Following Tumultuous Utah Stint, Jack Thompson Heads to Louisiana

Perhaps Yogi Berra said it best: It’s like deja vu all over again.

On the heels of ugly, public dust-ups with both the Utah Attorney General and the President of the Utah State Senate, Jack Thompson is taking his pursuit of video game legislation to Louisiana.


On Friday Sen. A.G. Crowe (R, at left) will introduce SB 152. The bill, with the addition of a few bells and whistles, is essentially the same truth in advertising measure that passed the Utah legislature in March, only to be vetoed by Gov. Jon Huntsman.

Last week Thompson circulated a press release indicating that a bill "nearly identical" to his failed Utah legislation would be proposed in Louisiana. While he did not name the sponsor, GamePolitics has learned that it is Sen. Crowe. In the press release, Thompson said that he expects to testify before the Louisiana legislature along with "four experts."

Sen. Crowe is apparently untroubled by the acrimony that marked Thompson’s 2006 attempt to legislate video games in Louisiana. At that time a Thompson-authored bill unanimously passed both houses of the Louisiana legislature and was signed into law by then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco. The measure was eventually ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, but not before Thompson got into an ugly, public dispute with the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office (see: Suddenly Thompson is Feuding With Former Louisiana Allies).

Since Thompson’s last chaotic go-round in Louisiana, he was permanently disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court for more than two dozen professional misconduct violations. Thompson has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the failed 2006 legislation ultimately cost Louisiana $91,000 in video game industry legal fees, it also provided some typically bombastic Thompson quotes, including: Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you’re a hit man or a video gamer.

For more background on Thompson’s earlier Louisiana experience, check out The Circus Comes to Louisiana, a piece I wrote for Joystiq in 2006.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. BearDogg-X says:

    That has more to do with the state’s roots as a French colony than anything else.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  2. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Your sarcasm is noted.

    I say this seriously.

    The image below depicts what I would personally want to do with someone who believes in forcing their religion on others.

    Too bad I’ll never get to do it in reality. 


  3. Icehawk says:

    That pretty much sums up jackie.  Absurd, demented and psychotic/narcassistic but he does bring a bit of (ironic) humor into our lives now and again. 

  4. Ryno says:

    How in the world can they possibly think they can make a law enforcing "recommendations"? Do they not understand what the word means? Sure, maybe restrictions could be enforced with a law, but a recommendation?

    Does Jack think that every retail group out there won’t be rabidly opposed to this, not just the ESRB or MPAA? It’s just mind-bogglingly stupid that no one has stepped in and pointed out the over-arching effects this will have on every aspect of sales in the state and just how disruptive it will be to every business in Louisiana.


    Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They’ve got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however…

  5. Monte says:

    Which is kind of funny considering that Jack kept on saying how that resoning was ridiculous and not a reasonable excuse for the veto… and that’s how Jack took a law that might have actually stood some slim chance of getting passed, and made a bill that was CLEARLY unconsitutional… One step foward, two step backs… or the quote i prefer "one step to the side, and one step back into a ditch full of used surgical equipment."

  6. Michael Chandra says:

    That in fact is what he said his next move would be. I didn’t expect him to be stupid enough to actually carry it out though.

  7. Sukasa says:

    Sad, I would think that soldier would agree to at least a point.  As a ex-soldier who worked as a paralegal, there were those soldiers who fitted that stigma(I had to work with at least a couple).  Yes, most soldiers are good and honorable but not all are.  Generally, there is alot of behind the scenes drama, etc that goes in that most people never see, which when I was over in Korea, you generally find out about or hear the rumors more(like married people with spouses back in the US "dating" while stationed in Korea, sometimes with other married people) –fun times. 

  8. PHOENIXZERO says:

    Yeah yeah, but but, the Bible is a 100% accurate account of the world’s history from 2,000+ years ago! How DARE YOU CHALLENGE THE WORD OF GAWWWWWDAH! It’s infallible you godless heathen!


    May you burn in hell,

    Jesus Freak M. Sheep





  9. Conster says:

    From JT’s point of view, this makes perfect sense, I guess. After all, the veto in Utah was because shops wouldn’t enforce the ESRB anymore, so if you make it illegal to do that, you’ve solved the problem. Right? …Right?

  10. hellfire7885 says:

    No it won’t be his fault, it’s never his fault, it’s impossible fori t to e his fault /sarcasm

  11. Monte says:

     Ya i don’t think that was in the Utah bill, and both those things will get the bill thrown out in court.

    If the rest of the bill i still on the truth in advertising angle then (D) seems to to state that they MUST advertise. The bill does not give the option for the retailer to NOT advertise their policy… Hell, the fact that it includes "goods" which are labeled, it means that all retailers must advertise they have a policy like that even if they don’t.  Essentially with the combination of (A) and (D) they are forcing the retailers to enforce a voluntary policy; that is to say, with this bill the ESRB ratings would no longer be a voluntary system as this bill is forcing ALL the retailers to carry it out…

    The Utah bill i do not think had this wording and it is part of what the bill toothless but more passable than previous bills. It still kept the ESRB as a voluntary system in that a retailer always had the option to not have a carding policy or to not advertise their policy and thus not make carrying out the policy legally binding. The Utah bill essentially said "if advertise that you have a policy to do something, then it’s illegal for you not to do it"… this bill says the same thing, but comes with the added bit "and ALL retailers, regardless of if they want to have such a policy or not, MUST advertise that they have such a policy"… and that addition makes the voluntary ESRB system a legally enforced one

  12. Defenestrator says:

    Keep in mind that Jack Thompson is the same person who believes that the "M" rating is an "admission by the companies making the products that their product is dangerous and harmful."

  13. Defenestrator says:

    On top of that, this bill is actually more drastic in its measures.  The Utah bill had questionable constitutional issues.  This one has undeniable constitutional issues.  The lawyers will actually be able to use the previous Louisiana case as precedent.

    On top of that, it will deny access to minors to most products simply because they don’t own a driver’s license.  Tickle Me Elmo will be off limits to a 14-year-old due to this restriction.  (No, that’s not an exaggeration.)

  14. Kajex says:

    That was a beautiful remark. I love it.

    Win: 3 Headshots

    Epic: On a boat, aiming at a tiny boat, rocked by waves, over 80 feet away.

  15. Torven says:

    Does the man simply not understand the difference between the words recommendation and restriction?

  16. HarmlessBunny says:

    If this actually passes unlike Utah, then it will cost the State a ton of money as it is challenged. You would figure a failure like his bill would get you to stop and think about taking a different approach. Rather it ends up "My bill is perfect! If Utah won’t do it and try to humiliate me, then I shall try in Louisiana!"

    They actually explained rather well to Jack why the bill failed… this will have a similar result. I have a feeling all it takes is someone to mention what had JUST happened in Utah, and this starts crumbling down.

  17. Icehawk says:

    Well we know where he is going I say head him off at the pass. 

    Forward all the info from his recent antics in Utah and thier ruling on HB353 to the Governer and the A.G. in Louisiana (just be careful to avoid spamming) to help set the grounds of his expertise.   Might save more money than Geico.


  18. nightwng2000 says:

    Silly Parents.  What were they thinking?  Did they think he was going to follow an attorny’s career track?  AG A.G. Crowes?  It’s like the Majors family naming their kid Sargent and hoping he’ll become a General in the Army.

    Ok, yeah, it was my stupid fault.  Speedily zipping through while at work and got caught goofing up because of the prior reference to the Utah AG.  :: sigh ::  My bad.  Thanks for the fix.  🙂


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  19. Defenestrator says:

    A. It shall be an unfair or deceptive trade practice for any retail business
    to sell or distribute any goods or services which are labeled with an age
    restriction or recommendation on the packaging to any personwho is under the
    restricted or recommended age.

    This is unconstitutional under the First Amendment as you’re giving non-government programs the force of law.  Louisiana already tried this, and it goes BEYOND the original "Truth in Advertising" law that failed in Utah.

    D.(1) Any retail establishment which sells or distributes goods or services, which are labeled or advertised with an age restriction or
    recommendation, shall post a sign on the door of the establishment and at the
    cash register which reads as follows:
    "We card! The sale or distribution of any goods or services, which has
    an age restriction or recommendation, will not be sold to any person without a
    valid driver’s licenses or state issued identification card."

    This is forced speech and is also unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  Oh…this literally means ALMOST EVERY retailer in Louisiana will have this signage.  There are probably no retailers (with maybe a few exceptions) that do not have products without age recommendations.  Even if one product in their entire inventory has an age recommendation, they’re forced to put up these signs.

    If this law is enacted, it will get overturned and Louisiana will be on the hook for more legal fees.

    To paraphrase Jack Thompson:  How predictable.  How sad.

  20. zel says:

    and some are incapable of thinking at all O.o


    I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

  21. Austin_Lewis says:

    Jack Thompson will attempt to testify as an ‘expert’, although what he’s an expert in I have no idea.  He’ll probably make a jackass out of himself, and anyone who cross-examines him will realize that he has no fucking clue.

    Then, when his bill is rejected, he’ll implode, piss everyone off, and be throuh out of the state.

  22. Defenestrator says:

    And yet, if a law like this passes, the content of the Bible will need to be rated.  The Bible is full of torture, murder, genocide, rape, incest, nudity and sexual situations.  At the very least, I’m thinking T for Teen but really should be M for Mature.  Censors never really think their cunning plans all the way through.

  23. JDKJ says:

    It’s too bad that Eddie Edwards isn’t the Governor any more. His veto could have been bought for a mere $50,000.

  24. zel says:

    Human nature I would say, when you say you’re offended by something someone else likes, they tend to not want to listen to you, they may listen or finish reading to be polite but they wouldn’t take you seriously. For instance if i wrote you an e-mail about how I find video games to be a waste of time and only children should play em and any adults who play em are just immature, then proceed to yammer on about something else, how seriously would you take me?

    not that i believe that, i love my games 😉

    A good example is my co-worker. He was a seargent in the military and he lived and breathed it for years. He loved being in the military, but of course he’s out now and things are a bit different. The non-military people in the public around here always attach a stigma to people who join the military as idiots who couldn’t find a better job and had to join up and when someone says that to him, he might be nice and shrug em off and keep on going, or he might chew em a new one, but either way he won’t listen to anything else they have to say or take anything else they have to say seriously.

    So i would say its just general human nature to ignore people who are offended by something you like or who insult something you like. not to say EVERYONE is like that but in my experience its never good to insult something someone likes and then proceed to try and offer them your view on a subject and try to get them to agree with you.


    I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

  25. tollwutig says:

     Someone needs to encourage the Utah A.G, and Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups to email Sen. A.G. Crowe and give him insight into the method of Thompson.

  26. BearDogg-X says:


    Although, Buddy Caldwell is Attorney General of Louisiana, this guy’s name happens to be A.G. Crowe.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  27. nightwng2000 says:

    I put the following on my Facebook along with a link (using the AG’s picture) to this article:


    So, that’s the Lousiana AG.
    And, according to the bill, which is also linked to in the article, ALL products and services with age recommendations, whether labeled or just advertised, MUST be ID checked by the purchaser.

    Which means your 10 year old won’t be able to buy Monopoly because it has an age recommendation of "8 years & up".

    I feel sorry for you Louisiana folks. When they tried to pass a video game bill awhile back, you were stuck with a $90,000 bill because it failed to pass Constitutional muster in court. Now, you face lawsuits in every direction to block this new idiotic bill.

    Here’s an idea: If the Traitor John Bruce "Jack" Thompson thinks this is such a "bullet-proof" and Constitutional bill, similar to the one that was vetoed recently by the governor of Utah, and that he plans on testifying in favor of during hearings to get this bill passed, along with his "experts"; How about you citizens demand the AG and Louisiana legislatures require that the Traitor John Bruce put his money and credibility where his mouth is and defend the bill in court, paying any and ALL lawyer fees once the bill fails. Let him take it to the US Supreme Court if he wants. But HE is the one who pays the fees should it fail.

    Oh, wait. He can’t, can he?

    He’s been disbarred by the Florida Bar.
    And he has no credibility, no honor, no ethics, and no morals left to loose.

    So, gee, I guess that’s why he’s so willing to back a bill that will so clearly fail. HE has nothing to loose. Only Louisiana citizens do.



    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  28. Zerodash says:

    Other than the veto, the thing that suprised me most about Utah is how his info about his behavior and disbarrment was discussed so much in the press.  With his latest blowup in Utah, this time putting his nonsense behavior even more in the limelight, he is going to find that getting allies will be tougher.

    I wouldn’t be suprised if this Louisiana legislation fizzles before it gets too far- and it will all be Jack’s fault.

  29. ash1300 says:


    I love the quote in the article.

    Although, I suppose it’s fair to point out that vice presidents have shot more people in the face than people playing video games.

  30. hellfire7885 says:

    I’ve seen this behavior before during his Bar trial. He kept harping about the judge’s loyalty oath, hoping to get the case invalidated or get the judge to recuse herself or be removed, and he was going ot continue this until a judge ruled uninanimously in his favor.

    He’s likely attempting the same thing here, he’ll keep cycling the same states, allowing the governments to change just enough until someones lets him get his way.

    Only in his mind would that work, and only in his mind are people that expendable.

  31. zel says:

    Because it’s being sponsored by someone there, so basically you can write up a bill and if someone sponsors it, then it can get voted on.


    I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

  32. mogbert says:

    All he is doing is finding an arch-conservative ally, and putting it up through them by asureing them all the parents will vote for them and the law is bulletproof. They take it hook line and sinker and run with it. After it has gotten a little distance and is about to be discussed, JT jumps out of the bushes and yells "Surprise, this law is -all me BABY!-" Then he repeats the song and dance, which either has the end it being a law that is declared unconstitutional, and costing the state a lot of money, or the govenor will step up and veto the bill, in which case he triggers JT’s trap card. When tapped, it does 10 points of email damage, or kills one fax machine of your choice.

  33. nightwng2000 says:

    Then it’ll be a major press fiasco against Louisiana for attempting to "mentally molest" my child with material that I find obscene and inappropriate for him.  Because, after all, their claim is to be protecting children from harm, and if they are supporting the sale of material to my child that I consider harmful, then THEY are the ones knowingly and intentionally attempting to harm my child, against my Rights as a Parent.  And, as such, claims that they are attempting to Protect the Rights of Parents to provide their children with material that isn’t harmful, will be proven false and fraudulent.

    It would not be in their best interest to just dismiss a claim that a Parent feels inappropriate material was sold to their child at the support of the state when it’s the state that is passing this law to, supposedly, protect the children and protect the Parent’s Rights.  They will have been show as knowingly and intentionally having fraudulently passed this bill under false and fraudulent pretense.

    I’d happily take that case to the US Supreme Court, even if to loose, just to show the world just how unethical, dishonorable, and corrupt any part of the US government is.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  34. Stealthguy says:

    From what I got the last time he tried this shit it seemed like the majority of the people voting on the damn thing didn’t know he made it. He was trying to be all puppet mastery and saying things like "dance puppets dance!"


    Grrrr, suppose to be a reply to the above.

  35. jkdjr25 says:

    Here’s a question that’s been working its way through my head for a while now.

    Why is Thompson allowed to write "laws" for a state that he doesn’t even live in? It would be different, though content wise would still be unconstitutional, if it was for a federal law; but this is state law. Shouldn’t you be required, by law, to actually live in a state to write laws for it?

  36. ezbiker555 says:

    Hes going to do the same thing again, and fail?

    My god its like a dog that doesn’t learn about its boundries. When the master puts up the eletric fence and you keep going over that feild, what do you think is going to happen? The same thing.

    Why didn’t you listen to me when I suggested you take up the fight againts drugs or something like that? Oh wait because you wanted to make an example out of me rather than listen to good advice. Gee thanks.

  37. nightwng2000 says:

    Dear Louisiana,

    My 13 year old son could buy the DVD movie Saw V: The Unrated Director’s edition because it was unrated.

    He could buy a copy of The Holy Bibile, even though I, personally, found it filled with obscene, inappropriate material for his age yet doesn’t have an age recommendation stamped on it or on the book shelf in the store.

    BUT, he couldn’t buy the game Monopoly, which has an age recommendation of "8 years & up" because he neither owns a driver’s license nor a government identification card.

    What’s up with that?

    Best Regards,



    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  38. nightwng2000 says:

    The whole thing, from beginning to end is utter failure.

    1. A.  Toys have age recommendations.  Indeed, go to bookstores and in the children sections, many of those sections are divided by age recommendations.  Of course, how do you get around this?  Grade level recommendations.  It’s not age recommended, it’s grade level recommended.

    1. B.  So, even if not labeled, the product is advertised as being for a particular age group?  Yeah, that’s gonna lead to some interesting lawsuits. 

    1. C.  So where’s a 10 year old going to get a "driver’s license or government identification card" to buy a water pistol or the game of Sorry?

    1. D.  So, basically, ALL businesses.  Including book stores, amusement parks, retail stores… hey, is a school considered a "service"?  I mean, this law does indicate goods AND services.

    1. E. 1. ii. Dennis, we could use the details of the reference to "responsible vendor program".

    They just WANT to have to pay lawyer’s fees, don’t they?

    I’d like to see these so-called experts argue the logic that ALL age recommended items legitimately fall under the need for this law.  Or are they going to focus ONLY on video games and other media?


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  39. black manta says:

    Here we go again…

    At this point, hearing JT doing stuff like this is enough to give me an ulcer.  And like I said, hadn’t he already been defeated here before?  What makes him think that just because there are a couple new people in office that it’ll be any different?  Yes, Jindal is a Republican, but I think he’s one of those that Jack once called a RINO on one of his Human Events rants.  And even though there’s a new AG and a new Goverenor, I’d think there’d still be enough people in office, including the judge, who remember him from last time.

    I doubt he’ll bring forth any of these "experts" he keeps touting.  IIRC, last time they either never showed or he refused to provide them when asked.


  40. NovaBlack says:

    ‘Thompson said that he expects to testify before the Louisiana legislature’

    see this is what i dont get…why?

    why is thompson testifying?

    he’s not a doctor, hes not a psychologist, hes not a resident of the state, hes not a video game representative.

    I dont get why he gets given time to come and give reasons as to why this bill should be passed. He simply isnt qualified to. He’s a guy with an opinion. Nothing more. I mean i get that he is involved with the drafting of the bill, but that doesnt mean he’s qualified to speak on the subject (as we all know he isnt).

    Heres what will happen:

    He will just spout off the same tired old lies over and over.

    Once again, nobody with any authority will have the balls to stand up to him.

    Therefore his lies will get believed by crusty old politicians who have no clue about reality.

    itl get passed.

    Itl get found unconstitutional.

    Itl waste money.

    Thompson will move onto the next state and do it all again.


    wnat to know how to stop it? hmm perhaps somebody in authority, i.e. some game industry representatives, should actually get involved, spend oooh 5 minuts researching the factual versions of thompsons lies, go down there, counter each and every lie he makes, and get him laughed outta the place. hmm 5 minutes work. Any takers? nope? no didnt think so, Nobody with any authority (*cough* the entire games industry lately *cough*) has any balls. Im sick of having to stand up for my passion without the support of the ppl we are standing up for!

  41. PHX Corp says:

    We should let him know anyway

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  42. MaskedPixelante says:

    Dear Louisiana.

    I got carded for trying to purchase a Teen rated game. Shut up about all this truth in advertising junk. It’ll never work, and even Utah thought it was a waste of time and money.

    That is all.

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  43. JDKJ says:

    In the case of the legislator sponsoring a bill, there’s no unlicensed practice of law. To use the Arizona Rule as an example, note the requirement that a service of some sort be provided "to another." This requirement is sounded in the attorney-client relationship which undergirds the concept of "practice of law" and must therefore also undergird the concept of "unlicensed practice of law." The legislator sponsoring a bill isn’t drafting his legislation for "another," he’s drafting it for himself. The requirement that a service be provided to another is not satisfied in the case of the legislator because there’s no identifiable client and therefore there’s no unlicensed practice of law. And, while it doesn’t change the outcome of the analysis, very few legislators actually draft their own legislation word-for-word. Rather, they do have attorneys or attorney-supervised drafters who actually do the heavy lifting for them — if not on their own office staff, then certainly in the form of legal counsel employed by the legislative body. 

    In your case and to again use the Arizona Rule as an example, if what you’re calling "advice on the prososal of a law and the changing of a law" can reasonably be said to involve both the "preparing or expressing [of a] legal opinion" and the "provi[sion of] . . . a service to another" (e.g., the ECA), then you are most certainly practicing law without a license in Arizona. A registered lobbyist can urge the passage or non-passage of a particular piece of legislation but unless they are also an attorney admitted to practice in the jurisdiction where the legislative body lies, they cannot offer legal opinions. Conversely, there’s absolutely nothing illegal about Shadow or Zippy emailing Gov. Huntsman and opining that HB353 should be vetoed because it violates the First, Second, and Third Amendments because neither Shadow nor Zippy have a client to whom they’re providing a service.

    Of course and as a practical matter, there’s little to no chance that you’d ever be prosecuted for UPL because there’s little to no negative economic impact on the membership of the local Bar. The greater the negative economic impact on the local Bar, the greater the chance that you’ll be prosecuted for UPL because most UPL prosecutions, despite the Bar’s claims of being motivated by a desire to protect the consumer, are really motivated by a desire to protect the membership of the local Bar’s economic interests.    


  44. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Okay, so my knowledge is lacking when it comes to rules of practicing law. So in Arizona, do all Politicians have to be licensed by the Arizona Bar in order to do their job? Or do they have to have a licensed attorney on retainer to write the legislation for them? If so, who are we voting for?

    That is what I am not understanding. According to your Arizona Bar rules/laws I am guilty of practicing law without a license because I have given advice on the prososal of a law and the changing of a law. How does that work?

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  45. JDKJ says:


    Did you not read and understand the Arizona Rules? If so, what the hell are you talking about? The Rules are clear: drafting a legal document such as HB353 and rendering legal opinions to another fall under the definition of the practice of law and doing so without an Arizona license to practice law or some other form of admission to practice in Arizona is the unlicensed practice of law. At the very least, it is in the State of Arizona. Plain and simple. And beyond meaningful dispute.

    And, just in case this is where you lost your way, let me explain that the elements of the Arizona UPL Rule aren’t conjunctive. They are, by use of the disjunctive "or’ rather than the conjuctive "and," disjunctive. Which means that there’s no requirement that unlicensed conduct defined as the practice of law must be accompanied by a misrepresentation of one’s self as a licensed attorney. Either one, standing alone, suffices.

    And while I said I’d take a pass on the "J.D." issue, I feel compelled to correct your   misapprehension. The Florida law regarding the use of the honorific is not the only applicable law. Rather, the relevant law of each and every jurisdiction where someone was the recipient of Jack-O’s numerous legal-rant documents containing use of the honorific would also apply. Now let’s assume that someone in Arizona was a recipient. Under the Arizona Rule, what outcome do you think prevails, pray tell?

    And to correct your misapprehension of the Florida law on use of the "J.D." honorific: The Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct do not state that it is permissible for a disbarred attorney to use the honorific.* Unlike the Arizona Rules of Practice, the Florida Bar Rules don’t define either the "practice of law" or the "unlicensed practice of law" — beyond the Bar having rendered a few Advisory Opinions on a few fact-specific cases, none of which involve the use of honorifics.  Accordingly, all cases involving allegations of UPL need be addressed on a case-by-case basis and judicial wisdon rather than an applicable statutory definition brought to bear in making the determination that the alleged conduct is indeed the unlicensed practice of law. But, notwithstanding this failure to define these critical terms,  I’ll bet a dollar to your donut that in Florida, like Arizona, if the factual circumstances of the use of the honorific are such that it is reasonably likely to induce belief that the user is licensed to practice law, then said user runs a better than good chance of being found to have held themselves out as licensed to practice law and, therefore, practicing law without a license. 


    *In fact, all disbarred Florida attorneys recieve a letter from the Bar instructing them to "remove all indicia" of having been an attorney from themselves. Whether or not use of the honorific "J.D." is one of the indicia of having been an attorney is, I believe, context dependent and could, in some contexts, operate as an indicia of having been an attorney.


  46. JDKJ says:

    By the rules of practice in Arizona and likely many other States, not if such use is reasonably likely to induce others to believe that he is authorized to engage in the practice of law. And I believe the use, particularly in the context of the Utah debacle (i.e., his drafting of legislation), is likely to lead to such a belief. As I tried to explain to EZK, the law degree, beyond being a requirement of sitting the Bar exam which, by turn, is a requirement of admission to the Bar, has very little to do with the ability to practice law. State licensure is what really matters. And, as we both know, Thompson lost his state licensure. 

  47. Andrew Eisen says:

    So, is it appropriate for Thompson to continue to use it after being disbarred as he still has a law degree?


    Andrew Eisen

  48. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Well, the clincher here is that he must be representing himself as licensed to practice law in the states he is drafting legislation. According to the information we have available to us, he is not. He is drafting law, but not in the capacity of a licensed lawyer in neither Utah nor Louisianna.

    If however he is using those titles in his corespondence in the attempt to define himself as a licensed lawyer, yes he could be. But it is my understanding under the rules of the Florida Bar, that the title J.D. can be used by any law school graduate.

    So I guess the only real argument here is not that he is drafting legislation and giving advice on that legislation as anyone can do, but that by using the title J.D. is he or is he not advertising himself to be licensed.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  49. JDKJ says:

    "Juris Doctor." It’s the three-year law degree issued by law schools. And, in most all jurisdictions and with minor exceptions, a prerequisite for admission to practice.

  50. JDKJ says:

    Lemme quit giving you my unsupported opinion and, instead, make like a lawyer and cite you to an example of the relevant law: 

    "Practice of law means providing legal services or services to another by:

    Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity [or p]reparing or expressing legal opinions . . . ."  (Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31 (a)2A).

    "Unauthorized practice of law includes but is not limited to:

    Engaging in the practice of law [as defined by Rule 31 (a)2A)] by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d); or [u]sing the designations “lawyer,” “attorney at law,” counselor at law,” "law,” "law office,” “J.D.,” “Esq.,” or other equivalent words by any person or entity not authorized to practice pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d), the use of which is reasonably likely to induce others to believe that the person or entity is authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state."  (Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31(a)2B).

    If you can apply the above-cited law to the facts of our case and still conclude that Jack-O’s prancing around the State of Utah, drafting legislation, and offering his legal opinions doesn’t amount to the unauthorized practice of law, you let me know, O.K?

    P.S.: I’ll pass on the easy lay-up of his use of the "J.D." honorific.


  51. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Well then, I am guilty of practicing law without a license on numerous occasions.So are a good number of people and politicians who make it a point to be politically minded.

    THere have been many times where I have given advice to politicians on the construction and rewording of bills. So report me to the Oklahoma Bar. I am guilty in the orst degree.

    Unless John Bruce is advertising his services as an attorney and not just a concerned citizen with a background in the study of law, he cannot be charged with unlicensed practice of law. Unless the laws and rules governing lawyers are so vague and open to interpretation that it is possible.

    Under your interpretation of practicing law without a license, anyone who wants to write about or give an opinion or interpretation of the Constitution or bill or law, would have to be a licensed lawyer.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  52. JDKJ says:


    You couldn’t be more wrong. He cannot give advice on the construction of laws because that most certainly is the unlicensed practice of law. Representing one’s self as someone skilled or knowledgeable in law without the proper licensure to practice law is most certainly the unlicensed practice of law. Would you be practicing law without a license if you represented yourself as a person to approach to resolve [legal] concerns or ask [legal] questions? Short answer: "Yes." Did you not recall that the issue in question was the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. The U.S. Constitution is a law — indeed, the so-called "Supreme Law of the Land." Holding yourself out as someone qualified to construct the Constitution is the unauthorized practice of law.

    With respect to the ability to properly offer legal counsel, the law degree don’t mean a thing. It’s all about the state licensure. If, as you claim, merely obtain a law degree was ample grounds to offer your services as a legal advisor for pay, then countless law school graduates would never take a Bar exam and seek licensure.

    As to your assertion that he would need to register as a lobbyist, I can’t think of one state where the legal definition of "lobbyist" doesn’t include the requirement that the lobbying effort be made on behalf of a paying client. So, unless Jack-O was or is getting paid for his lobbying efforts, there is no requirement that he register as a lobbyist.

    Bear in mind that as an attorney, I am required to be familiar with the rules of professional conduct and ethics in the jurisdictions to which I admitted. And even if not so required, I would have familiarized myself with those rules for fear of ending up like Jack-O. 

  53. E. Zachary Knight says:

    See my above comment, but in short:

    This would be considered a lobbying effort and the writer of the letter quite possibly need to register as a lobbyist in the states they are soliciting depending on the states’ lobby laws.

    JT in this instance is more closely acting as a lobbyist than practicing law without a license.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  54. E. Zachary Knight says:

    While yes, representing oneself to be an atorney whether through direct action or inaction to correct misrepresentation can be considered breaking the terms of disbarment, disbarment does not however remove his degree in law.

    He can still represent himself as someone skilled or knowledgeable in law. There are still certain titles he is entitled to use. But he cannot represent himself an attorney nor solicit his services in legal matters (ie court cases or other lawsuits). He can give advice on the construction of laws though.

    As for the AG bit you stated, no it does not constitute unlicensed practice of law. I am not a lawyer, but I still have knowledge and experience that some lawmakers would find useful in certain situations. Would I be practicing law without a license if I represented myself as a person to approach to resolve concerns or ask questions? No. I would be an expert in that situation. John Bruce is representing himself not as a lawyer in these situations (as far as  I can tell) but as an expert in video game issues involving minors. There is nothing illegal in that. One does not have to register with anyone to be an expert in something.

    But this does lead to another concern. How close is he to having to register as an offical lobbyist in Utah and Louisianna? Since he is working with law makers outside his home state to create and pass specific legislation with a specific goal, he possibly could need to register. But that depends on the Lobby laws in those states.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  55. GoodRobotUs says:

    It’s not the right to write such a law that is a problem, I think, but if someone is contacting multiple states, not just their own representatives about a concern, and, worse still, advertising his ‘services’ in dealing with it, then I’d be a bit worried. Consider the following letter:


    Dear Sir,

    I feel I must protest against the amount of chewing gum on our pavements, it’s disgraceful and it’s unhygenic. Now, I know novody from your actual state has contacted you on the matter but it’s, nonetheless, a matter that could win or lose your next election.

    Fortunately, I was so offended by chewing gum on pavements that I created a company that supplies equipment for removing such material from the pavements, and I can help you improve public opinion if you agree to provide me and my services with free publicity.

    Please feel free to contact me on ….. for more details.



    Recognise the structure? Begin with defining the problem (Note to politicos – any problem that needs to be ‘defined’ before you know that there is a problem, is probably not a problem), state how  important it is, stress that there is massive pubic opinion, regardless of whatever public opinion there is, (if any). Move on to noting your own personal ‘success’ in the problem you have just invented, and your own possiible usefullness to the person who has this alleged problem.

    Finally, move on to the ‘meat’ of the matter, which is the fact that the two of you could ‘work together’ to defeat the problem, and contact details.

    Now, on the surface that may seem innocent enough, but, would you say the person is stating an opinion in that letter, or offering the services of a company?


  56. JDKJ says:

    The effects of permament disbarment are more profound than merely the prohibition of serving as someone’s legal counsel. Indeed, the mere holding out of one’s self as a licensed attorney is actionable. So, too, is the failure to correct the misapprehension that one is licensed when one is in fact not licensed. As is the mere solicitation of someone for the purpose of counseling them on a legal issue.

    You may recall Jack-O’s admission that he contacted A.G. Shurtleff and requested that the A.G. inform him of any concerns which the A.G. may have regarding the constitutionaliy of HB353 in order that Jack-O may address those concerns for the A.G.’s benefit. That, my friend, in and of itself constitutions the unlicensed pratice of law.

    You may also recall that Jack-O sat on his ass while the Fleagle Forum host of his radio appearance repeatly described him as an "attorney" and made no attempt whatsoever to correct that misrepresentation. That, my friend, is also the unlicensed practice of law.

  57. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Then over 90% of all politicians would be guilty of the same. You do not have to have a bar license to write legislation. Anyone can do it from janitors to the President.

    Jack Thompson is banned from practicing law in the sense that he cannot act as legal counsel to anyone besides himself. That is what he is disbarred from.

    By drafting, proposing and defending legislation he is doing nothing more than what every citizen can do by virtue of the Constitution.

    Now if he were giving legal advice to say the AG of these states in methods of how to defend the bill once passed, he could be seen as practicing law without a license.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  58. JDKJ says:

    I think that had more do with Gargoyle Ruzicka and her Utah Fleagle Forum, with whom Jack-O’s had a positive relationship going back to the first time he made a fool of himself in Utah. I suspect, though, that relationship isn’t as positive now as it once was. 

  59. GoodRobotUs says:

    Which leads to the question of how Jack actually managed to get in contact with the Louisiana legislature, which must have been more self-promotion as some kind of reputable legal figure.

  60. JDKJ says:

    That’s what I thought was the more viable basis for a CAN-SPAN prosecution. Not that GTAIV was being promoted but, rather, that Thompson’s unlicensed legal services were being promoted. 

  61. GoodRobotUs says:

    That something that occured to me before following the whole Utah spamming incident.

    I seem to recall a lawyer on here before stating that, by including the phrase ‘Contact Jack Thompson on X for more details’, he’s making his Faxes etc into Promotional material?

  62. Ryno says:

    Don’t forget Legos. The most awesome toy a kid could own. Some of the sets even have 16+ on them.


    Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They’ve got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however…

  63. Andrew Eisen says:

    Model kits.

    Also keep in mind that a purchaser must present a driver’s license or government identification card.  This means that if you’re 14, you likely won’t be able to buy video games, books, music, board games, model kits, toys, etc.


    Andrew Eisen

  64. 92508 says:

    Relying on the wisdom of crowds, what are some of the most outrageous examples of products you would be carded to purchase under the Thompson "We Card!" bill? Already mentioned are:

    Tickle Me Elmo (recommended for ages 24 months to 8 years)

    Monopoly (ages 8 and up)

    I’ll add:

    Razor scooter (ages 5 and up)

    Lemony Snicket’s "A Series of Unfortunate Events" (my copy says "10 Up")



  65. PHX Corp says:

    more like mirroring a certain person(for those who want to know it’s caddyshack i’m refering to) trying to catch a gopher while causing severe damage to the golf course(pouring water in a gopher hole and putting explosives in said hole)

    for those who want to see what I’m pointing out here it is

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  66. Mysticgamer says:

    This should be good…Jack is trying to cross a bridge he already set fire too a couple of years ago!

  67. PHX Corp says:

    not to mention If he sends Digital porn(if that happens, deja vu all over again for the 3rd time) to the LA senate and reps

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  68. TBoneTony says:

    Here we go again.

    At least we can call Thompson up for not just being a Disbarred lawyer but also for someone who has sent (almost) digital porn from GTA IV to the politicians of Utah.

    Louisianna seems like just another target for JT to assult his belifes on other people.

    I am sure that many Videogame Retailers there have seen what has happened in Utah and take the same defence that they won’t promise not to sell M rated games to kids if they risk being fined if they do prommise.


  69. Harry Miste says:

    I can have my own special ink. See? SEE?

    | XBOX LIVE GamerTag: Harry Miste | Steam ID: Harry Miste | PSN ID: HarryMiste |


    Yes but you don’t get to put it in other people’s comments  J  – Toll

  70. JDKJ says:

    I recall Jack-O once admitting that his son wasn’t keen on attending some summer camp for fear of catching flak from the other attendees because he’s got Jack-O for a father.

  71. Zerodash says:

    People suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder are only nice to others when it suits their needs and isn’t out of true love or compassion.  Jack is surely no exception.

    Someday his son is going to read/hear all of the horrible things Jack has said over the years.  It’s not going to be a happy moment.

  72. Krono says:

    Meh. More likely it’s just that she still loves him deeply, despite the fact that he’s gone somewhat crazy.

    Keep in mind we see his worst behavior and are on the receiving end of his frothing at the mouth wrath. His family likely only gets the nicer Jack that we’ve gotten occasional reports of.


  73. JDKJ says:


    How comes you don’t have a blue-ink pen like GP, AE, and EZK? Or did it run out of ink? 

  74. Zerodash says:

    My only theory is that their version of Christianity is that good ‘ol fashioned "wife is property of husband" arrangement… Everything else makes no sense.

  75. TK n Happy Ness says:

    He’s still married? That’s hard to believe. *


    We have a strict leave JT’s family out of it policy  – Toll

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

  76. BearDogg-X says:

    From an e-mail the Metropolitian Moron of Miami sent to Louisiana officials then: "I have just instructed all of my… experts in the Alabama wrongful death case, all of whom have testified before Congress about the need for your kind of law, to have NOTHING whatsoever to do with your litigation in Louisiana unless I approve it… Lives are at stake, while your Mr. Foti does press conferences on Hurricane Katrina… "

    GP’s comment about that: That Thompson would even think of comparing the relative importance of the video game issue to the ongoing Katrina recovery process is offensive.

    And what I said then still stands today: It’s also disgusting, and that ranks among Jack’s most distasteful comments ever, and Jack owes the entire state of Louisiana an apology(as well as the states of Mississippi and Alabama). 1,464 Louisianians died during Hurricane Katrina, and lives are more at stake from the fact that the state of Louisiana needs better hurricane protection and wetlands renewal RIGHT NOW, not an unconstitutional video game law that was only brought forth to boost the ego and the dying "crusade" of a Miami lawyer whose 15 Minutes of Fame ran out 4 years ago. Not to mention that Jack himself had damage from Katrina days before it hit Louisiana, and Jack also had to live through Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Shame on You, Jack!

    Also, 3 years after Katrina, Louisiana was hit hard by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike last September. And still no hurricane protection levees and still no wetlands renewal.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  77. Erik says:

    Didn’t Jack say something at one time to the effect of that the devestation of Katrina is an irrelevant situation in comparison to game sales?

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  78. Kincyr says:

    looks like Jack managed to swim back, on account of the bridges he burned

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  79. JDKJ says:

    As I suppose that your use of a plural verb form with a singular pronoun form doesn’t make you any kind of grammar Centurion.

    Edit: Good job, Benji. The inclusion of "would" now makes your sentence grammatically correct. But your punctuation needs work. Offset the subordinate clause "I suppose" with a pair of commas. And thank GP for turning off whatever it was that wouldn’t allow posters to edit a post to which a reply has already been posted. His doing so goes a far way in helping you get some of that egg off your face.

  80. JDKJ says:

    It is often stated in both the singular and plural. Either way (i.e., "small thing" or "small things"), the essence remains the same (i.e., the Law doesn’t concern itself with petty-ass bullshit).

  81. gamadaya says:

    JT: I’m blasting off agaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!


    Believe in something! Even if it’s wrong, believe in it! -Glenn Beck

  82. JDKJ says:


    Why’d you change the photograph of Crowe? It couldn’t have been because the new photograph is an improvement over the old photograph. Now he looks like he’s got midget-arms and can’t put loose change in his pant pockets because his arms don’t extend that far down.

  83. stinky42 says:

    Hopefully the legislators remember the tongue lashing they got from the judge about the previous bill.  Basically what it ammounted to, according to my dad who is an attorney and receives digests of rulings, "What is wrong with you people?  Aren’t some of you lawyers?  Those of you that aren’t, don’t you have lawyers to look at how unbelievably badly written this was?"

    At least I can take solace, that unlike Blanco, Bobby Jindal is not a moron and would hopefully veto this if it did get past.  That said I’ll probably have to go to any committee meetings that happen once I’m back in Louisiana since any citizen has the right to speak out about bills during committee.  Apparently not on the main floor though as I found out when I went to protest against the previous bill.

  84. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Cue the music man…….


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  85. Arell says:

    Bills are in the works for several months before being introduced, making sure the language is correct and asking for suggestions from othr lawmakers.  The Utah bill was only vetoed like two weeks ago.  It’s possible that Crowe wasn’t aware of the Utah bill while working on his own, and then missed the announcement that it failed.  It would be insane for a Senator to keep tabs on all he letigslation that’s going on in all the oher States, he’d never have time to pay attention to his own State.

    Then again, he could be fully aware, but thinks that a few differences in language and intent will make his bill work.

  86. Michael Chandra says:

    What said. Compelled Speech vs Game Producers and Compelled Speech vs Retailers.

    To that we add board games, kid toys, movies. Way to go.

  87. JDKJ says:

    The better question is why it doesn’t bother the Bars of either Florida, Utah or Louisiana that Thompson is practicing law without a license. While most UPL complaints are initiated by complaint to a Bar, there’s generally nothing stopping a Bar from acting on its own intiative.

  88. GoodRobotUs says:

    As long as politicians consider votes more important than the very beliefs they allegedly represent, alas, they will not care.

  89. Sai says:

     I can’t wait to see how things end for Thompson, he’s clearly becoming more insane by the day.

    Why does it never bother people that he got disbarred forever? Does no one check into the people they decide to sponsor? 


  90. Zevorick says:

    A few things. First, it’s Attention Deficit Disorder (which i’m not trying to bust your balls for, just trying to put the correct term out there).

    Second, as an individual with ADD I find it offensive that you chose to defame my character by associating me, and many others out there, with Jack Thompson… You should be ashamed of… ooh a butterfly!


  91. ZAR says:

    What do they give children with a serious case of ADS (Attention Deficit Syndrome)? Ritaline!

    Looks like JT needs a subscription. 😉



  92. 11zxcvb11 says:

    Isn´t the phrase used in the plural? "De minimis non curat lex". Call me a latin grammar nazi if you will. :p

  93. hayabusa75 says:

    Louisiana Episode One…I remember thinking during that whole fiasco that JT had finally done it; no way was anyone going to listen to him after the way he had stabbed his buddies in the back.  And now he’s heading back for another go-around?  Does he have to piss off every politician in America before people stop taking him seriously?  Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll relocate to North Korea.

    Hey Jack, how’s your Latin?  I think my new sig sums up your legal career quite nicely.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  94. Magic says:

    As I’ve said on here before, I think he has some noble intentions if you read the non-ridiculous stuff he’s quoted as saying, he sees a huge evil that’s corrupting children and causing normal people to become violent and psychotic.

    But it’s based on crazy, far-fetched generalisations, it’s black and white thinking. Anything less than outright banning what he sees as the problem is not good enough.

    Standing up for what you believe is admirable, but never conceding any points and constantly insisting you’re right is utterly flawed. That’s what I reckon most kids work out as they get older, that the world doesn’t work like you think, nor does it revolve around yourself.

  95. Stealthguy says:

    If he’s not aware then he’s a fool to not check out how similar laws have faired before. Idiotic, soapbox shouting, feel good, *mumblemumble*

  96. Arell says:

    Well, I guess it’s time to start emailing the Louisiana Senate.  If anyone else wants to do the same thing, try to cram as many Thompson-absurdities into the text, without being combatant or rude.  But start out with the fact that the same bill was vetoed in Utah.  Crowe might not be aware of that.

  97. Hackangel says:

    This one is not a truth in advertising law although it tries to pass itself as one. I believe it will undeniably be found unconstitutional.

    1- It forces ALL retailers that sells age recommended products to card and not sell products to those under the age recommandation. Not just those that advertise that they don’t. I believe it also means ALL recommended age products.

    2- It forces ALL retailers that sells age recommended products to advertise that they card, on the door of the establishment no less.

    That’s the way I read it. So if I ever go to Louisianna, I better not forget my driver’s license if I want to purchase a Monopoly board game.


  98. NovaBlack says:

    see isnt that completely unconstitutional because it gives a non-goverment voluntary ratings system the power of law?



  99. PHX Corp says:

    I know what would happen next, the Louisana senate would get the hint after what happen the last time

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  100. Aliasalpha says:

    I had a weird thought the other day, what if jack is secretly a good guy?


    No, hear me out. He goes around america spouting gamer=killer bullshit like a wandering armageddon peddler and draws into the open all the bigots, idiots & secret facists who "know" that their way is best. He then gets appointed (mostly by himself) as a spokesman for this group and proceeds to utterly destroy any credibility they have by excessive hyperbole, misconduct, aggression and outright lies. This exposes the public to the identity and unpleasant motives of the groups and manages to turn public opinion against them.


    Could we have jack all wrong? Could this be a secret plot to improve america? Could he be leading a dual life with a secret identity? Consider that he talks of conspiracies regularly as if dropping hints and he’s referred to himself more that once as Batman who WAS a secret identity…

  101. Zerodash says:

    Nah, he’s just suffering from a personality disorder.  Just because he is trying to ban anything he doesn’t like doesn’t mean he will do a good job.  This is a man who is too sleazy to even be a lawyer.

  102. TK n Happy Ness says:

    Jack Thompson: Wasting people’s taxdollars with his insane bill…AGAIN! Just lock him up and throw away the key.

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

  103. PumaFau says:

    Is he pissing people off for the lulz

    Florida to Utah to Louisana to…wait were is he getting the money from.

  104. BearDogg-X says:

    Not this horseshit again. You’d think the idiots in Baton Rouge would have learned their lesson after the crap in ’06. They already wasted $92,000 on a piece of shit bill that should have gone towards building new hurricane protection levees and rebuilding the wetlands.

    It really is deja vu all over again, since just like in ’06, Louisiana once again has had to deal with damage from back-to-back hurricanes(’05-Katrina and Rita; ’08-Gustav and Ike; I know Ike hit Galveston-Houston, but the storm surge flooded parts of Louisiana).

    I think the same result will happen here that happened in Utah(Gov. Jindal also has Presidential aspirations).

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

Comments are closed.