Judge spanks South Florida lawyer Jack Thompson for including gay porn with court filing

From GamePolitics.com:

That gurgling sound you hear could be Jack Thompson’s legal career swirling down the ‘loo.

The frequent video game critic, already facing professional misconduct charges from the Florida Bar which could see him stripped of his license to practice law, has outraged a U.S. District Court judge by including images of men having sex in a document filed with the court last week.

It’s difficult to fathom what Thompson was thinking, but here’s how it all, um, went down:

As GamePolitics has previously reported, Thompson has a pair of lawsuits underway against the Florida Bar in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. One of the cases, presided over by Judge Adalberto Jordan, has been the recipient of a flurry of motions by Thompson in recent weeks.

In a document filed with the court on September 19th, Thompson criticized the Bar for allegedly collaborating with Norm Kent, a criminal defense attorney from Fort Lauderdale. Thompson and Kent have a contentious legal history dating back nearly two decades. From Thompson’s motion:

The Bar’s demonstrable mindset is that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as indicated by The Bar’s enthusiastic, recidivist collaboration with Mr. Kent, over a twenty year period, at Thompson’s expense. Lunacy proceedings have been sought and secured, Bar complaints have recently been maintained for nearly three years.

Kent, who publishes the National Gay News website, was criticized by Thompson in last week’s court filing for “distribution of hardcore porn to anyone of any age.” Not content to make that alleged point in writing, Thompson attached several gay porn pictures to his motion with Judge Jordan. The pictures apparently do not come directly from the National Gay News site, but rather are contained on sites linked from NGN’s adult links section.

In any case, His Honor was not amused.

In an order issued on Monday, Judge Jordan directed Thompson to show cause as to why he should not face sanctions, including possible contempt charges. Judge Jordan wrote:

The attached exhibit, which includes several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult males, was filed electronically in the docket in this case, without prior permission from the court…

To the extent that the other attorney’s alleged conduct is in any way relevant… there was no need for Mr. Thompson to file these graphic images in the public record. A simple reference to the website and its alleged links would have sufficed…

Through his actions, Mr. Thompson made available for unlimited public viewing, on the court’s docketing system, these graphic images.

For this reason, by October 5, 2007, Mr. Thompson shall show cause why this incident should not be referred to the court’s Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance for appropriate action.

In the wake of Judge Jordan’s order, Thompson has filed (at last count) four responses. In the first, he proclaims that he is ready to go to jail over the issue:

Thompson may have more to say in his own defense as to his alleged contemptuous behavior, but at this juncture, with all respect, he does not apologize for nor regret what he has done… if this court desires to throw Thompson into jail for trying to sound the alarm in this dramatic fashion… then Thompson is prepared to go there.

In another response Thompson likens his actions to those of a rather more famous American:

To hold Thompson in contempt for alerting the federal court system to the criminal activity… is akin to arresting Paul Revere, in 1775, for “disturbing the peace” with his midnight ride…

GP has been unable to reach attorney Norm Kent for comment so far. Via e-mail, Thompson told GamePolitics:

I’m not the one in trouble. The judge found a certain lawyer’s material obscene. I absolutely love it. This is the best thing to happen to me in a long, long time. Check my [case] filings, sweetie.

We have, and this isn’t the first time Thompson has been warned by a court not to include suggestive photos in those case filings. An April 12th entry in the Florida Supreme Court docket covering the Florida Bar’s case against Thompson includes this notation:

…the Court notes that [Thompson] has attached inappropriate and pornographic materials to his petitions that are irrelevant to his arguments. Respondent is warned that should he continue to submit such inappropriate filings, the Court will consider imposing sanctions which may include, but are not limited to, a limitation on Respondent’s ability to submit further filings without the signature of an attorney other than himself.

GP: As we said earlier, it’s really hard to imagine what Thompson thought he might have been accomplishing by including the offending images.

What he has apparently succeeded in doing, however, is seriously upsetting the judge who must decide the merits of Thompson’s attempt to block the Florida Bar from taking action against his license to practice law.

Comments

[jack thompson, attorney]

This was actually one of the smartest things I've done in a long time. What you failed to report is that the judge found the material being distributed by the other lawyer "obscene." You don't have to be a genius to know where that finding is going to lead.

Further, this other lawyer has now tried to remove the material from his site. Gee, that's useful.

Maybe, Steve, you could put your radical, bizarre agenda aside for a moment and act like a journalist for a change. You might then get the story right.

[Mnementh2230]

You're absolutly right, Jack - you don't have to be a genius to see where this is going to lead: Censure and probably another complaint against you.

Norm Kent didn't have any pornographic material on his site - just links to other sites that hosted that material... under a heading of "Adult Links".

The bottom line is that your inclusion of the porn was inappropriate - it was introduced at the wrong time, using the wrong means. You were warned multiple times to go through the referee, and yet you didn't. Instead, you put pornography on a public area with no adult verification. You accuse video game developers of being pornographers, yet you've done more to push smut than any of them just by this action alone - with GTA you had to buy the game, hack it, and break the EULA to get at what amounted to badly animated dry humping. You just put pornographic material on a website with no age verification and free access to anyone of any age. Congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

[David L. Wylie]

ROFLMAO at the comment exchange. I can't stop laughing!

[Nightwng2000]

Well, you have to remember that this is the bigot who thinks two boys kissing is "gay sex" (but apparently, a boy and a girl kissing isn't "heterosexual sex" since that also appears in the game mentioned in the following article):

http://gaygamer.net/2006/10/jack_thompson_cites_gay_sex_in.html

And, in his bigoted, ignorant, dishonorable, unethical mind, he's also the one who seems to think that there is some bizarre link (causal or otherwise) between legalized gay marriage and a decrease in both heterosexual marriage and births.

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2007/09/gay_marriage_amendment_debate.php

It should also be noted regarding John Bruce's opening comment of "we love you", followed by bigotry, ignorance, and hate, is the sign of your average abuser (even verbal and mental abusers). As many will tell you, abuse victims are told many times by their abuser that they love their victim. And, after years of abuse, many victims believe. But we know, the old adage of "we only hurt the ones we love" isn't as true as was once thought. Abuse, even in the form of verbal abuse through bigotry, hate, and ignorance, is NOT love in any sense of the word.

And while he may CLAIM to be a good, honorable, Christian following the orders, as a "Warrior for God", of his God, we know that a true, honorable, ethical, loving God would not promote nor advocate bigotry, ignorance, lying, deceiving, and/or abuse of any sort. Indeed, no honorable, ethical, loving God would promote or advocate the spreading of such to children as well. So, one would have to conclude that John Bruce, in fact, may actually worship a Demon-Pretender-To-The-Throne-Of-Heaven. There are many such individuals, and not all claim to be Christian either. From Fred Phelps to Eric Rudolph to even Osama Bin Lauden. Rest assured, many intelligent individuals recognize the followers of good, honorable, ethical Gods, even if we don't follow them. And we recognize that John Bruce and the others mentioned do NOT represent the followers of those Gods in any way, shape or form.

Nightwng2000

[danky]

Jack -
The problem you seem to fail to realize that when the judge referred to the material as obscene, he was directly referring to you and your actions of sending the pornography. The material YOU sent was obscene, regardless of where it was found.

In a court of law, there would have to be sufficient evidence to prove the source of such objectionable material. Possession being 9/10th's of the law, you made the electronic transmission of said material, you broke the law. If you had posted child pornography in the same manner you did the "gay sex" photos, you would have been charged with a felony. In this case, you will only serve a little jail time and lose your license to practice law, which you have not been doing in a while anyway. Go back to chasing ambulances Jack.