GamePolitics.com

We’ve just had an e-mail from Miami attorney Jack Thompson (left) to say that he would be on the Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News this evening at 7PM & 9PM Eastern (second one is a repeat)…

GTA IV will be the topic, along with, apparently, Thompson’s issues with the Florida Bar.

Thompson will also be on NPR’s Talk of the Nation at 2:40 PM Eastern.

UPDATE: It’s on as I type this. Adam Sessler from G4TV is leading off… Now a guy who played GTA IV for 28 hours straight… Now Thompson, who says that he is portrayed in the game and claims that gamers vandalized his house last night.

With today’s GTA IV launch, criticism of the series has risen to a whole new level.

GTA bashers invariably point to two instances of GTA violence as particularly worrisome.

The first deals with violence against the game’s virtual hookers. This concern has been voiced by, among others, real-world hooker afficianado Eliot Spitzer. These criticisms generally run along the lines of “you can have sex with a prostitute and then kill her to get your money back.”

While technically true, in GTA’s sandbox world such activity is strictly optional. The player can choose not to have the virtual liaison in the first place. Or, if the player does opt to indulge, there’s nothing in GTA which precludes allowing the hooker to stroll off peacefully in search of her next trick.

The game’s virtual police officers, on the other hand, are more problematic. Because GTA is a crime adventure, the player will invariably run afoul of the law. For all practical purposes, it is impossible to log significant time on any Grand Theft Auto title without getting into a virtual confrontation with the game’s animated depictions of law enforcement officers. (more…)

A complaint by Jack Thompson has prompted Miami’s transit authority to remove ads for Grand Theft Auto IV from local bus shelters.

Miami thus joins Chicago as the second major US city to pull GTA IV ads from its public transit system in recent days.

GamePolitics reported on Thursday that Thompson had complained about the GTA IV ads to Miami Mayor Carlos Alvarez. The GTA IV ads were apparently removed sometime on Friday afternoon. Hugh Chen, Miami-Dade Transit’s deputy director of operations, told GamePolitics on Friday evening, via e-mail:

The posters were removed after a review of our approval process and contract… Be assured that the circumstances around placing and removing  these specific posters were reviewed before action was taken. We are governed by our contract with our shelter contractor and County ordinances.

A spokesman for GTA IV publisher Take-Two Interactive said the company was still reviewing the situation. A spokesman for the ESA referred inquiries back to Take-Two.

For his part, Thompson wasted no time in crowing about the removal of the ads in a news release:

…Jack Thompson has today persuaded the Miami-Dade Transit System to pull all advertisements for the Grand Theft Auto IV cop-killing simulation game from its bus stops.

In the wake of this success, Thompson is proceeding to get all GTA IV ads pulled from all US transit systems since such ads clearly violate promises made by the [ESRB], found right at its web site, not to place “Mature-rated” game ads in venues that will be seen by teens. 

However, Thompson’s contention about the ESRB appears to be incorrect. An ESRB spokesman told GP on Friday, “Considering the overwhelmingly adult demographic profile of mass transit riders… the placement of GTA IV ads in these types of outlets would typically not be in violation of [Ad Review Council] guidelines.” Nor do the advertising guidelines listed on the ESRB website appear to support Thompson’s contention.

Thompson may be confusing the ESRB ad guidelines with a 2002 report on the marketing of media violence by the Federal Trade Commission which addressed limiting the advertising of M-rated games in media where children constitute a specific percentage of the potential audience. The FTC report notes that the video game industry has a self-regulatory standard prohibiting print ads when children comprise more than 45% of the likely audience.

In his news release, the embattled Thompson also alleged a conspiracy between the video game industry and the judge who presided over his nine-day trial on Florida Bar ethics charges last November. That judge’s recommendation on Thompson’s future status as an attorney is expected in August.

GP: Readers, don’t forget to Send Us Your GTA IV Bus Pix (Before they’re all gone)…

Last week GamePolitics broke the news that the long-awaited ruling in Jack Thompson’s Florida Bar trial, originally expected today, would likely be delayed.

We’ve now learned that Judge Dava Tunis (left), who presided over Thompson’s 9-day trial late last year, has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to grant her until August 31st to issue her report.

Judge Tunis cited several reasons for the delay, including:

-the need to wade through a 2,500 page transcript of the trial

-reviewing 76 exhibits encompassing another 1,700 pages

-dealing with 400 “pleadings, e-mails, letters and missives (including pictorials)” filed by Thompson since the trial ended in December, 2007.

-handling a full-time job on the criminal bench

Interestingly, the wording of her motion makes it appear that Judge Tunis has already reached her decision. It’s the writing of the report that seems to be causing the delay.

Read Judge Tunis’ motion here.

Judge Dava Tunis (left), who presided over the November, 2007 Florida Bar trial of anti-game activist Jack Thompson, has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for more time in which to issue her decision.

While GamePolitics had been anticipating Tunis’ final ruling on Thompson’s fate by April 21st, an April 11th Florida Supreme Court docket entry notes the request for a time extension by Judge Tunis.

No additional details appear in the docket entry and it is unclear what is behind Judge Tunis’ request. However, in addition to nearly two weeks of testimony, there is a large volume of printed material to be reviewed, especially given Thompson’s well-known penchant for sending e-mails, faxes and the like.

Judge Tunis herself has been under attack from Thompson in recent times (then again, who hasn’t?). In a claim reminiscent of Catch-22’s Great Loyalty Oath Crusade, Thompson alleges that a written loyalty oath required under Florida law was not properly executed by Tunis.

GamePolitics has offered the most extensive coverage of the Thompson trial anywhere. Be sure to check out our exclusive transcripts.

Click here to see the entire series: The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson…

It’s fair to say that Miami attorney Jack Thompson is an iconic figure among the video game community, although not in any happy sense.

Since immersing himself in the game violence debate in the late 1990’s, he has become the embodiment of what many gamers perceive as a lack of acceptance by non-gaming society and the mainstream media. In some ways, he seems to relish the role.

Thompson’s frequent television appearances, during which he typically blames violent video games for all sorts of mayhem, have positioned him as the go-to guy when the media (primarily Fox News, of late) needs a sound bite lamenting the havoc which video games are supposedly wreaking on modern youth.

No other critic, no other watchdog, has ever come close to Thompson’s recognition factor. There are gamer-created songs about the guy. Cartoons, too, as well as video skits, t-shirts, toilet paper, website parodies and Photoshop contests.

To be fair, though, Thompson works at it. His media appearances, his propensity for acid-tongued verbal attacks, his lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and incessant e-mails containing Urgent! alerts make him difficult to ignore. (more…)

We’re coming to the end of our exclusive series detailing the video game-related testimony in controversial attorney Jack Thompson’s professional misconduct trial by the Florida Bar.

In today’s episode, GamePolitics will present Thompson’s closing argument. There is no cross-examination during a closing. It’s an attorney’s chance to summarize the case for the Court, recalling evidence presented and touching on points of law. As such, except for a couple of procedural matters, this is Thompson speaking.

In tomorrow’s finale, GP will recap the series, including an explanation of how it all came together. If you’ve missed any of the previous installments, just click the Bar Trial series tag to catch up.

(In today’s excerpted transcript, JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

JT: Okay. By way of closing argument… here’s the text of the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Did I give you that?…

TUMA: Yes.

JT: It says… “Exercise of religion means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious beliefs… The Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it is demonstrated that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest… A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief.”

I’m simply making the argument, Judge, that my motivations - which I have tried to make clear, maybe to the point of nausea - are religious and that my efforts against the distribution of adult material, pornographic material, violent material, adult rated material to children is violative of the law as well as violative of Scripture. I quoted the biblical passage where Jesus says, reportedly: “If any one of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast in the uttermost depths of the sea.”

If I am disbarred, which is the wish of these [Florida Bar] people… I will continue to do what I’m doing on these issues whether they disbar me or not because this is what I was called to do, this is what I was enabled to do more effectively as a lawyer… (more…)

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. (more…)

Whatever you think about Jack Thompson, there are times when he can play the media like a Stradivarius. And so it was that he managed to hold the attention of both the mainstream and gaming press for several weeks in 2006 while he sought to block the release of Rockstar’s Bully in Florida.

Thompson’s unusual suit, which charged that the T-rated Bully was a public nuisance, came before Judge Ronald Friedman on the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. In an early-round win for Thompson, Friedman ordered Take Two to produce the game for an in-chambers viewing prior to its retail launch.

That would be Thompson’s only victory in the case, which quickly turned contentious (anyone surprised?). Thompson blasted Friedman endlessly following the judge’s ruling that he would not grant Thompson’s petition to block Bully’s release. Thompson upped the ante by announcing that he would run for Friedman’s seat in 2008. We note that Thompson does not appear to be following through on that claim.

For his part, Judge Friedman wasted little time in filing a complaint against Thompson with the Florida Bar. The Friedman complaint was one of several on which the Bar opted to take Thompson to trial last November. In this multi-part series GamePolitics has been publishing excerpted transcripts from the video game-related portions of the Thompson Bar trial. Today’s edition covers the direct testimony of Judge Friedman. Due to the length of Friedman’s testimony, Thompson’s cross examination of the judge will appear in the next installment.

( 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…)

TUMA: Can you tell us what Mr. Thompson asked you to do to make the determination of entering an injunction [to bock the release of Bully]?

RF: He wanted me to review the game and prohibit its distribution, which was scheduled a few days later, maybe a week later.

TUMA: Did you entertain his request?

RF: I did… I heard arguments from both sides. The counsel for the defendants [Take Two] did not think it was necessary to do any of this because under the First Amendment, they had a right to make the distribution. (more…)

Background for today’s testimony: Rebecca Ward was one of two Blank Rome attorneys who testified against Jack Thompson in his November, 2007 Bar trial. Ward, along with James Smith, represented Take Two Interactive and other video game industry defendants in the $600 million Strickland vs Sony lawsuit which Thompson filed in Alabama.

It was upon a motion filed by Smith and Ward that Judge James Moore, in November, 2005, revoked Thompson’s pro hac vice (visiting) right to practice law in Alabama, essentially throwing him off the Strickland case, which alleged that a 2004 triple cop killing was prompted by the 18-year-old murderer’s play of Grand Theft Auto.

(Smith and Ward filed a Bar complaint against Thompson and were called to testify at his trial.  In the excerpted transcripts, WARD is Ward. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

TUMA: Can you please identify that exhibit for the Court?

WARD: This is an e-mail… from Mr. Thompson, addressed to me, three other partners at my law firm, and our local counsel in Alabama, dated September 21, 2005.

TUMA: …can you read the first sentence, please?

WARD: …”Two of the partners in your firm, James T. Smith and Rebecca D. Ward, have decided to do a very foolish and very unethical thing… Your two partners have also presided over the decision of Rockstar to launch a website and suggest that I am a bisexual pedophile…”

TUMA: Can you tell me at any time if you have presided over the decision of Rockstar to launch a website?

WARD: No. In fact the particular website in question, I didn’t even know existed until Mr. Thompson sent this e-mail. (more…)

Background for today’s testimony: James Smith was one of two Blank Rome attorneys who testified against Jack Thompson in his November, 2007 Bar trial. Smith, along with Rebecca Ward, represented Take Two Interactive and other video game industry defendants in the $600 million Strickland vs Sony lawsuit which Thompson filed in Alabama.

It was upon a motion filed by Smith and Ward that Judge James Moore, in November, 2005 revoked Thompson’s pro hac vice (visiting) right to practice law in Alabama, essentially throwing him off the Strickland case, which alleged that a 2004 triple cop killing was prompted by the 18-year-old murderer’s play of Grand Theft Auto.

(Smith and Ward filed a Bar complaint against Thompson and were called to testify at his trial.  In the excerpted transcripts, SMITH is Smith. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

TUMA: Explain to the Court why you filed your Bar complaint in this matter against Mr. Thompson.

SMITH: [Our complaint deals] with a history of the most offensive, abusive conduct that I have ever encountered in the 25 years or so that I have been a lawyer… I continue to get e-mails. I think I got one last week from Mr. Thompson. They have the same menacing tone, the same offensive quality to them. Nothing, in my view, has stopped him and I expect that when I leave here today that he will bombard me -

JT: Your Honor -

SMITH: -and my law firm with more e-mails -

JT: Your Honor, motion to -

SMITH: -because that’s what he does.

JT: Your Honor, motion to strike. That’s conjecture.

DT: Overruled.

JT: Overruled?

DT: Yes, overruled. Continue.

TUMA: Can you explain to the Court what effect Mr. Thompson’s conduct has had on you? (more…)

GP: This article contains lengthy excerpts from controversial attorney Jack Thompson’s cross-examination of Alabama Circuit Court Judge James Moore. That being the case, I’m going to dispense with an intro and assume you’ve got the back story already. If not, you’ll want to check out part 1 and part 2 before you tackle this section…

(We pick up as Florida Bar prosecutor Sheila Tuma has completed her direct questioning of Judge James Moore. Thompson begins his cross-examination. In the excerpted transcripts, MOORE is Judge James Moore. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

JT: Judge Moore, did you bring a libel action against me?

MOORE: No.

JT: Why not?

MOORE: Well -

TUMA: Objection to relevancy.

DT: Overruled.

MOORE: Why not?

JT: Yes.

MOORE: Mr. Thompson, I want to have the least amount of contact with you I can have. I don’t know how to put it any other way than that. I don’t want to see you…

(Thompson turns to the issue of whether he violated Judge Moore’s order by sending out press releases about the Alabama “GTA killer” case…)

JT: You say that you entered an order that prevented me from communicating about this particular case. Did you say that? (more…)

This is the second part of an investigative series that Miami attorney Jack Thompson apparently doesn’t want you to read.

The game industry nemesis today threatened GamePolitics and its parent company, the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) with legal action over GP’s detailed coverage of Thompson’s recent trial on professional misconduct charges by the Florida Bar.

Thompson’s view seems to be that we can’t print selected excerpts from the trial testimony, but rather that we have a legal responsibility to report on the testimony of all witnesses, including Thompson, who himself testified for five days.

That’s nonsense. That would mean that GP’s First Amendment rights are null and void, that we don’t get to determine what we print, but rather that Jack Thompson does.

To put it mildly, that’s not happening. (more…)

As previously reported by GamePolitics, Miami attorney and video game industry nemesis Jack Thompson underwent a career-threatening, nine-day trial on Florida Bar misconduct charges late last year.

As might be expected, the proceedings before Judge Dava Tunis produced no small amount of sparks. A ruling on the Bar’s case against Thompson has not yet been issued by the Judge. Her decision is expected next month.

In the meantime, Thompson has filed a suit under Florida’s False Claims Act against Judge Tunis as well as six justices of the Florida Supreme Court, alleging that written loyalty oaths required under state law were not properly completed, thus invalidating any rulings they might make - including, presumably, any ruling in the Thompson Bar trial. The false claims case is pending.

Although GamePolitics was unable to cover the Thompson Bar trial in person, we have obtained transcripts of the testimony provided by five prosecution witnesses, each of whom relates in some way to Thompson’s ongoing crusade against violent video games. Included within the transcripts is Thompson’s cross-examination of the witnesses. Some other prosecution witnesses whose testimony did not relate to video game issues were judged to be outside the scope of this GamePolitics investigative report and their testimony will not be included in these articles.

Aside from his own multiple days of testimony, Thompson presented no additional witnesses. GamePolitics does not have transcripts of Thompson’s testimony, although we are working to acquire his closing argument. Thompson was offered the opportunity to comment on the Bar trial for this series, but declined to do so. He also declined GP’s request to provide the text of his closing argument.

In the first installment of this multi-part series, today’s edition of GamePolitics will examine the dramatic testimony of Clatus Junkin, an attorney and former judge from Fayette, Alabama. Junkin was called as the first witness against Thompson by Florida Bar prosecutor Sheila Tuma on November 26th, 2007. (more…)