The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 7): Thompson Cross Examines the Bully Case Judge
For this segment we’ll assume that you have at least read Part 6 of GamePolitics’ Bar Trial of Jack Thompson, the direct testimony of Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman.
What follows is Thompson’s cross examination of Judge Friedman, who became a target of Thompson’s ire after he refused to grant the controversial attorney’s 2006 motion to have Bully declared a public nuisance in Florida.
(In the excerpted transcripts that follow, RF is Judge Ronald Friedman. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)
JT: Judge, first things first. My lawsuit wasn’t, as you testified, to prohibit the distribution of this game [Bully], was it?
RF: I do believe it was.
JT: Well, let’s go to Exhibit 46… page 21 thereof… Why don’t you read paragraph D. This is under the caption Injunctive Relief.
RF: “An order prohibiting Take Two from selling all of its mature-rated video games directly or indirectly to anyone under 17 years of age, which practice is violating the strictures of the [ESA] and of the [ESRB] as well as solemn promises made under oath to Congress and to others.”
JT: So do you want to change your testimony about what the purpose of the lawsuit was?
RF: No. That’s the way I read that.
JT: Prohibit the distribution.
RF: To adults? No. To teenagers, yes.
JT: Okay. I take prohibit to mean prohibit, and that is to prevent the distribution.
RF: That is exactly what it appears to be, to prevent the distribution to anyone under age 17.
JT: Right. Not across the board… But… we didn’t have a hearing on that, did we?
RF: We certainly did have some [courtroom] argument.
JT: A hearing on the merits of the case?
RF: The merits of the case? No.
JT: No. Now you testified - correct me if I’m wrong here - that I had represented as to how bad the game was? Was that basically what you said?
RF: That’s my recollection.
JT: I hadn’t seen the game, had I?
RF: No.
JT: I couldn’t have seen it.
RF: That’s correct.
JT: And I couldn’t have seen it because these people - correct me if I’m wrong - “these people” being Take Two - had released this game and shown it to people in the video game industry press. Then when I asked to see it - and I hadn’t filed suit at this time - I asked to see it before its release and then I asked you - correct me if I’m wrong, but I sought a release of it limitedly to you so that you could review it because no one had seen it other than the people I’ve mentioned. Isn’t that right?
RF: I don’t know who had seen it. I know you hadn’t.
JT: I had not?
RF: Correct.
JT: And you had not?
RF: That’s correct.
JT: So I wanted - correct me if I’m wrong. I wanted to have a hearing on whether or not this thing, this game, should be sold to anyone under 17 prior to its being released, with only the ESRB and maybe certain other people having seen it.
RF: Which was the purpose of having the in camera viewing.
JT: Correct. Now did you review the entire game - or, let me back up. Do you remember before we had this proceeding, this in camera proceeding or whatever you want to call it, this exercise in camera in your chambers - do you recall having said at the hearing prior to that, that you would review the entire game and that you would take all weekend if necessary and that I was welcome to attend if you did that?
RF: Yes.
JT: Okay, and so we had this - I don’t know. How would you characterize it? - in camera proceeding review -
RF: Yes.
JT: -in your chambers and we can’t - correct me if I’m wrong on this. We can’t really verify how long you reviewed through this cheat system, as you called it or as they called it - how long you spent reviewing it even under that situation because you ordered that the transcript of what went on there not be released except with your permission. Isn’t that right?
RF: (no response)
JT: So we don’t have that, do we, to time the hearing?
RF: That, I don’t recall.
JT: Did you order that the transcript of whatever went on in there not be released except by your order?
RF: My recollection is that I ordered it not to be released probably - unless I ordered it for certainly not before the actual distribution [of Bully]. That’s correct.
JT: Would you release it now?
RF: I don’t have a problem with that.
JT: My point in asking that was we would then have a record as to how long that exercise took. You testified here that you may have taken an hour or an hour and a half to look at the game, actual time viewing the game?
RF: That’s my recollection of about how long it was.
JT: Okay, and you thought - what did you call it, the cheat what?
RF: I thought what?
JT: No, I’m sorry. They called it a cheat -
RF: Whatever it was.
JT: - system?
RF: I’m calling it a cheater that allows them to jump from one part of the game to another.
JT: It allows them?
RF: Whoever is operating it.
JT: Right, and who was operating this game?
RF: Their representative.
JT: “Their” being Take Two’s?
RF: Yes.
JT: Who had come down from New York. I wasn’t allowed to see anything as to the game except the back of the screen. Right?
RF: That’s correct.
JT: What was your concern in that regard?
RF: It was an in camera review.
JT: Right.
RF: And I was concerned that nothing was to leave that room until I made a decision.
JT: What was going to leave the room?
RF: I had no idea.
JT: What could have left the room?
RF: I have no idea.
JT: You have no idea?
RF: It was an in camera inspection. That’s what an in camera inspection is.
JT: What could I have made off with?
RF: I have no idea what you would have done.
JT: Could you have ordered me not to disclose. - and in fact you did order me not to disclose what happened in there -
RF: That’s correct.
JT: -as far as the content of the game or whatever.
RF: That’s correct.
JT: But that wasn’t sufficient.
RF: I don’t know whether it was or not.
JT: Well, somebody could have held me in contempt if I violated that order. Right?
RF: That’s certainly true.
JT: But you had an inspection, which wasn’t really in camera. We had other people in there. Do you typically do in camera inspections with other people there and with one of the party’s employees taking you through the exhibit?
RF: Sometimes.
JT: When does that happen?
RF: When it’s necessary for someone to explain something to me.
JT: Can you recall a case in which you had an in camera inspection of -
RF: I’ve had several.
TUMA: Objection to the relevance of all this.
DT: Overruled.
JT: …Can you recall a case in which you had an in camera inspection in which one of the parties got to see what you were doing and another party didn’t get to see the item?
RF: Sure. Lots of times when one side possesses the item, in an in camera they present it to me, I review it, and the other side doesn’t see it.
JT: Have you ever let one side determine what part of the item you got to see?
RF: No. This is a first.
JT: Now, you said, I think you testified here that, hopefully, you saw the worst parts of the game. Do you remember saying that?
RF: I do.
JT: How do you know if you did?
RF: I only rely upon the people following my directions and hope that they’re following my directions.
JT: Did you see the melee at the end of the game where the hero of the game, Jimmy Hopkins, goes on a rampage and beats up just about everybody in the school?
RF: No.
JT: No?
RF: No.
JT: Do you have much familiarity with video game play?
RF: No.
JT: In fact, you said that you watched the game - right? - and that you wouldn’t want your children to watch it.
RF: That’s correct.
JT: You understand that you don’t watch a video game, right?
RF: Excuse me?
JT: Do you understand that you don’t watch a video game? Right?
RF: Are you making a distinction between watching and playing?
JT: Yes.
RF: Okay. When you’re playing, you are watching.
JT: And how do you play the game?
RF: I don’t know how you play the game. I don’t play video games.
JT: You don’t know how to play the game - or any game. Did you know that I had an expert there, Dr. Eugene Provenzo, to testify at this hearing we didn’t have?
RF: Yes.
JT: Okay, and do you know who he is?
RF: No.
JT: Do you want me to tell you?
RF: By all means.
JT: Eugene Provenzo is a tenured professor -
RF: Excuse me one second. Let me interrupt. I’m sorry. Was he the gentleman seated next to you?
JT: Yes… Eugene Provenzo is a full tenured professor at the University of Miami who has testified multiple times before committees of the United States Congress as to the powerful way in which video games and interactive media - which you play - are powerful teaching tools that can not only teach things, but modify behavior. Would it have been of interest to you that Dr. Provenzo could have told you that some guided tour of any video game by anybody - regardless of what their motivations are and financial interests are and who their employees are - is not a sufficient way to understand the content, the full content of a game? Would that have been of any interest to you?
RF: Mr. Thompson, as I recall, and I believe the transcript will reflect, at the end of the hearing, I said, “Does anyone have anything further to say to the Court?” and the doctor raised his hand, and I called upon him to say whatever he wanted to say and you told him to lower his hand and be quiet.
JT: Because he told me what he was going to say. Do you want to know what he was going to say?
RF: I don’t care.
JT: You don’t care?
RF: I don’t care at this point. I made my ruling. That was that.
JT: Since you raised it as to what you think he might have said or that he wanted to say something, would it have been of interest to you to know that he wanted to say that this was the worst misconduct by any judge he had ever seen?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor. How is this relevant?
RF: Do I care about that?
JT: What do you mean, how is it relevant?
DT: I’m sorry. Are you speaking to me?
JT: I’m asking, how is this relevant? We’re here to talk about whatever I did and what I did was appropriate and there was a reasonable basis for me to be critical of what this judge did and how he did it. This witness, this judge, has suggested, implied, that somehow I gagged this particular witness and that he would have been prepared to testify about things that, if we had had a real hearing on something, he would have testified on.
DT: Overruled. Go ahead. Answer the question.
JT: Go ahead, Judge.
RF: Having viewed what I did and having reached the determination in my mind that the First Amendment would preclude me from making a decision in any way contrary to what I did and that I probably made a mistake in even taking the time to view what I did, I denied your motion. Nothing would have changed that.
JT: Nothing.
RF: If I found that something would have incited to immediate violence, that would have changed it; which is the only reason I granted the opportunity to have a viewing of the game.
JT: But you didn’t see the end of the game. Right?
RF: That’s correct.
JT: And you’re not aware, apparently, are you, that video games of this genre typically result in more violence as you go through the game and you have a culminating act of violence to “finish the game.” You don’t know anything of that, do you?
RF: No.
JT: Do you remember before we ended this - you ended this - in camera inspection through which you were led by Take Two’s employees, that you indicated having seen whatever you saw as to how you were going to rule in this case?… Do you remember that?
RF: I do.
JT: Tell us about your recent reversal of the Third District Court of Appeals for having done this same thing.
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.
JT: No, no. Excuse me, Judge. I’m sorry.
DT: I’m going to ask you if there’s an objection being made that you don’t say, “No, no.” Okay?
JT: I apologize.
DT: Let’s just do this in a proper manner.
JT: I apologize.
DT: What is your legal objection?
TUMA: To the relevance to this case. It has no relevance to this case. It’s not an appeal of the case.
JT: Before you rule -
DT: Yes, I was going to ask you… are you talking about a ruling that has to do with the case that was filed -
JT: You bet.
DT: -right here?
JT: It has everything to do with it - and let me explain… you’ll see that the documents that were excerpted and read from [by Judge Friedman on direct examination] talk about… his terrific reputation out of the Third District Court of Appeals and what this witness has also said is that even if the things I said [about him] were true, that I had acted improperly. There has been reading from portions of letters about this Judge’s reputation and that he has a history of doing and acting improperly… this is not an isolated incident. So that when I recount what this Judge’s reputation is and what he does on a routine basis and the the Third District Court of Appeals has held him to task recently for having done the same thing to another litigant, then it goes to my credibility, it goes also to his credibility, and more importantly, it goes to the [Florida Bar] rule 4-8.2(a), which talks about whether or not lawyers can be critical of judges…
We’re here litigating in this trial - you call a hearing, other people call it a trial. It feels like a trial to me - that one of the issues is whether or not there is a reasonable basis for a lawyer to say something about a judge… So what he [Friedman] has done in another case in which he prejudged and which the Third District Court reversed him on for having announced his ruling before there was a hearing in the case goes to whether or not this was an isolated incident, whether or not I had any reason to say what I said about the Judge in these admittedly caustic letters, and whether or not I’m a truth teller, a prevaricator or someone who just makes this up out of whole cloth.
He’s the one who talked at his hearing… about what a great reputation he has out of the Third District when he’s just been reversed on doing pretty much what he did to me.
DT: Do you want to ask a question about Judge Friedman’s ruling in a specific case?
JT: If he’ll answer.
DT: Okay. Overruled… But if you’re going to ask him a question, you have to ask him a specific question.
(thereupon Friedman discusses a case involving a property dispute and a possible false arrest… )
RF: There was a motion to recuse, a motion denied, and the Appellate Court found I should have recused.
JT: On what basis?
RF: Having prejudged.
JT: Okay, and we never had the hearing in my case about the merits of the case. Right?
RF: No.
TUMA: Objection: Asked and answered.
DT: Sustained.
JT: And your answer to that was no, just so the record is clear. Now we all make mistakes, right. I’ve certainly made some. Have you made some?
RF: I certainly have. And you may recall in that record, I said, “While I have general respect for the Third District, they don’t always agree with me.”
JT: I understand. My wife, who loves me, doesn’t always agree with me… When I said Judge Reah Pincus Grossman [despised Friedman, see part 6], I got the wrong judge and her demise, I found out, is premature, as Mark Twain would say; but it was another judge, and I heard that story from someone whom I’ve known as a practicing attorney for 30-some years. Are there some attorneys who find you somewhat arbitrary in your jurisdiction?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, to relevancy.
DT: Overruled.
JT: If you know.
RF: I don’t know. I do know that the Bar polls show that 10 percent of the lawyers don’t think I should be here. Ninety percent do. So apparently there are some who would agree with you.
JT: Did you see the homosexual activity in the game that Take Two - I would call them manipulators - but the Take Two employees, the ones who showed you portions of the game? Did you see that?
RF: No.
JT: Now, I want to see if you understand this. You’re not to be faulted for not being a video game player or for knowing how video games work and so forth. I’ve had a crash course since 1998 when I represented the families in Paducah whose daughters were killed by a kid who had played the same game that the killers at Columbine played and the… I lost my train of thought.
DT: You were saying you’re not to be faulted for not being a video game player.
JT: Right. That I remember.
DT: And that you got a crash course in it yourself.
JT: Right, I understand. Oh, forgive me. You said - and correct me if I’m wrong - your testimony was - and I’m not re-asking you the question. I want to get us on the same page here. You said in both the transcript here and here today that this game maybe should have a mature rating, but that that’s not for you to put on the game -
RF: That’s correct.
JT: - that it might be up to the legislature or whomever.
RF: That’s my thought.
JT: It’s my thought, too, in one regard. Do you know that legislatures - either state or federal - or municipalities can’t put a rating on a game?
RF: There is some entity that does the rating.
JT: Right. It’s owned by the [video game] industry, the ESRB.
RF: That doesn’t mean they can’t legislate to do something about that; but again, that’s not my job.
JT: Well, actually you can. Under Miller vs. California, which has a three-pronged test which one would apply to obscenity, you really couldn’t - and it would be unconstitutional and there have been Supreme Court rulings on this since the 30’s - that if government is to put a rating on a game - or back then on a movie -then you’re arrogating to the government a censorious function based upon an arbitrary rating type system as opposed to looking at each game on its own basis. Does that make sense?
RF: Okay. If you say that’s what the law is, that’s fine.
JT: And that’s what I wanted you to do, to take a look at this game… just this individual video game - and correct me if I’m wrong as to your understanding of what I was seeking for you to do, and that was to get the game before its release - and I appreciate your order granting me that portion of my relief. Then under the nuisance laws of Florida, which is one of, I think, eight states which allows an individual to serve in effect as a “private attorney general” to say to the government, I think this constitutes a public safety hazard; for you then to look at the game and make a determination not on what the rating ought to be but on whether or not this game ought to be sold to anyone under 17, which is roughly reflective of the industry’s system. Is that your understanding?
RF: I understand that; but it’s my belief under the case law and the Constitution, I can’t make a determination that it has to have a mature rating - even though I think it should - nor under the circumstances of the game could I prevent its distribution.
JT: Okay, but you didn’t hear my constitutional arguments and you didn’t hear from any experts and you didn’t get a fuller explanation of the Miller test as it applies to the violent material. You didn’t hear any of that because we didn’t have a hearing on that, did we?
RF: What we had was initial argument the very first time the matter was brought, and your position - as I recall - was so strong from what you thought of the game even though you hadn’t seen it -
JT: Well, I was basing it on reviews in magazines of people who had seen it.
RF: I understand - that I thought, okay. I will take the bull by the horns and I will look at this game, even though basically the case law says I don’t have to do that; that they [Take Two] have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to distribute this. Oh, wait a minute. If it’s that bad, then let me take a look at it; but I didn’t find it that [bad].
JT: But you didn’t see the whole game.
RF: No. I didn’t spend 200 hours seeing the whole game.
JT: Well, so we’re clear, you didn’t see the violent ending of the game, which would be the most violent part. You didn’t see the homosexual activity in the game… Let me ask you if you would be surprised by the following. David Walsh is the clinical psychologist who every year gives, at the Congress’ request, his Annual Video Game Report Card. Last year he stood between Senator Brownback, a Republican, and Senator Lieberman, an Independent, and Senator Clinton, a Democrat - I think. So he’s respected on both sides of the aisle and by an independent and has an organization, the National Institute on Media and the Family. Dr. Walsh, having seen the game - and he was following this litigation down here - saw the game and issued the opinion that this should be a mature-rated game. It should not have a teen rating and it should not be sold to anyone under 17. Would that surprise you, based upon at least the part of the game that you saw?
RF: No.
JT: So you know that by virtue of this game having received what at least Dr. Walsh and some others felt was a bogus - industry-provided through the ESRB - rating, released a game for sale to anyone of any age. Is that right?
RF: I don’t recall whether it’s anyone of any age. A six-year-old probably couldn’t buy this, but a teenager could.
JT: I can assure you there’s no checking of I.D.’s for teen-rated games.
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, to the relevancy.
DT: Sustained.
JT: And your testimony was that, even if everything I said was true, my having said it was abuse of my oath and of my status as a lawyer. Is that right?
RF: Yes, sir.
JT: That’s your view of what the canons require?
RF: Yes, sir.
JT: And that’s why you filed a Bar complaint against me?
RF: Yes, sir.
JT: That’s all I have, Judge. Thanks.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
RF: No. That’s the way I read that.
JT: Prohibit the distribution.
RF: To adults? No. To teenagers, yes.
JT: Okay. I take prohibit to mean prohibit, and that is to prevent the distribution.
And there you have it, the truth comes out! Sayonara Jack, and good riddance.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I love it when these judges make Jack pick his words carefully. He seems to think he can gab and gab with impunity from the exactness of the meanings of his words. Like the “prohibit” thing at the beginning. I love it when people have to use precise terms, since it makes it easier to poke holes in their fallacious arguments.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Pretty much his career is on death row and yet he still has to milk tradgeties such as Colubine for all its worth.
Jack Thompson: The man that proves when you think lawyers can’t be any lower on the scum scale…..its possible to go lower….
March 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I find this funny. John Bruce is complaining that his “expert” didn’t get the chance to speak because John Bruce told him not to speak. How does that have anything to do with the Judge?
Does anyone here know of this scene? I am not familiar with the game. Does this scene actually exist?
But on another note, John Bruce just seems to be complaining that the Judge didn’t let him in to see the game. I think John Bruce is a closet Rockstar fan. He probably has every Rockstar game evver made and plays them religiously. His end goal is to see every game before release and get his face in one of their games.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
So the judge sits there and explains what an In Camera inspection is, and at the end JT says that it wasn’t? And he also told his own assistant to shut up?
I skipped most of the rest as I beginning to have trouble understading Mr Thompson any more..
Question for ya, Jack - How much video game play experience do YOU have?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
JT: Now, I want to see if you understand this. You’re not to be faulted for not being a video game player or for knowing how video games work and so forth. I’ve had a crash course since 1998 when I represented the families in Paducah whose daughters were killed by a kid who had played the same game that the killers at Columbine played and the - I lost my train of thought.
That’s the second time I’ve heard of JT losing his train of thought in recency.
@GP: Does this happen to JT frequently?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Jack didn’t shoot himself in the foot as much this time, strangely enough. You being easy on him, Dennis, or was the Friedman testimony just so dry this was all the good bits you could find?
GP: Ryan, this was pretty much all of the Friedman testimony… I think I only chopped Friedman’s long-winded explanation of the (non-video game) case that he was reversed on.
My impression is that Friedman is no one’s choice for jurist of the year. He should have never agreed to hold the Bully hearing in the first place. I think once he got into it he realized that. Once Thompson started his nonsense, Friedman should have seen it through with Thompson, rather than recusing himself from the case. He didn’t present especially well in this trial, either. Saying “I don’t care” never comes off well. Saying to Thompson, consistently - you just can’t do that under the First Amendment would have been a better approach. Also, Thompson makes some assertions here that are ridiculous. The “big violent scene” at the end of Bully… if it’s so bad, and it was released more than a year before this trial, why haven’t we heard about it? Where are the terrible injuries it prompted. The “homosexual activity?” Jimmy Hopkins kissing a boy… JT makes it sound like something more… Sadly, no one there knows enough to call him on it.
Moreover, Thompson alludes that Dave Walsh “was following the Bully case.” How does he know? Walsh cut ties with Thompson very publicly in 2005. Is it beneficial for Thompson to somehow associate himself with Walsh because Walsh actually has some credibility in political circles these days?
And Eugene Provenzo? Please. The guy wrote a book about kids & games… in 1991. Now maybe he’s got something to say, but I can’t imagine how it would possibly block the release of a constitutionally-protected creative work. And it was pretty outrageous for Judge Tunis to let Thompson’s hearsay version of what Provenzo was allegedly going to say stand (does that even count as hearsay, if Provenzo was only - according to Thompson - thinking it?). And clearly, Thompson, not Friedman, was the one who stopped Provenzo from speaking.
But Friedman gets a lot of the blame here. None of this gets started if he doesn’t agree to hold the original Bully hearing and order that Take Two bring him the game for the in camera hearing. That right there is pretty scary, that a multimillion dollar creative project can be possibly interrupted just days before release by a small time judge…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Exactly what does Bully have to do with JT acting like he does? If someone doesn’t agree with Jack, then Jack can treat them any way he wants?
What kind of message is this piece of trash sending to his kid? If you don’t like someone’s opinions, than its perfectly OK to treat them like garbage?
Friggin christians- don’t give me that “its not all of us crap”. the whole faith is a hate group.
GP: Zerodash - none of this, or you won’t be posting here anymore.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
What the hell was the point of all this? It seems like he was once again just trying to drudge up previous failed cases. There was already a ruling that JTs effort to block the sale of bully was without merit. What’s the point of arguing about it a year or so after it’s release. Does JT think he’s going to get him to reverse the decision, in a hearing not related to it, but instead related to the discipline of JT, and his ability to uphold his duty as a member of the florida bar. Or does JT think that if he just stalls, and takes longer, that eventually everyone will just get bored, and forget why he’s being disciplined?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Thunk! Thunk! Thunk! Thunk! (sound of Thompson’s head banging on a brick wall).
Jack Thompson:
In camera!! Idiot!! In camera!! By definition it means you don’t get to see it. That’s the whoooole purpose.
You better hope that your sanction doesn’t involve you re-sitting the Bar’s exam. ‘Cause you ain’t passing that.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Yeah, I noticed Jack did relatively (stress: relatively) well here. And even though he’s using misinformation, he did make a good point that the judge didn’t play the entire game.
Whether that justifies Jack’s conduct, I’d say no, of course. But I still say they play that video of his hearing w/ Friedman for the judge.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Yeah, you gotta love the back and forth about “in camera”. JT probably heard “camera” and got an erection thinking about all the face time he’d get on TV, only to realize it doesn’t have anything to do with publicity.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
@ GetWellGamers
I think it was just dry. Dennis doesn’t pull punches.
It seems that John Bruce’s strategy here was to try to color the judge as someone who doesn’t follow their own procedures or keep their promises.
Simply calling the Judge’s character into question will not help his case when he is acting like a jerk in court.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
@ Zerodash
You’re just as bad as, if not worse than, Jack Thompson.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Was there a point in any of that? “you missed the fistfight at the end, and the gay kiss”? That and “a higher court overruled you, so I’m allowed to call you an incompent git”…
Sad.
I need to re-read it, because that “in-camera” thing confused the heck out of me.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“Senator Clinton, a Democrat - I think.” Heh! Well played, Thompson.
The only reason Jack’s got any wiggle room whatsoever here is because Take Two’s demonstration was less than complete — but I suspect that if they’d shown Friedman the ending and the dude-necking, Jack would pick on some other element of the game that the judge hadn’t seen and blow it out of the water with an exaggerated claim. (A quick hop over to GameFAQs reveals that the “violent ending” consists of four mini-boss fights followed by a scaffolding showdown with the primary antagonist — you knock down about thirteen guys overall, which is less than River City Ransom for heaven’s sake.)
March 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
He at least sounded somewhat like a lawyer this time, although still one fighting a losing case. He still thinks he can excuse his actions by trying to claim he felt he was right.
Then he claims that because someone gave a report to three senators that he was respected by everyone. I don’t mean to Godwin anything but that’s like saying:
“Hey this feller here, he was liked by Stalin, Hitler and Vlad the Impaler… he must be a pretty swell guy!”
Guess what, the game isn’t that violent, the “homosexual content” is a boy kissing another boy. And I haven’t heard of the final part of the game where he claims you “go on a arampage and beat up just about everybod in the school.” Having never played the game, but just going on Jack’s reputation of misrepresenting everything about a R* game, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that he is either mistaken or lying.
I’m still trying to decide between the Wii or the 360 version. The problem is that it is the kind of game that doesn’t need motion control, but the 360 version still isn’t stable even after a patch.
In short, the judge claims that since there didn’t seem to have been any immediate damage done by releasing this game, he didn’t have the right to stop it. Jack is trying to claim that immediate damage will result from the past release of the game.
One thing that I wish the Judge could have brought up that no damage was forthcoming. Therefore the judges decision was correct in hindsight. I really wish we could send a card or a fruit basket to the witnesses in this case. Nothing of any significant value, or Jack will claim they were retroactively bribed. Just a few flowers and a card thanking them for taking the time to do what is right.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Oh, in camera = “in chambers.” That makes sense now…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Optional demonstration, I meant to say. Friedman makes it clear that there was never any necessity to entertain the viewing in the first place.
Zach: In addition to what I mentioned, it seems the character puts out a fire in the gym, stops jocks from tearing up library books, and prevents other acts of wanton destruction. Doesn’t exactly sound like a typical take-no-prisoners bloodbath to me! ;D
March 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Judge Friedman makes a good point that he didn’t even have review the game at all (part or whole). He cannot give Thompson the relief he seeks because their’s a stack of case law that says: 1st Amendment-protect speech (see Bully) cannot be regulated (reach for “Denied” stamp, slap it on Thompson’s complaint). So watch it all or watch it none, that ain’t outcome determinative.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Objection, as to relevancy. Thompson is trying the cases he lost and not the case before him.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
There is no epic melee at the end of the game. You have a final ‘battle’ with Gary in a mass of scaffolding, I believe surrounding the ubiquitous clock tower of the school.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
@Zerodash: What you said about Christians, not cool, not cool at all.
As for Thompson, yeah, he fails, but of course, thats pretty much well known by this point and time.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Has anybody seen the end of Bully?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
@Michael Brooks
Well, you would have to understand that while on a logical level, we can understand that not all christians are as bad as ol’ Tack Jhompson, its hard to feel positive about christians in general if you’ve had the bad luck to only have met the nasty ones…
@Simon Roberts
Oh dear me, Tack Jhompson doesn’t let petty things like facts get in his way..
March 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“RF: I don’t know how you play the game. I don’t play video games.
JT: You don’t know how to play the game - or any game. Did you know that I had an expert there, Dr. Eugene Provenzo, to testify at this hearing we didn’t have?”
… so Thompsom brought in an expert to explain how you play video games?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Was Jack trying to argue his “games treated same as porn” approach here? He was arguing that Judge Friedman could in fact make a ruling, based on Miller. But there’s no pornography in it, and other than the gay kiss, Jack had no proof there was… And arguing that “there might have been, but you didn’t see it” seems pretty weak…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
@burke
and im sure you can understand that us christians cannot stand being lumped in with the likes of jack thompson (not trying to be rude but i must be heard )
far as im concerned jack and all those assholes are trying tp make a profit off of faith (and god threw the moneylenders out of the temple a very long time ago) i dont mean to cause any hostility but lumping me in the same group with jack thompson . . . hell no
March 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
@ Burke
So if every black person I see on the news is a criminal, that makes it ok for me to label black people as criminals? Or if every Hispanic person I saw was homeless, that makes it ok for me to label them as homeless?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hmmm, jack did do quite well here, which scares me, even though he was lying about the content of the game.
I hope the judge understands that he was using false facts to support his case
March 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
@ Burke
by that reasoning, you can say that JT is right in judging all gamers by the actions of the few.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
There is a little culmination of some fights between hopkins and the preps, jocks, nerds, greasers and perfects. I didn’t play the game myself, but a video of it is online.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wud1bxszWWY
March 26th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I too am noticing a change in Jack’s attitude. Like he’s actually calmed down, and isn’t arguing with Judge Tunis as much… and when he does, it’s over a legit legal point, not just because the testimony isn’t going his way.
He’s still going way off topic, rambling, and trying to re-try the bully case instead of defend his behaviour, but he’s doing it, dare I say, more politely this time? What gives?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
And that result obtains under either the Brandenberg test (intended and likely to incite violence), (which it seems Judge Friedman was inclined to apply ) or the Miller test (speech value judge against prevailing adult community standard). There’s about enough case law out there to almost say that the issue is “well-settled.” Jack’s Bully complaint was about as frivolous as all his other lawsuits.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
That, actually, was remarkably reasonable, at least in flashes. Where I would have trouble with it is in the bits and pieces. Like that section from the evidence where he was claiming that he sought judge friedman to bar the “direct or indirect” sale to minors. How, in hell’s bathroom, does one prevent the indirect sale of something? Is that even physically possible???
It is also somewhat amusing to me when Jack Thompson pretends he’s knowledgeable about video games. I don’t know how that could be considered any less hypocrisy then me pretending to be a lawyer.
Curious that, at least in this section - I think I actually understood his point. Most of these articles I haven’t understood his defense, at least in this part; I understood that his defense was proving the judge was somehow negligent. I would say that doesn’t really cut it though. It’s one thing to accuse a judge of negligence and prosecute, it’s another to stop about six inches short of calling him satan and a murderer of children.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Two questions: Is the trial over, and when is the ruling expected to be?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
jack isn’t as crazy during this cross, but he still fails to argue the merits of his current case. i guess it’s hard to let go of his soapbox.
JT: I understand. My wife, who loves me, doesn’t always agree with me…
…does ANYONE agree with you jack? hmmm….i guess not really…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
@jabrwock
ex stregth ritalin lol
March 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
What’s ironic is Jack is bitching that Judge Friedman is somehow incapable of admitting when he’s made a mistake, yet that was the whole reason that he refused to rule, was that he’d realized that he’d erred in allowing the hearing in the first place…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
So JT’s whole point is he maybe a jerk and a spaz and a moron, but the judge started it first and thats why he took his football and went home? Uh. Kay.
And I’m curious about this ‘violent’ ending to Bully. Does it actually happen or not? I wanna know. I’ll check Youtube tonight but I’m wondering if anyone here knows.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Heh. I lol’d when he got so wrapped up in his own rhetoric that he forgot what he wanted to ask Friedman.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
@jadedcritic
“It’s one thing to accuse a judge of negligence and prosecute, it’s another to stop about six inches short of calling him satan and a murderer of children.”
Yeah, that’s where it all falls apart. Jack is trying to re-open the hearing on Bully, to show that Friedman erred in his ruling. But he’s completely sidestepping the reason JF filed a complaint. He didn’t do it because Jack claimed he erred. He did it because of the WAY Jack claimed he erred.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I love the way Jack bangs on about other scenes in the game despite the fact Friedman was already of the opinion that the game was certified too leniently. The extra material would hardly make a difference to the Judge’s personal opinion and none of it would pose any more of a public nuisance than the material he had seen.
Besides which, it’s a total red herring Jack is on trial here not Bully no amount of post hoc rationalisation can excuse Jack’s bad behaviour. Criticism of a judge may well be allowed, but I’m pretty sure it’s not carte blanche to be as rude as you’d like.
Gift.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I really, really, really failed to see any relevance whatsoever in his cross to the case at hand.
He was, yet again, going on and on about his “crusade to save the souls of children”. Judge Friedman ALREADY tried that case and JT lost. Why is he arguing for it now when he should be arguing to save his ass from getting reamed by the Florida Bar Association.
Even if he somehow manages to convince everyone that Judge Friedman was wrong to rule the way he did or to not recuse himself, it still doesn’t excuse how he went about trying to make that happen last time around. He acted like a pottymouthed child back then, and nothing in his cross quoted above addresses ANY of that.
Disbarment, here we come.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I think what is key in this excerpt is that nowhere does Jacko actually talk about the reason why he is being investigated. It is as if Jacki is trying to retry the obscenity case all over again but that isn’t why he is in trouble. If he wanted to say all the things that he says in this exceprt then why didn’t he say them in the court case?
None of the crap he talks about here has anything to do with his millions of emails and faxes and his outrageous behavior and he simply doesn’t understand that is the issue.
The issue isn’t whether Ronald Friedman made the right call or not it is whether or not Jacko is a jackass. Even if Friedman was a total jackass doesn’t give Jacko a license to be a jackass and Jacko just can’t seem to see that.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
This is so confusing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what this case is about is the fact that the judge felt Thompson is a bad lawyer because he filed a case which insisted that a video game HE HAD NEVER SEEN constituted a public nuisance. The judge entertained that notion, looked at the game, and decided that, despite the fact that he didn’t *like* the game Thompson is an idiot and doesn’t deserve to practice law.
And now Thompson is trying to make this an issue of whether the judge has the ability to rate the game “M,” and using anobscenity case to try to prove that? Objection to relevancy, indeed…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
@jadedcritic
It’s one thing to accuse a judge of negligence and prosecute, it’s another to stop about six inches short of calling him satan and a murderer of children.
That was sort of one of Freidman’s points. Even if the stuff about negligence and so forth about him was true, Jack was still over the line, and in violation of rules, oaths, etc.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
jadedcritic: Indirect sale would be like a parent buying GTA, then giving it to their kid — a problem which I would’ve thought the retailers were handling, given how much hassle they gave my mother when she tried to get me San Andreas for Christmas. (She regaled us with the amusing tale of how a manager spotted the distinctive title font from twenty feet away and came over to make sure she wasn’t buying it for a seventeen-year-old.)
March 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“I think what is key in this excerpt is that nowhere does Jacko actually talk about the reason why he is being investigated.”
This entire series has been like that. Instead of defending his actions, he’s trying to show that everyone around him is evil, or criminal, or incompetent, and so therefore the rules of conduct no longer apply to him, so even if he was an ass, it was ok.
Unfortunately for him, the rules of conduct for Bar lawyers provide no such exception.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“RF: There is some entity that does the rating.
JT: Right. It’s owned by the [video game] industry, the ESRB.”
Is this sufficient grounds for perjury?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
@Zachary Miner:
It’s about countless e-mails and faxes and press releases sent by Thompson in which he improperly assinates the judicial character of Judge Friedman.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
@BlackIce
Not really. The ESRB is fully funded by the industry, so in a roundabout way, it *is* owned by them. He’s lying by omission, leaving out that they are non-profit, and their charter ensures they stay at arms-length from the companies they are rating…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
@Digipen89
Yes this happens frequently. He vamps on something he tinks is relevant, but in actually is just his soapbox.
This is also an example of JT’s case having more logical fallacies than a presidential election speech and of JT “Missing the Point”. Though I will say, early on he does a good thing in clarifying the situation. In essence, he’s picking the battlefield and choosing his weapons.
WHat gets JT into a hole is his line of questioning and his goal. His goal in this case should be to prove that his conduct was justified or otherwise not inappropriate. Instead, his goal in this cross-examination seems to be to get Friedman to admit he was wrong about Bully. THat is really stupid because it’s moot at this point.
As I’ve said before, in this trial there is only 1 opinion that matters (Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case.) and JT’s is not one of them. So, every time he vamps to try and win the room over, I laugh because in this matter it’s worthless.
What he’s trying to do is win the court over to his point of view. He thinks, “If the court sees the Pixelantes for what they are, they’ll this case out” Problem is, Tunis isn’t that dumb.
If JT thinks he’s going to win the case at this point, he’s dead wrong. His hole is too deep and the allied soldiers are ready to bury him and move on.
On Bully: As I said, Bully = Glorified Dating Sim. Also, the final battle(I haven’t played Bully) would be moot because there are no real weapons, no blood and no death. So, it is far from simulating anything.
This is my impression of Bully Training in action:
“How do fire this gun?”
“I don’t know, I only ever found the slingshot” *Cop races towards them*
“He’s got a nightstick and he’s pissed! How do I fire this thing?”
“Square button, man! Square button! Square Button!!!” *Cop takes them down.*
March 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
@Zerodash: Well, honestly, I still don’t agree with you, never will, and honestly, this asshole, yes, Thompson is an asshole makes normal Christians look bad, so, sorry, not true.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
What the hell was the point of any of that? Oh, thats right to deflect blame onto someone else while accepting no responsibility of acting like a petulent 2 year old in court (See video from part 6 for and example).
What a waste of Judge Firedmans time as well. Rambling nonsense questions and crying about a Judges past ruling. JT completely blew any chance of actually trying to prove his innocence with that.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@ Zerodash
LAWL! Agree to disagree? You offend myself, friends and family, and then I’m supposed to agree to disagree? lawl dude lawl
“Hey, black dude. I think you’re lazy and selfish because you’re black, but hey let’s agree to disagree.”
March 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@Zachary Miner:
With some falsesaying and/or reckless disregard for truth thrown in for good measure.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
love how he smooshed columbine in there.
Bravo mr thompson.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I have to say that I was impressed that Jack was at least trying to make a real arguement here, even if it did rest on half-truths (”homosexual activity” in Bully) and his opponents ignorance of videogames.
Then of course he went off on another “train of thought” (rant) about Columbine and lost any shred of credibility he might have still had in my mind.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Jimmy Hopkins saves the school at the end of the game.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
@Mredia
“love how he smooshed columbine in there.”
I’m surprised he didn’t mention 60 Minutes…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
***Sort of end spoilers***
IIRC the ending to Bully involves the school involved in a somewhat riot due to certain circumstances and you have to “take care” of the leaders of each group and trouble with the cops. Or something like that, it’s been awhile since I played it.
***End of spoilers***
I like how he talks about the “homosexual content” but doesn’t actually say what it is he’s talking about. The game got a “T” rating because the violence in it isn’t graphic, there’s no blood, there’s no death, there’s no real sexual content, no swearing and of course no guns. Or anything that would warrant a M rating. A T-15 rating maybe, but the ESRB doesn’t have that now do they?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
@ ZeroDash
I hope you were being sarcastic there buddy. While there are several christian… sects? sub-groups? organizations? - whatever you want to call them - that have had racist/sexist/etc views, do not throw them all in the same boat. I know many churches/christains who support same sex relationships and marraiges, even if the state doesn’t, which is the most current debated religious issue i can think someone would have with most Christian organizations.
I’m athiest, but my parents are episcopalian. I know many good, fair-minded people who call themselves Christians, and I’m offended for them that you would generalize like that.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
There are lot of things to speak of with this lengthy transcript, (THANKS BTW) but one thing that happens to irratate me is the homosexual activity that is spoke of. It isn’t cinematicly graphic. Its optional. And when the fuck did homosexuality become so taboo that it should affect a rating. That seems to homophobic and hateful to me.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
What I mean by “take care” of is making them fall into line and bring peace back to the school…. Not much of a spoiler since you can see it coming a mile away but oh well..
March 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
think think jacko did a bit better on this one wit the arguement that there were no proceedings after the iewing. but honestly i think the judge saw in the viewing what every other sane person sees. there is no way that that game or anything on that medium can incite people to imediate violence and therefore jacks allegations were baseless.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
You don’t beat up EVERYBODY toward the end of Bully, you bring all the clique leaders back to their senses,after they were lead astray by Gary and became bullies themselves.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you’re never supposed to fight back against bullies, you’re supposed to just take the abuse till you break.
Hell,Jack was hardly defending himself, he was just trying to prove the judge wrong.
Least the judge made light that Thompson has never seen the full game himself, course, he’dbe too busy scourign the net for the “AK 47cheat” which doesn’t exist.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“… I lost my train of thought.”
I just about burst out laughing at that one. His mouth runs faster than his brain. It just goes to show even he doesn’t know where he’s going with this drivel.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Also:
JT: And how do you play the game?
RF: I don’t know how you play the game. I don’t play video games.
JT: You don’t know how to play the game - or any game. Did you know that I had an expert there, Dr. Eugene Provenzo, to testify at this hearing we didn’t have?
Do YOU, Jack? Yeah I thought not. LOL
March 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I like that Bully was such a violent game (and we all know that all gamers run and play all violent games) that most of us have no clue what Jack is talking about … I also love the huge riots that occurred in every school after a couple kids played Bully and went on rampages …. oh wait there weren’t any riots/rampages … I guess we will just have to wait for Bully 2 to force that to happen.
I’m also lost on the misdirection Jack is playing … He is filling the record up with nonsense but I’m not sure such a tactic will actually help him out. He has yet (imo) not actually attacked and defended himself from the allegations that this whole proceeding is about. In fact since part of the allegations are that he doesn’t behave in a manner befitting a lawyer I would think he is actually giving them more fuel for the fire. Of course disbarring and what not forces the Bar/Judges to admit that one of their own wasn’t perfect so I don’t see a judgment actually occurring that affects Jack beyond a smack on the hand.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
@ Jack:
You’re right, “homosexual activity” isn’t one of the criteria for an M rating and especially not same-sex kissing (which is the extent of the “homosexual activity” in Bully as I understand it).
Does anyone know for sure if E rated games can contain kissing?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
@Jack
“but one thing that happens to irratate me is the homosexual activity that is spoke of.”
Too bad Judge Friedman hadn’t seen it. Then he could have said “You mean that kiss? How do I apply Miller to THAT?”
Then again, it really had nothing to do with Jack’s behaviour. So unfortunately, it’s irrelevant. Still, would have been nice to see him slapped down over misrepresenting what was in the game…
March 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
@PHOENIXZERO
IMO, he’s never specific because he wants the judge or jury to speculate, imagine it as the worst thing they can and rule in his favor.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Jack at his best; incomprehensible, irrational, and rambling.
How ever did he convince anyone to let him represent them anyway?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“that video games of this genre typically result in more violence as you go through the game and you have a culminating act of violence to “finish the game.” You don’t know anything of that, do you?!”
i REALLY wish somebody hasd asked him for the name of the genre. I bet he wouldnt even know it. I havent personally actually experienced a game all about increasing violence.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
@ ZeroDash
We do Agree to disagree as we do with others that make ignorant, ill informed, and just plain dumb statements (like… Thompson!)
We also agree your name should be legally changed to
‘John Bruce Thompson Jr.’
March 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
@NovaBlack
Yeah, I’d like to know what genre Bully fits into. Then again, we all know what genre JACK thinks it fits into… Columbine Masturbatory Brain Programmer Murder Simulators. “Now with 50% more masturbating!”
March 26th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
All and all, I think JT is grasping at strings here. He has nothing viable to defend himself with, either from a conviction that he can do no wrong (99.99% likely), or from outright sheer stupidity (00.01% likely), so therefore he is going to revert back to his jack-ass self, and start trying the Bully case all over again. Either way, he hasn’t changed one bit.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Immediate News Release – March 26, 2008
Lawsuit Filed in Miami to Remove Judge for Forged Loyalty Oath and Illegal Oaths
Miami attorney and anti-violent video game activist Jack Thompson has today filed what is called a “petition for writ of quo warranto” to remove from the bench Dava J. Tunis who is presiding over his Bar “disciplinary” proceedings brought by the video game industry to shut him up because of his successes against it.
Miami-Dade Chief Judge Joseph Farina, because of information provided him earlier by Thompson, has commissioned a criminal investigation of the fact, not the surmise, that Tunis had filed on her behalf a forged loyalty oath when she became a county court judge, or should we say pretended to become a judge. Subsequently, Tunis filed two loyalty oaths that do not comply with state law and are not even notarized, as required by statute. Jeb Bush appointed Tunis to the circuit court bench, and probably now regrets it.
Florida has a State Loyalty Oath law, which is Florida Statute 876.05, because the United States Constitution requires in Article 6 that all state judges execute such loyalty oaths. Tunis has never done so. There may be other judges in the state as well who have not complied with this crucial law, so this may be a scandal that engulfs Florida’s bench.
The United States Supreme Court and the Attorney General of Florida have ruled that Florida’s loyalty oath is a) constitutional, and b) must be complied with strictly.
The consequence of Tunis’ failure to comply with this law is a) removal from office, b) vacating all of her orders since she went on the bench, since they were entered without any legal authority, c) return by her of all salary payments made by the state, and d) possible criminal charges.
Thompson has today alerted the criminal defense bar in South Florida that all of Tunis’ orders while on the criminal bench could be challenged and vacated on behalf of their clients. This is what happens when a judge, who applies the law to others, chooses to ignore and violate the law as it applies to her.
This thumbing of their noses by judges at the law and the Constitution is what we are increasingly seeing from judges at all levels, state and federal. Poll after poll of Americans indicates they are fed up with it and want something done about judicial arrogance and tyranny.
Contact Jack Thompson for more information and/or a copy of the lawsuit at 305- ———— and —————@comcast.net
March 26th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
@ Bogans
Yes E rated games can have kissing. Take the Sims as an example. It is the sex that bumps up the rating.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
JT - “Correct me if I’m wrong.” (20x)
—————————————————
It would be great if the ruling was taking so long so the Judge could play Bully, herself and see that he is lying about the games ending.
Also will someone tell him that the video game “industry” (air ‘quotes’ is if it is some magical secret meeting of dark elders who make decisions on all things gamey) doesn’t own the ESRB and it is it’s own private company and the industry just has decided to use it and make it standard. He is been saying for years, “It’s owned by the [video game] industry, the ESRB”, which is a lie. a blatant one, that anyone could have called them on had they have been educated in the courtroom. It is a shame that Jack does know a thing or two about the industry because he uses other’s ignorance to promote his wares, which are all blatant, blatant lies.
I would really like to see this trial ween away from Jack Thompson attacking video games (mainly Rockstar and T2) and become more about the horrible things he has done to people. Even if he did get Friedman to break down and say ‘Yes, yes. I am bad! I should have banned this game and instead I reviewed it poorly’, what does that really prove? That Bully maybe deserved a M(17) rating? It does not give Jack any reason for being, pardon my language, the shittiest lawyer in existence. Destroying fax machines, being a huge sexist, being obscene and ‘cuntflaps’.. really.
Never mind Jack. Promote your ideals. You will seem to be finished anyway and this may be your last chance to take down Satan Incarnate, R* and T2.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
@E. Zachary Knight
I have played Bully on PS2 and Xbox 360, and the ending is not nearly as intense as Thompson describes. You beat up some out-of-control students in the same manner as the rest of the game–no teachers involved. Then, you go on to face the primary antagonist, also a student. This fight is brief, and it is no more violent than the earlier stages of the game. Thompson is being overly dramatic with his statement (and taking the excerpts of the game out of context–something he doesn’t enjoy when done to him), and he should really stop calling it a Columbine simulator. There is actually a PC game based on the Columbine shooting, and Bully is nowhere close to that in the slightest.
Jack fails to mention that Jimmy’s acts of violence do not go unpunished: attacking adults, prefects, girls, or little children are actions that are hard to pull of without consequences. The main violence consists of beating students till they submit with various weapons–none of which kill students or cause lasting injury.
In regards to the homosexual content, it’s hardly something to throw a fit about. If anything, it may provide some comfort to those younger teens that are confused about their sexuality because it is an act that is not punished or unacceptable in the game. Also, it is not a requirement to beat the game; there are only a few boys that Jimmy is even able to kiss. Homosexuality is not something that needs to be ignored or seen as obscene, for that matter, but that is something I won’t delve into.
Hopefully that gave you an idea of what goes on in the game. Oh, and I’m not sure about this 200-hour deal. I beat the game with 100% completion within 24 hours, and I’m pretty sure I saw all there was to see…
March 26th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“JT: Since you raised it as to what you think [Eugene Provenzo] might have said or that he wanted to say something, would it have been of interest to you to know that he wanted to say that this was the worst misconduct by any judge he had ever seen?”
That sophistry might work on the average joe, but the judge will certainly know JT is insulting a peer. Not only that, Mr. Provenzo is a psychology expert, not an expert in law. He wouldn’t know judiciary misconduct if he witnessed it. He also didn’t say anything, meaning the entire statement is hypothetical at best.
In fact, the whole argument in this part 7 boils down to a judge knowing that he cannot prohibit distribution without a law backing it. Everything else said was very irrelevant.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Interesting read. It’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. Jack is trying to change the argument to be about video games. He’s trying to Get Judge Tunis to revisit Judge Friedman’s ruling.
Since he’s covering the events leading up to his misbehaviours, it’s relevant, but in reading this, I would say Judge Tunis is quite astute, and I doubt this straw man tactic is getting much traction with her.
How much you wanna bet when he’s disbarred he tries to claim it’s religious persecution?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I think Zero’s problem with Christians is the same problem most of us have with religious people in general. It is the belligerant, intollerant fundamentalists who make the most noise, and the good Christians too often keep quiet about it. Look at the problems facing the Islamic faith right now. The moderates keep quiet while the radicals shout “Death to Jews! Death to America!” If there were a bunch of moderates marching in the street burning pictures of Bin Ladin saying, “that’s not our religion!! Stop co-opting it for your own political purposes!” then people may not have such an unfavorable view of the religion and think it is just about cutting off the hands and heads of infidels. Christianity is no different…the fundamentalists raise hell about every little thing, and the moderates just shrug, instead of doing something about it so that people don’t see their entire religion as represented solely by these ignorant wretches.
JT firmly sits in the ignorant wretches camp…
March 26th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
The past 5 parts were funny, this was difficult and embarassing to read and if i have to read him say “correct me if im wrong” one more time my head is going to explode.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
@ E. Zachary Knight: But the Sims is rated teen.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Well my best guess at JT’s strategy is he was trying to discredit Judge Friedman. He did make some dents, but I agree with everyone else that he has FAR from unburied himself. Judge Friedman did make some really dumb responses and came off completely as, “I don’t care about this proceeding.” That to me, in itself, was more damaging than Jack’s cross examining tyraid. Jack did bring up many mistakes, but I don’t believe it will save his ass in the end.
@ Those throwing barbs at Zerodash
Please show respect to this discussion and drop it. Zerodash already did please respect that and get on topic. If you continue it simply makes you look like a troll. Thanks.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
@Jack Thompson, soon to be former Attorney
How did you get back on here?
GP: I let his comment appear. We’ll see how his behavior is.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
JT: And your testimony was that, even if everything I said was true, my having said it was abuse of my oath and of my status as a lawyer. Is that right?
RF: Yes, sir.
Jackie just don’t get it. The ends do not justify the means. Being a lawyer (or any professional, really) -requires- a certain type of conduct, following of certain rules. Whether Bully should have been banned or not is totally irrelevant. You can’t throw a temper tantrum because you don’t get your way and expect to remain a lawyer.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Holy shit at Thompson’s post …
March 26th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
God that series was boring. I guess JT was on his meds that day.
How is any of this relevant? I want to see Jack’s closing arguments. The witnesses and cross-examinations are pretty much the body of it, but the opening and closing arguments are pretty much the point Thompson will try to prove and a summation of everything in between.
As far as I can tell with testimony, all he might (emphases on might) be able to get is that people were perhaps lackluster in their jobs or dismiss things more easily because they’re not obsessed.. But they’re not some evil entity wholly out to get Jack Thompson.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
@JT
So much for “Let’s Mediate,” eh JT?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
@ Loudspeaker
That’s in two news posts now that he’s brought it up inappropriately. We have every right to respond.
@ GP
I still see his post (or was there another one?). Can you confirm the contents of his press release? Also, isn’t he not allowed to file anything anymore?
GP: We’ve been talking about his case for the better part of two weeks, so I’ll give him an opportunity to post this about his latest suit. Frankly, I see it as a non-issue. And I think the courts will, too.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Actually, I’m inclined to think that was the real Jack; Challenging Judge Tunis’ authority is entirely consistent with something he’d do. Interesting. I hope it’s not true, but I guess we’ll have to wait for Dennis or EZK to comment on it before we know for sure.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
@GP
As much as I think it’s a bad idea, I trust your judgment good sir.
The judge gave him enough rope anyway.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
JT: You understand that you don’t watch a video game, right?
RF: Excuse me?
JT: Do you understand that you don’t watch a video game? Right?
RF: Are you making a distinction between watching and playing?
JT: Yes.
RF: Okay. When you’re playing, you are watching.
JT: And how do you play the game?
RF: I don’t know how you play the game. I don’t play video games.
You gotta love Jack’s ability to sniff out the most critical issues in a case and hone in on them with a razor-like precision. He won’t let himself get lost in the meaningless details. Oh, no. Not him.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Come to think of it, in the Marrymore sequence of the E-rated Super Mario RPG, the player’s performance determines whether they see a sequence of either Bowser or Booster kissing Mario in a close-up, or Bowser and Booster in a significant embrace after Princess Toadstool kisses Mario. So there you go, folks, all-male reptile-on-weirdo action has been available to all and sundry since 1996. (The close-up kisses are only on the cheek, but still…)
Also, is that press release for real? Those are some serious-sounding allegations, although given Jack’s penchant for hyperbole, I’m guessing there’s more to the story.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Hes getting desperate now, he knows hes going to get disbarred so hes trying his usual delaying tactics by trying to get the judge thrown off the case.
I really hope that what JT has just posted is false and he gets sued for libel.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“Did you see the melee at the end of the game where the hero of the game, Jimmy Hopkins, goes on a rampage and beats up just about everybody in the school?”
Uh… What? I’ve beaten the game and nothing like that happened.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
@ JT
I’m guessing that this huge loyalty oath violation is probably some inconsequential minor detail, like the wrong notary stamp was used etc.
Its called substaintual compliance, and more then likely your case, like every other case you have ever filed will end in your utter humiliation and hopefully disbarrment.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
@JT:
Funny you bring up Article 6. Article 6 would require EVERY SINGLE CASE you’ve brought to be immediately struck down by the judge
March 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“Miami attorney and anti-violent video game activist Jack Thompson has today filed what is called a “petition for writ of quo warranto” to remove from the bench Dava J. Tunis who is presiding over his Bar “disciplinary” proceedings brought by the video game industry to shut him up because of his successes against it.”
His successes against it? What successes? Has he ever won a case against anybody in the industry? Or one that wasn’t overturned on constitutional grounds?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
@ Bogans
My mistake. I could have sworn they were E. But I guess the Pixelated sex bumped it up to T.
But I do beleive that kissing on its own would not change an E rating.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
anele says:
by that reasoning, you can say that JT is right in judging all gamers by the actions of the few.
And that, my friends, is the heart of all of this video game violence crap, people taking the actions of the few and applying them to all of us. “One bad apple spoils the bunch” I believe the saying goes.
On a side note, what do you think is more dangerous, an unrealistic video game or an organization like the NRA that teaches kids to properly handle a REAL firearm?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
@Loudspeaker — no. I will not let a bigot of any sort spew his brand of hate without speaking back to it. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Jack or someone else. You don’t just throw something like that out there and expect people not to react to it. (P.S. The troll is the one who started this.)
@Jack — still harping on that “forged loyalty oath” thing, eh? The one you’ve been going on and on about for, what, months now? I tend not to believe anything in your “press releases” so you’ll forgive me if I don’t believe anything in that one. And it’s still not going to save your Bar license.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
If you haven’t read Catch-22, shame on you… Here’s a synopsis of the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade chapter…
Captain Black is pleased to hear that Colonel Cathcart has volunteered the men for the lethal mission of bombing Bologna. Captain Black hates the men and gloats about their terrifying, violent task. He is extremely ambitious and had hoped to be promoted to squadron commander, but when Major Major is picked over him, he lapses into a deep depression, out of which the Bologna mission lifts him.
Captain Black tries to get revenge on Major Major by initiating the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade, during which he forces all the men to swear elaborate oaths of loyalty before doing basic things like eating meals. He then refuses to let Major Major sign a loyalty oath and hopes, thereby, to make him appear disloyal.
The Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade is a major event in the camp until the fearsome Major —— de Coverley puts an end to it by hollering “Gimme eat!” in the mess hall without signing an oath.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
@GP
“GP: I let his comment appear. We’ll see how his behavior is.”
Likely like all the other times that this was tried?
But as far as Jack’s “Press release” AKA Fax killing rants that the press doesn’t care about: I see Jack that rather than defending yourself that you are still trying to convict those who oppose you. Is that because there is no defense for you? Seems like an act of desperation to me.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
@ JediObscura
now that a bad analogy, first off the NRA teaches people had to safely use firearms.
2. Its never a good argument to compare two bads and say well this one is worse.
But thankfully neither video games or the NRA are bad so, no problem.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
@Jack
“Lawsuit Filed in Miami to Remove Judge for Forged Loyalty Oath and Illegal Oaths”
Couldn’t come up with a valid defence for your behaviour, so you resort to whining again, eh? Was that your plan all along? Blither on while you attempt to fish for information, and retry old cases, then at the end, claim the court was illegitimate all along?
Riddle me this. How do you forge your OWN signature? Stop speaking nonsense and make a coherent statement for once. The un-notarized bit I get. The non-signing, I get. But forging your own signature? That’s just stupid talk.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Heh, I should probably start refreshing before commenting if the discussion’s gonna go so fast. Any more salvos coming soon, or did Jack just swing by on his lunch break?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
@ E. Zachary Knight
I don’t think the first Sims contains “woo-hoo” (sex) but it still is rated for “sexual themes”. So kissing might be considered a sexual theme.
Anyway, I was just curious if kissing is taken into account at all in a game’s rating. But it shouldn’t matter since Sims 2 contains same-sex kissing and more and is still only rated T, so JT’s arguement to bump Bully’s rating to an M on that basis is moot.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
@Jack Thompson (the attorney), Anti-Thesis of Shadow Darkman
You know, Jackie-boy, sometimes I wonder. Don’t you have better things to do than post comments on places like GP? Honestly.
————————————————————————
This boy’s gone too far. I say they should drop the charges and simply vote for censure. That, and I heard he displayed Contempt Of Court, which should toss his arse in jail. Let’s hope so.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
@ GP
@_@;
March 26th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
@Blindgibbon:
I’m with you on that one. His whole Loyalty Oath spiel is so niggardly and nitpickity that I’m not even going to dignify it with my consideration.
BTW, Jack picked up that peculiar and useless defense from his buddy, Bob Hurt. The Loyalty Oath thing’s been Hurt’s pet project for a while.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
@Simon Roberts
“Any more salvos coming soon, or did Jack just swing by on his lunch break?”
Can’t win his case, so he came up with the loyalty oath thing. I find it funny that he thinks it could become scandal. Have we got any GP’ers from florida? Any of you florida-GP’ers really care?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
@sqlrob:
Nice catch. That’s what Mr. Hurt proposes. In addition to having immediate special elections in which all the Florida judges with faulty oaths must re-contest their seats. He explained all this very clearly in his letter to Gov. Crist.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Sorry, Im in no way trying to say the NRA is bad, I was just trying to show that there are more realistic ways for kids to get “training” with weapons than these supposed “murder simulators”.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Well from what I remember, the first one had same sex kissing as well. Will Wright didn’t want to leave any options out. It also had refernece to sex just not in a bed.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
@JDKJ
Yeah, Bob Hurt’s filings in Google Groups are hilarious.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
That was at Bogans.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
E. Zachary Knight:
Oh, okay. I didn’t remember those parts.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I think I understand why Jack hated Bully so much. He was the guy always being thrown in the garbage cans, given swirlies, wedgies, etc. It reminded him of his high school days too much and all the trauma he experienced came rushing back. lol
In all seriousness, I think he showed that the judge didn’t follow through on what he said he would do, play the entire game, and then allowed Take Two to present to him the game, which conceiveably could be a biased representation, IF what Thompson said about the game was correct. This is where Jack’s case falls apart. Teenage boys kissing…yeah haven’t seen that on MTV ever. There wasn’t a melee at the end either. It’s just a one on one, 3 segment fist fight, between Gary and Jimmy from what I remember.
Is fighting wrong? To most people, yes. But is it necessary at times? Absolutely. In Bully, after all the crap the sociopathic, cruel, and manipulative Gary pulls throughout the game, what other way is there to defeat the kid? You can’t talk to the kid so it’s necessary for a good ol fashioned ass whuppin to put him firmly in his place. Shows that Jimmy, the rebel without a clue at the beginning of the game, knows right from wrong when it’s all said and done.
It’s Jack’s conservative values that don’t allow him to see the shortcomings of his viewpoints. It’s also him taking other people’s word at face value before ever playing the game causing him to freak out. And that, just like any of us who read a review and then think a game is going to be great and then play it, and find out we hate it, is why we need to base our opinions, in these kind of instances, off of our personal experiences, not because someone else said so.
Thompson, while under control here, still is not proving that his behavior and actions were justified, in my opinion.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
This excerpt seems much more “coherent” than any of the others sofar (even when only taking a look at the cross-examination sections) This also makes it considerably more dull to read through. (still awesome work GP)
It however appears to contain almost no arguments in jacks defence, only references to a legal battle he lost and he actually appears to think he can change the outcome of that?? (or is that just me reading to much into it)
This piece is a real puzzle to me, he seems almost coherent here, but still does nothing in his own defence, he only attacks an old case he lost and its judge, but nothing about his conduct in that case which caused that complaint.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I think the Florida loyalty oath that Jack claims is deficient as to certain judges is of equal applicability to countless other Florida state employment positions. I wouldn’t be surprised if Florida state troopers have to take the same loyalty oath. Assuming Jack and I are both correct, then by logical extension, I get to re-contest that $300 speeding ticket I picked up on the Turnpike. Wooo-hoo! I’m gettin’ my three hunid back, Mr. No Loyalty Oath Havin’, Punk-Ass State Trooper. Deal with it.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
@Matt
At that last paragraph in your comment, I say that you’re right, and he is so disbarred.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
@Matt
I thought the fact that Jack hated Bully because in the game the bullies get their comeuppance. Jack being a bully himself is afraid of people who defend themselves. Many bullies, like Jack, are cowards, and only do what they do because people don’t stand up to them.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
@GP:
So, what your saying is JT’s trying to show that the judge is bad and shouldn’t be paid attention to just because he didn’t sign and/or state some silly oath at some point at some time and so JT’s just trying to get this tossed out on technicalities?
Or am I reading this wrong? Because seriously, it sounds like thats what he’s trying to do.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
For all those people bashing Christians and other religious people, the fanatical militant atheist brigade are just as intolerant, bigoted, arrogant and lacking common sense as the fundamentalist religious nuts.
I’m a Christian, and i hate fundamentalists the likes of Thompson, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and others, but dip shits like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are assholes just like them, they are just on the other side of the debate.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
What gets me about this one is that JT attempts to bootstrap the crap he said about the Judge to an appeal the was ruled on long after his case was over with, as evidence that what he was saying was either true or at least wasn’t a bar violation.
Whats really bad is that Judge Tunis let him do it.
The judge should have asked if the appeal was prior to or after JT’s conduct, if before maybe relevant but since it was afterwards then it is in no way relevent.
its like a libel case, if you said so-so was a convicted felon and he loses his job, when if fact he wasn’t a convicted felon. and then sometime later he is convicted of a feloney this does not retroactively make your statement true.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“In all seriousness, I think he showed that the judge didn’t follow through on what he said he would do, play the entire game, and then allowed Take Two to present to him the game, which conceiveably could be a biased representation, IF what Thompson said about the game was correct.”
The judge’s order to play the game though, was based on the assumption that he had a right to order the review. He later, after seeing major portions of the game, realized he didn’t really have that right. Hence why he locked up the transcript until after Bully’s release date, and never actually ruled on the case.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Oh gawd another JT press release…
…Thousands of fax machines crying out in pain right at this moment!
March 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Can anyone confirm the actuality of the supposed criminal investigation?
I don’t believe a word of it. I highly doubt that a party that could directly and obviously benefit from such a thing be believed. It seems incredulous.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Jack hollerin’ out “Here’s another good defense!!” every day or two is quick becoming like the boy who cried “Wolf!!” once too many times. The townfolk just don’t come running.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
@ ZeroDash:
What I typically find humorous and sad about your arguments is this:
You’re preaching the same kind of blind ignorance you accuse others of being blinded by. An ignorant preacher saying all the Muslims are going to hell is just as ignorant and wrong as your saying all Christians are a part of a hate group — it just isn’t true!
Your douche-baggy way of expressing your patently wrong message just pollutes the core Atheist message, making ALL Atheists look like assholes because of your minority perspective and big mouth.
The parallels are really funny — you use the same methods as hateful preachers: your message is just a little bit different.
Just respect what others believe… or hate them in silence if you are incapable of that… - there is NO acceptable reason to be so venomously hateful towards people whose only ‘crime’ is believing something that you don’t.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Anyone notice he said his wife loved him. Think that was just for us?
March 26th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
That rampage at the end isnt really a rampage, its Jimmy Hopkins trying to save t