9th November 2005, 4:10 PM
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=12774
Well, not really. I think this is what they call "getting what you deserve", which is basically the very definition of the word "justice".
Also, if the judge does decide on both of these things, it's basically the latter one that is most important to us immediatly, but the former plays a role too. It basically states that lawyers need to behave ethically, and those ethics need to be driven by objective logic. There is nothing at all ethical about his constant attacks on the lawyers defending the other side. He really should be focusing on making a good argument for his side. However, it would seem he is simply unable to form any logical argument for why video games, and exclusively video games, should either be restricted in content that can be made for them or banned outright. Thus, whether he is deluding himself or just plain lying, he is forced to attack the character of others rather than the logic of others, since he can't win by the latter. Considering that the character of someone making an argument is irrelevent to the argument itself (it is relevant to other issues outside that argument, unless the argument is over that person's character :D), such logic is doomed to fail.
This is far more than I had predicted. I just thought he would yammer on for a while until everyone forgot about him, but there was one thing I forgot. He's a lawyer and though the law is slow, it is still on a time frame that needs to more forward. So eventually, he'll come to task. It seems this is the moment. I certainly think that if he gets disbarred, he's earned it. So, no real remorse. I do hope the guy actually learns something. Worst case scenario? He is reduced to a bum and wanders the streets eventually focusing illogical rage on some percieved "source" of his frustrations, and then attempts to murder that source.
I can just see it now: The Death of Gabe: A Jerry Brockheimer film
Quote:Lawyer accused of violating legal ethics and turning courtroom "into a circus"
Anti-videogame campaigner Jack Thompson has appeared in court to defend his right to practice law in Alabama, following accusations that he violated legal ethics ahead of a civil case against companies involved in creating and selling Grand Theft Auto.
Thompson is representing the families of two police officers and a dispatcher who were murdered by 18 year old Devin Moore in June 2003. In a lawsuit filed against Sony, Take-Two, Rockstar, Wal-Mart and GameStop, Thompson claims that Grand Theft Auto trained Moore to become a killer.
But now law firm Blank Rome has filed a motion to have Thompson taken off the case and to have his legal license revoked. The firm alleges that Thompson has attacked and threatened their lawyers in dozens of press releases which also accused Blank Rome of conspiracy.
"He can't proceed with the civility the rules require. All lawyers have to conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and civility. This isn't a street fight," said Blank Rome's Jim Smith.
"He's going to turn the courtroom into a circus and we can't have it."
In response, Thompson accused the law firm of attempting to run a smear campaign against him, telling Judge James Moore: "I didn't start this food fight. They started it and I have a right to respond because, believe it or not, I have a life outside of this case."
When Judge Moore asked Thompson to justify some of the statements made in his press releases, he replied: "I'm not pretending I'm not a nice guy. I'm not pretending I don't have a temper."
"Why did you do this?" Moore asked Thompson, pointing to a huge stack of press releases and letters submitted by Blank Rome as evidence of Thompson's legal violations.
"You said after the criminal trial to 'have at it'," Thompson said. The judge had imposed a gag order on lawyers until Devin Moore's trial was over.
"Your 'have at it' and my 'have at it' are not the same," the judge replied.
Judge Moore has taken the motion to revoke Thompson's license under advisement, and is also considering a motion to have the entire suit dismissed on the grounds that the First Amendment, which provides for freedom of speech, applies to videogames. The defendants' laywers also claim that Devin Moore's actions could not have been foreseen.
Well, not really. I think this is what they call "getting what you deserve", which is basically the very definition of the word "justice".
Also, if the judge does decide on both of these things, it's basically the latter one that is most important to us immediatly, but the former plays a role too. It basically states that lawyers need to behave ethically, and those ethics need to be driven by objective logic. There is nothing at all ethical about his constant attacks on the lawyers defending the other side. He really should be focusing on making a good argument for his side. However, it would seem he is simply unable to form any logical argument for why video games, and exclusively video games, should either be restricted in content that can be made for them or banned outright. Thus, whether he is deluding himself or just plain lying, he is forced to attack the character of others rather than the logic of others, since he can't win by the latter. Considering that the character of someone making an argument is irrelevent to the argument itself (it is relevant to other issues outside that argument, unless the argument is over that person's character :D), such logic is doomed to fail.
This is far more than I had predicted. I just thought he would yammer on for a while until everyone forgot about him, but there was one thing I forgot. He's a lawyer and though the law is slow, it is still on a time frame that needs to more forward. So eventually, he'll come to task. It seems this is the moment. I certainly think that if he gets disbarred, he's earned it. So, no real remorse. I do hope the guy actually learns something. Worst case scenario? He is reduced to a bum and wanders the streets eventually focusing illogical rage on some percieved "source" of his frustrations, and then attempts to murder that source.
I can just see it now: The Death of Gabe: A Jerry Brockheimer film