Jack Thompson disbarred
(Visited 19980 times) Game talk
Sep 252008
Well, it finally happened — Jack Thompson has been disbarred. Naturally, he’s not taking this lying down.
For those who don’t know, Thompson is either the crusading lawyer who fights to keep adult entertainment out of the hands of kids despite persecution from his own profession and the government; or a witch-hunting publicity hound who targets the game industry with outrageous claims.
It’s unfortunate that people with nuanced takes, like Jim Gee or Henry Jenkins, get a fraction of the ink.
25 Responses to “Jack Thompson disbarred”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And the correct answer is: “…witch-hunting publicity hound who targets the game industry with outrageous claims.”
I am just glad his 15 minutes of fame are long over. I can’t even remember the last time he was the center of a MAJOR news story.
To make this argument, one must first prove that games are for kids.
We have to start by defining ‘games’ and ‘kids’.
Karma is a b* isn’t it? Ha! About time!
@Kerri, I think you need to (re)define vastly more than that to make that argument. 😛
There really was a cake!
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2008/09/custom_1222376759542_JT_CAKE1.jpg
All you should have to do is prove that kids play the games in question.
I don’t know about Thompson, he might deserve this or not depending on how true the claims are. But it’s curious that one of the items listed as reasons is….
Offensive for the courts, but not for the kids playing these games? I don’t know what exactly it was that he sent them. But it leaves open a question. The second part (8) seems very much over the top. If Thompson wants to include the attorneys in this he doesn’t do our system any good will. Attourneys have to be free to play their role within the system or it doesn’t work. Then again, shouldn’t Thompson also be free to play his role? It looks like a spiralling circle, and my guess would be that Thompson isn’t the only one going too far here.
The industry has responded quite well to policing itself, in my opinion. If a child of very young age is playing it, is that the developer/distributor’s fault or the parents? I’m assuming the parents had to buy it of course, if a minor buys it, shouldn’t the game store have done their part in keeping the content limited to the proper age groups?
If I can prove that a 15 year old watched a rated-R movie, can I sue Paramount Pictures? Is the studio that filmed the porn responsible for the adult shop owner selling the video to a minor to make a few bucks?
If proving a breakdown in distribution control makes everyone in the chain guilty, there isn’t a single innocent man or woman in America, at this point.
Er, Amaranthar, the sexual materials in question had nothing to do with gaming; as I recall they were from a perfectly legitimate gay adult site and were only sent into the court because one of the people involved in a particular case was involved with the site. It had nothing to do with the cases he was bringing up, but was more or less a direct attack on the character of another person. So no kid was playing a game involving the materials.
And Kerri’s point is pretty much why you’d need to redefine a LOT of things in order to make the statement that Thompson’s actions were at all justified. There is a perfectly valid ratings system, the enforcement of which cannot fairly be considered the responsibility of the content creators, only the distribution chain. Otherwise you’re for censorship of adult material for adults; this opens the door to the elimination of vastly more valid material than it provides protection against harmful material.
Oh, right, and one other thing you’d need to redefine in order to justify Thompson’s actions is lawyer.
Their role is to enforce laws, not to legislate.
Grandstanding for the effective removal of first amendment rights that the Supreme Court has upheld time and time again, bringing up cases with no legal merit, being downright verbally abusive to everyone that disagrees with you including the judges, violating rulings and sanctions placed down as a result of your own improper behavior, and attempting to use your attorney license as a bludgeon to beat down things you personally disagree with but have not done anything in violation of actual law, in letter or spirit, are actions that are unconscionable for a servant of the law.
He wasn’t an activist, he wasn’t a legislator, he wasn’t a preacher, he wasn’t a protest organizer, he was a lawyer. He overstepped his bounds, and ridiculously so, and he got smacked down for it. Which is exactly how it’s supposed to work.
Given the complaints against him, I think any lawyer who engaged in such conduct, irrespective of pet cause, would be disbarred (and rightly so). Heck, looking at the enumerated list of complaints, I actually feel disappointed he wasn’t stripped of his license sooner. He didn’t just deserve this, he earned this.
Violation of attorney-client confidentiality alone… just, dude.
Eolirin wrote:
Since when?
Since the US constitution divided legislative and judicial branches into separate parts of the government? (This of course, only applies to US law, but this is a US lawyer) 😛
I shouldn’t have said enforce though, that was a mistake on my part. The role is actually interpretive, but they not supposed to step outside of the rules, only make them work for a specific situation. Which is why the courts opted not to strike down EULAs in a general sense in the WoWGlider case; they felt it would’ve overstepped their bounds, and that while there were some very shaky things going on, they didn’t feel comfortable bypassing legislature.
The courts are bound by already written laws. They must follow them, even if they don’t like them.
But you know all of this.
Saith Wikipedia: A lawyer, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is “a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law.”
Separation of power really has nothing to do with the profession of lawyer. Lawyers are not public servants; they’re really just hardcore players in the game of law. Nothing impels them not to be firebrand activists. Lawrence Lessig, for instance, is both activist and lawyer (even if he seems to have a penchant for not winning cases) trying to change law in both arenas.
Discouragingly, I just saw him Sunday night on a cable show called “Gamer Generation” on the Discovery channel I believe. From searching the web it looks like it’s a rerun of a special that was first broadcast in early 2007… sad that his legacy lives on.
@Michael they have no power, nor is it their place to, legislate. You can be both an activist and a lawyer, or even a legislator and a lawyer, but lawyers do not make laws, they do not legislate. They have to be doing one of the other roles to do that, not the lawyering role.
A person can be more than one thing. But that applies secondary labels, it doesn’t mean that the first label absorbs the qualities of the second.
Eolirin:
Thompson wasn’t legislating; he was engaging in legal extremism.
1) I think you’ve spent too much time playing class-based RPGs.
2) Provide one case where Thompson did any legislation whatsoever, as a lawyer.
being an activist/lawyer is one thing, being an extemist and brandishing the courts as a mallet and bar license as a shield is a whole different thing. if you have a few hours, here’s the court doc that led to his disbarment:
http://cdn3.libsyn.com/gamepolitics/Corrected_Final_Report_of_Referee-Thompson.pdf?nvb=20081001023035&nva=20081002023035&t=0a5dbcefa1830b0abd72e
Technically, lawyers can legislate — for example a large number of congressmen are lawyers. However, it’s correct to say that simply having a law license does not grant one the power to legislate.
More importantly, having a cause you feel strongly about does not justify bad behavior. As a member of the bar, a lawyer is both required and expected to adhere to a code of conduct, as are many people in many other professions. Not only that, as a citizen of a country said person is also required and expected to obey the law.
It is always tempting to take an “ends justify the means” sort of attitude, it always has been. It is always tempting to feel that your cause is important enough, and your actions thus righteous enough, to levitate you above the codes, ethics, laws or morals of the societies around you. But, when you find out the hard way that you are not exempted by your righteousness, you cannot say you did not know, you cannot say you did not choose.
So, in a more universal sense, I agree with what happened to old Jack and have little sympathy for him. I’d say he’s allowed to be an activist, certainly, he’s allowed to do everything in his power to change the country in the ways he wants; America is specifically about empowering the public, and Jack is well within his rights to enjoy his empowerment. But he knowingly crossed the line several times (meaning the explicit required conduct of a practicing lawyer and member of the bar), and though it took a bureaucratically long time to happen, he was finally visited with the consequences of his actions.
Peter just expressed my point more clearly.
It’s not the position of lawyers to be attempting to do what he did *through* the legal system. It’s not that he legislated, it’s that he used his position as if he had the right to change policy. You don’t do that. Half of the things he brought up were very clearly legal, but he brought them up because he didn’t like them and didn’t want them being done. This is effectively an attempt to change policy without actually changing laws, and not someting that a lawyer should be doing. He was effectively trying to legislate without actually following the system for doing so. This shouldn’t be too hard to grasp. The reason why anti-game bills have been struck down is because they’d have a chilling effect on the industry that’d subvert first amendment rights; had Thompson’s suits won, a similar effect would’ve been made, again violating first amendment rights. It’s not so much that the tried them that was at issue in terms of disbarment though, it’s that he got pissy when the courts very rightfully stomped them down. But in order to justify his actions as correct, you would need to justify the cases as valid, and that means that you’re justifying an attempt to bypass legislature (all the way up to the Bill of Rights) in order to effectively censor protected materials.
Also, to respond to Michael, when you are working in a specific profession, you are not supposed to subvert that role in favor of a secondary role. When you do, it’s right and just that you get smacked down for it. This isn’t about “class based boundaries” it’s about professionalism and not violating the ethical boundaries of your profession in favor of secondary concerns like activism. Activism and lawyering are only compatible to a point. Law is based on already existant rules and, at it’s core, the system isn’t about injecting humanity, it’s about following those rules, where activism is almost the opposite, you fight for a cause regardless of the legal state in effort to change the system. Because we’re humans and not machines there’s some expectation of overlap, as we can never truly divorce ourselves from the emotion involved; but there is a line. The second you start ignoring actual law in favor of advancing your pet cause, you lose any right to continue acting as a lawyer. Ethically, you’ve violated one of the core tenants of that practice; the lawyer exists to function within the legal system, not to subvert it to his own personal wishes.
You can wear many hats, but you cannot be many contradictory or mutually exclusive things at the same time, and you don’t get a pass for violating the rules of one just because you also happen to be acting in favor of a second. There *are* limits in following multiple paths at once.
It scares me that people like this still exist in a time when we are progressively moving forward with being more tolerant with not just what is available for the adult public, but what is being shown on TV, the way civil unions are being defined, or even the way people are out there voicing their opinion on the issues Mr. Thompson was trying to change rather than convey let alone the controversy around this. I am glad that he was pulled from his proverbial stage, but there will be others. It’s just a matter of common sense taking over instead of turning a blind eye to this abuse of the legal system.
@Eolirin
There’s a term, Spurious Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or a SLAPP suit, that refers to when a (usually meritless) lawsuit is drafted and filed with little purpose other than to force the suit to be dealt with, basically simply to hamper the party it is directed at. Generally, the context is that one side is large enough that the costs are inconsequential while the other would find answering the lawsuit burdensome. If you’re interested in these sorts of issues, you may want to look into the topic of these sorts of suits (many states now have anti-SLAPP laws on the books).
It’s not quite the same as what Jack was doing (since Jack went… a little overboard), but his actions fit into their overall umbrella to an extent.
I’m sorry, it’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Working off of memory on my lunchbreak, here. 😛