'someone who agrees with the opinions of our owner completely, and is somehwat charismatic and has an impressive sounding string of worthless qualifications'. Or perhaps alternatively 'someone who disagrees with our ownership's opinions, but is a scrubby looking dope fiend who touches children and has all the personality of a dirty napkin'.

While other media outlets define 'expert' as 'ANYONE who will boost our ratings. Big titties may be a plus'.

Evander

tarnok wrote: »

I think even he may realize he's in trouble as he has reportedly said that he's willing to accept a 90 day suspension, but it looks like the court's going for the whole enchilada.

Naw, he definitely knows he's in trouble.

He's trying to freaking settle out of court.

At a disbarment hearing.

Man, he is attorney of the year!

Undead Scottsman

JihadJesus wrote: »

ANYONE who will boost our ratings.

Big titties may be a plus'.

Same thing, innit?

Evander

shryke wrote: »

A better rating system would be nice.

Hey, how about one that has multiple categories? You know, so I'd know if the 16+ or whatever the fuck was because of blood gushing everywhere or digital tits.

The ESRB already puts that stuff on the back of the box.

Dunno what ya got in cananida

Evander

MKR wrote: »

Hevach wrote: »

Question: I know he's been prohibited from practicing law in at least one other state, but is Florida the last one he can practice in? He might just move to a different venue again.

Also, as somebody pointed out in the GP thread: Even disbarred, he can still do a lot. He can't represent every client in sight and sue everybody except the perpetrators, but he can still be very loud and obnoxious, which is all he ever did anyway.

But then he's just some loony with a grudge, not a practicing lawyer. It's harder to get on CNN or Fox if you're just plain loony. An "expert gaming lawyer" is better for news than "barely noteworthy anti-game crusader."

He declares himself an "analyst", and then it's "JT-a-go-go"

I'm sure that there's some anti-game think-tank out there willing to stick him on the payroll.

Evander

Magic Pink wrote: »

UncleSporky wrote: »

Also I am sick of the "NOBODY PAY ATTENTION TO HIM HE WILL GO AWAY YOU ARE ALL FEEDING THE FIRE" sentiment, so let's not go there.

Can we also not have people telling the more level headed amongst us what to do?

Because that's the same shit, different smell.

The man thrives on attention. It's a fact. No one but the truly stupid are giving his diatribes any consideration at all. He is, quite literally, no threat anymore. And I can guarantee you that has nothing to do with a bunch of forum posters going LOOK LOOK AT THE CRAZY MANS.

He is going to pull his shit whether we pay attention to him or not.

He WILL NOT go away if we ignore him, he will in fact get louder. By ignoring him we just give him creedance, as though he is so right we have no response.



He is the free entertainment for the evening. Why pass up the show?