a previous thred from FR with some details as to Jack's past on FR... he was also known as "JackPeace"... banned many times...
BatJack!
Posted on 11/27/2007 7:50:05 AM PST by SubGeniusX
Jack used to FReep under many re-treads, and used to threaten to sue anyone who disagreed with him.
he also has a Batman complex...
My faith in the justice system will be restored to total chrome-buffed brilliance if this guy’s license gets pulled. When that one judge that sued the dry cleaner for millions due to lost pants lost his job, that was like shaking a lot of corn-encrusted feces off of my faith. But if Jack “freaking a-hole” Thompson loses his law license, it will be buffed to a shining hue so bright you’ll need to view it through a shoebox like an eclipse.
a previous thred from FR with some details as to Jack's past on FR... he was also known as "JackPeace"... banned many times...
BatJack!
agreed
I saw a video of how he acted in court towards the judge in the Bully case. The judge had far more patience than I. He threatened Thompson with contempt several times, and finally ordered the bailiff to take him away if he did it again (trying to hold up some chart). But Thompson’s body language and tone still showed total disrespect to the end. I would have thrown him in lockup long before that.
You just do not act like that before a judge, period. Especially if you’re an attorney.
” Thompson claims that the Bar’s pursuit of him is motivated by his Christian activism and is designed to silence his outspokenness.”
That seems pretty clear.
Nope, it's because he's an asshat... and a crappy, unethical* attorney
*even more than most
I don’t see it that way.
Isn’t your beef really that you disagree with his crusade?
Jack Thompson (BatJack!).... PING!
Well, while I disagree with his "crusade" ...
he is also BATshiat crazy ... He see's himself as a cross between Batman and Paul Revere ...
he has been banned under many guises on FR... he used to threaten legal action against FReepers who disagreed with him on posts... he was the purest definition of "TROLL"...
He is a bad lawyer who has abused the legal system and has ZERO ethics...
But yes, I do disagree/"have a beef" w/ NannyState Socialist Conservatives who want themselves and the Government to be the Arbiters of "Moral Values".
Good to see what Jack’s been up to - it has the same entertainment value as a train wreck. I will admit to having bought into his cries of persecution when I first encountered him here on FR but let’s face it - the behavior speaks for itself. The problem with that is that it tends to delegitimize whatever valid complaint he may have had. It is extremely difficult to give his claims regarding the video game industry due consideration when he’s spitting venom and threatening to sue everybody in sight. Jack knows this, which leads quite a few of us to suspect that it isn’t about the cause, it’s all about Jack. IMHO, of course.
That seems pretty clear.
No it's not. He's nuts. Read up on him. He includes gay porn in many of his legal filings. He threatens to sue anybody who doesn't agree with him, including FReepers. He has a blatant disregard for the law and common decency. Even his hatred of Janet Reno would be considered extreme by FR standards (really!).
Broadly speaking, the state has two legitimate functions: to protect against outside threats, and to be the arbiter of moral values. Or rather, to be the embodiment of the moral values of the governed, with their consent.
Our proscription of murder is a moral value. I’m presuming you don’t advocate the legalization of murder, and that means that you agree that the state has a role as arbiter of moral values.
We are, therefore, not quibbling over whether a line is to be drawn, but only over where that line is to be drawn.
You seem to see yourself as different in kind from those who want the line drawn elsewhere, but in reality, it’s only a matter of degree.
You seem to think that others are acting wrongfully in advocating a position different from yours — you denigrate them, saying that they “want themselves...to be the Arbiters of “Moral Values”.
However, you and they are doing the same thing: you are both saying, “The line should be drawn here and not there.” And they have every moral and legal right to try and persuade others of the correctness of their arguments.
The correct course of action is to adress their arguments on the merits, rather than trying to avoid that and score a win by disparaging them as “NannyState socialist Conservatives.” It’s good for them, it’s good for the country, it’s good for you and me.
IT seems to me that when the first give the bar exam, they should also include a sanity exam. Jack would have never passed and this whole thing could have been avoided. ;~))
“He’s nuts. Read up on him. He includes gay porn in many of his legal filings.”
That’s not nuts. I think that many of the people who are under the sway of sodomite activism would be sickened, causing the scales to fall from their eyes, if they watched one of their “gay friends” bugger a ten year old boy in a Bangkok brothel.
Theologically, though, it is not correct. You cannot use evil means under any circumstances, even to accomplish a good end, and sodomite porn is an evil means. Therefore, even though I see what he’s trying to do and suspect it may be somewhat effective, I can’t support him in that for religious reasons. Misguided, yes. Nuts, no.
“He threatens to sue anybody who doesn’t agree with him, including FReepers.”
Firstly, when someone says “He (yadada yadada) anybody who doesn’t agree with him,” that is never true. There’s always more to it than that.
As for threatening to sue, that sounds to me like a phase many have gone through in coming to terms with online interaction, beginning back in the days of UNEWS and continuing till today.
“He has a blatant disregard for the law and common decency.”
Examples?
“Even his hatred of Janet Reno would be considered extreme by FR standards (really!).”
I’ll match hatreds of Janet Reno with anybody. I really don’t see how it could be possible to hate her more than reality would support. I mean, how many innocent children does a room-temperature IQ alcoholic lesbian have to burn alive before it’s okay to hate her?
This article even tries to give the impression that she’s not a homosexual, which is truly insulting in its brazen contempt for the intelligence of the reader.
“a sanity exam. Jack would have never passed and this whole thing could have been avoided”
Read the article. They gave him a sanity exam, and he passed.
I think the bar exam process makes you go insane. I can safely say that is an experience I never, ever want to repeat.
In my case I somewhat agree with one part of the crusade. M-rated games should not be sold to kids, and those stores that do should be punished. But Thompson is a paranoid legal bully with no sense of ethics. Anything goes for him to get his way, including putting hardcore gay porn in the public record without permission and without having it sealed (stored on government servers, available for everybody to view, your tax dollars pumping out gay porn). The judge didn't like that, and he has zero remorse over doing it. I'd pull his law license just for that stunt alone and throw him in jail for contempt.
Because of his antics, Thompson hurts the cause he purports to advance so much that many people have thought he is a game industry plant.
Jack Thompson (BatJack!) Tech Ping
I think its worse than that. Remember he was ordered to undergo a psych eval because of his antics, and he was certified sane. That means he was able to turn off the crazy for the psych eval. That means he does this stuff on purpose. I can understand an insane person doing what he does, but a sane person doing it is scary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.