Florida Man Wades into Kobe Drama

Rocky Mountain News ^ | August 20, 2003 | y Charlie Brennan

[Palladin]

Florida Man Wades into Kobe Drama

Lawyer asks judge to bar cameras from court to keep filth off television

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News August 20, 2003

The peanut gallery surrounding the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case keeps expanding and is making itself heard loud and clear.

On Tuesday, one day after a Boulder couple associated with the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation filed papers in the Bryant case which one legal observer labeled a "legal version of junk mail," a Florida attorney with no previous connection to the Eagle County proceedings waded into the Bryant drama with a motion of his own.

John B. "Jack" Thompson, a Coral Gables, Fla., attorney, is asking Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett to bar television cameras from his court on Oct. 9 when the National Basketball Association superstar is scheduled to appear for a preliminary hearing.

His argument, in essence: There's so much filth clogging the airwaves already, America's young people should not be exposed to live coverage of what might surface that day in court.

Thompson's motion notes he's the father of an 11-year-old boy, John, who is "keenly interested in basketball, not only as a sport he plays, but one which he observes."

It states that Thompson therefore has legal standing in the case as a parent "whose family will be directly impacted by this Court if it continues to allow expanded media coverage in this case."

He also claims "there is a strong likelihood that the State of Colorado will violate certain Colorado Criminal Statutes which prohibit the transmission or dissemination by any means of sexual material or information to minors."

Thompson, 52, made one version of his motion available to the media early Tuesday, before formally filing it with Eagle County court officials. That first version contained fundamental flaws.

As one example, Thompson had framed it as a motion asking Gannett to reconsider his July 25 order allowing the "live, unedited broadcast of sight and sound" from his courtroom "at the October 6, 2003, preliminary hearing."

However, the Los Angeles Laker star's preliminary hearing is set for Oct. 9 - not Oct. 6.

"Is that right?" Thompson asked, upon being corrected. "I wonder how I got that it was Oct. 6."

Problem two was that Gannett hasn't yet ruled on the presence of cameras in connection with the Oct. 9 date; his only rulings on cameras' courtroom presence in the Bryant case applied solely to Bryant hearings which occurred July 31 and Aug. 6.

Bryant, already a five-time NBA All Star at the age of 24, is currently free on $25,000 bond. He is charged with the alleged June 30 assault of a 19-year-old employee of the upscale Lodge & Spa at Cordillera in Edwards, where Bryant was staying while undergoing knee surgery at Vail's Steadman Hawkins Clinic.

Thompson said that in addition to being a lawyer, he's also an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He said he may be joined in his fight by certain national religious organizations, which he declined to identify.

He denied his motion is a bid for publicity.

"I've been on 50 national news shows," Thompson said. "I've got all the publicity that I would ever want in a lifetime."

Vail attorney Rohn Robbins, who is representing the Vail Daily in its efforts to unseal numerous court records relating to the Bryant case, termed Thompson's motion bizarre.

"He says he has standing as a parent," said Robbins. "He has no standing. Standing is a statutorily defined term, and in terms of this proceeding, he has no standing.

"Not only should it not be taken seriously, it will not be taken seriously."

****snip****

[Palladin]

The colorful erstwhile FReeper, Jack Thompson, is rousing the natives in Eagle, Colorado, with a novel and creative brief opposing the televising of the preliminary hearing in the Kobe Bryant rape case.

[JOE6PAK]

GO JACK GO!

[Palladin]

Jack makes a few good points.

After all the TV coverage of Slick Willy's affair with Monica, junior high kids started experimenting with oral sex.

When they see their hero Kobe on trial for rape, will they be inspired to become little rapists?

[Palladin]

His argument, in essence: There's so much filth clogging the airwaves already, America's young people should not be exposed to live coverage of what might surface that day in court.

Thompson's motion notes he's the father of an 11-year-old boy, John, who is "keenly interested in basketball, not only as a sport he plays, but one which he observes."

It states that Thompson therefore has legal standing in the case as a parent "whose family will be directly impacted by this Court if it continues to allow expanded media coverage in this case."

He also claims "there is a strong likelihood that the State of Colorado will violate certain Colorado Criminal Statutes which prohibit the transmission or dissemination by any means of sexual material or information to minors."

[org.whodat]

GO JACK GO!

You can say that again.

[steplock]

"legal version of junk mail"

CRIMINALIZE LAWYERS!!!!

[Dr. Scarpetta]

His argument, in essence: There's so much filth clogging the airwaves already, America's young people should not be exposed to live coverage of what might surface that day in court.

I agree with him. Children are not allowed to have an innocent childhood anymore.

[Devil_Anse]

They won't listen to this man's motion, since it's true, he doesn't have standing.

A much more effective way to combat the dirt that will come out of recounting the alleged antics of this basketball player, would be for us all to switch off our television sets in unison. Jack Thompson could lead the movement. "1... 2... 3... Off!" Then we leave them off until the TV media starts caring about whether we want to see constant Springer-esque crap.

[Palladin]

Couldn't agree more. We are all tiring of this incessant tabloidization of the news media.

[Palladin]

It's a real shame, Doc.

I agree with my daughters, who threw out their TV's years ago, and have raised happy, healthy, well-educated children without the intrusions of the liberal TV media.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Good for your daughters. I'm sure it's not easy.

[Sandylapper]

Thanks kindly for the ping. First, let me say that I'm against lots of fictional TV with X-rated material. But when it comes to real-life situations like we're talking about here, a lot of people are interested and would like to watch. We really want to see and observe the truth as presented in a courtroom. It's real news. I can empathize with the man who has an 11 year-old son because our son was once that age. But the responsibility of what that young fellow watches is a parental job, not a courtroom matter, unless it really does "take a village" to raise a child. JMO

[AppyPappy]

Put it on Pay-Per-View.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

"He says he has standing as a parent,"

His "standing" consists of his ability to turn off his damn television if he doesn't want his 11-year old exposed to the coverage.

[Sandylapper]

What would be wrong with saying, "No, son, you may not watch that". Too harsh, these days? Parents don't want to "no" to their children? He may even have parental controls on his TV.

[Sandylapper]

"say no"

[Devil_Anse]

With the ever-rising price cable, we're all already watching Pay-Per-View, in a sense, LOL!

I laugh every time I see those ads the cable companies put out about how "horrible" satellite TV is. What are they afraid of, that they have to spend so many ad dollars denigrating the competing product?

[AppyPappy]

Cable is still cheaper than satellite. If you have more than one TV anyway.