Text of Sanction Order (March 20, 2008)
Text of Show Cause Order (February 19, 2008)

wo Florida bar disciplinary proceedings are pending against Jack Thompson. On April 12, 2007, the Supreme Court of Florida warned Jack Thompson that he could be sanctioned if he continued to submit inappropriate filings. Thompson filed over 50 subsequent filings. On February 19, the Court issued a ’show cause’ order:

It appears to the Court that you have abused the legal system by submitting numerous frivolous and inappropriate filings in this Court. Therefore, it is ordered that you shall show cause on or before March 5, 2008, why this Court should not find that you have abused the legal system process and impose upon you a sanction for abusing the legal system…

Apparently Mr. Thompson was unable to show such cause. The court decided Thompson’s “constant abusive filings” were repetitive, frivolous and insulting. As such the Court (per Curium – 7 concurring judges) has issued the following order sanctioning Mr. Thompson:

Accordingly, in order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by John Bruce Thompson, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than himself. Under the sanction herein imposed, Thompson is not being denied access to the courts; that access is simply being limited due to his abusiveness. Thompson may petition the Court, but may do so only through the assistance of counsel, whenever such counsel determines that the filing has merit and can be filed in good faith. However, Thompson’s frivolous and abusive filings must immediately come to an end. Further, if Thompson submits a filing in violation of this order, he may be subjected to contempt proceedings or other appropriate sanctions..

Sources: GamePolitics.com | Joystiq | Wired | Next Generation | ars technica | Escapist | Law.com

Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release

Text of Amended Answer and Counterclaim

Take-Two and Jack Thompson have settled their GTA IV/Manhunt 2 suit and counter suit. Thompson has agreed:

1. not to sue or threaten to sue over the sale and distribution of ANY game – not just Manhunt 2 and GTA IV as sought in the original complaint – designed, published, manufactured, distributed or sold by Take-Two, its affiliates, subsidiaries etc.;
2. not to threaten such suits; and
3. to communicate with Take-Two only through its lawyers.

However, Thompson will still be free to criticize the content and distribution of such games and to represent third-party plaintiffs in actions against Take-Two, its affiliates, subsidiaries etc. alleging individual harm.

Dale’s Comment: It is odd for a settlement to contain an explicit agreement to limit communication with an opposing party to communication through counsel as the rules of professional conduct in most jurisdictions specifically prohibit lawyers from communicating directly with persons represented by counsel.

Sources: GameSpot | Next Generation | Gamasutra | GamePolitics.com | TheStreet.com | ars technica | GameDaily.biz | GameCareerGuide.com

In response to last-week’s Take-Take-Two law-suit seeking to preemptively stop him from bringing suit:

1. to stop the sale and distribution of Manhunt 2 (due out in the summer of 2007) and GTA IV (due out in October 2007); and
2. seeking pre-publication review of the games;

as he did in the past with Bully, Thompson has predictably brought a countersuit accusing Take-Two of racketeering and violation of his civil rights.Astonishingly, Thompson, in the original counterclaim (subsequently amended), Thompson accused Take-Two of conspiring with prominent online gaming publications GamePolitics, Kotaku, Spong, Joystiq, Gamespot, IGN, Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Weekly, Penny Arcade, and others to commit racketeering activities!Specifically, Thompson originally claimed that such “conspiracy” violated section 18 USC 241 which states, in part:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in ny State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or njoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;… They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Wow, this is, err, novel! As noted by GamePolitics.com, however, Thompson subsequently amended the counterclaim from 20 pages down to the following single pargraph:

If the court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter, it should review the video games in question, allow a review of those games by this defendant and then hear argument if requested by this defendant as to wherein the Plaintiff should be enjoined from distributing video games to minors.

Sources: GameSpot | GamePolitics.com I | GamePolitics..com II | Jack Thompson Press Release [.doc]

In response to pre-existing threats form Jack Thompson, Take-Two Interactive has preemptively asked the Southern District Court of Florida to provide declaratory and injunctive relief against Jack Thompson to stop him from bringing suit:

1. to stop the sale and distribution of Manhunt 2 (due out in the summer of 2007) and GTA IV (due out in October 2007); and
2. seeking pre-publication review of the games;

as he did in the past with Bully. In the words of the complaint:

…declaratory relief is especially necessary here because Thompson has a history of making multiple threats of legal action, whether substantiated or not, both against Plaintiff as well as the retailers who purchase the video games and offer them for sale to the public.

Dale’s Comment: Interestingly, the firm representing Take-Two in this action, Blank Rome, LLP, is the same firm that previously had sought to have Jack Thompson held in contempt of court.

Sources: GamePolitics.com | Gamasutra | GameSpot | ars technica | Jack Thompson’s Initial Response | EuroGamer (Discusses Take-Two-Thompson Relationship)

Sources: GamePolitics.com | Wolfman Productions Debate Page

Text of Temporary Restraining Order
Text of ESA Complaint
Text of Violent Game Bill (HB 1381)

Hot on the heals of the 7th Circuit’s upholding the permanent injunction against Illinois’ Safe Games Illinois Act’, Federal District Court Judge James Brady issued a bench ruling permanently (followed by this short summary judgment ruling) enjoining the application of Louisiana’s, Jack Thompson-drafted, Violent Game Bill.

ESA’s response to the ruling:

“What makes Judge Brady’s action unusual and remarkable is that he issued his ruling from the bench rather than through a written decision, a strong signal that he felt the State’s arguments were so without merit that they didn’t even require a detailed opinion beyond the Judge’s August decision imposing the preliminary injunction. In his August ruling, the Judge emphasized the State’s failure to take into consideration when passing this law the long line of previous cases holding that video games are protected speech. The ESA will immediately file to recover its legal fees from the State as it has successfully done elsewhere.”

“In nine out of nine cases, federal courts have struck down these grandstanding efforts by politicians to ban video game sales to minors. It doesn’t get clearer than that. One hopes that enough is enough. Video games are like rock and roll: they’re here to stay, and it’s about time for elected officials to focus their energies, and taxpayer dollars, on truly productive and useful programs to educate parents to use the tools industry has made available — from ESRB ratings to parental control technologies.”

Sources: GamePolitics.com | Gamespot |ars technica | GameDaily.biz | Gamasutra

Jack Thompson, apparently not quite understanding the character editor distinction, sent off a cease and desist letter to Midway, the game’s publisher, with the following contained therein:

“It has today come to my attention that the newly recently Mortal Kombat: Armageddon contains an unauthorized commercial exploitation of my name, photograph, image, and likeness within the game.”

“You are commanded to cease and desist immediately from the distribution of this game because of this unauthorized, illegal content…”

“It would appear that your company has done this at least in part because I sued you all in the Paducah school massacre case and further because I appeared on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 when your company came out with your profane, violent, and idiotic Blitz: The League.”

To be clear, there is no crusading Florida lawyer character that is shipped with the game. On the presumption that Jack Thompson is aware of the Marvel v. NCSoft decision (see linked posts below) which is on point, this demand will likely just fade away once Mr. Thompson realizes what has happened here. The mere inclusion of a character editor does not, in itself, infringe anyone’s IP or personality rights any more than the manufacture and sale of Etch-a-Sketches does.

Sources: GamePolitics.com| Gaming Target | Gamasutra | joystiq | The Inquirer | GameSpot | EuroGamer | GWN | Pro-G | igniq.com

[Update: The Prior YouTube Video of Proceeding No Longer Available]

Post-Contempt Hearing Sources: Destructoid | Calgary Sun | Canoe.com | BoomTown | GameSpot | CNet | Kotaku | Gamasutra

‘You want to play hardball…? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You’re at the brink…”

“If this court in any fashion proceeds toward issuing a show cause order, given its utter baselessness and the bad faith goo in which it slithers, then Thompson will add whatever judge should do so as a defendant in the aforementioned federal civil rights action…”

Dale’s Comment: I have not seen the contents of the petition but I do note that immediately following the judges ruling Thompson sent Judge Ronald Friedman this highly charged, disrespectful and threatening letter.

Reports of Contempt Filing: GamePolitics.com | GameSpot | Next Generation | 1Up.com | PressStart.com | GameShout | Spong| Destructoid | Gamasutra

“I have spent a couple of hours viewing the game. It was produced to me by an operator using a cheat, which allowed him to skip through the game and show me ‘key points’ that would require an average gamer hundreds of hours to reach. There is a LOT of violence, but not more than the general public has access to on television”

…

“As I said, there is a lot less violence in this game than what we see on television, and although it is pervasive, but not to the extent that it would cause a public threat that would require me to prevent these folks from selling it”

…

“Would I want MY kids to play this game?” His palm is open like a starfish on his chest. “Absolutely not. But this game is not a nuisance.”

Sources: Destructiod in-Court Summary | GamePolitics 1 | GamePolitics 2 | GamePolitics 3 | Miami Herald | 1Up.com | CNet | OUT-LAW.com | InformationWeek | IGN | afterdawn.com | GameIndustry.biz | Inquirer | Next Generation | Gamasutra

While I was somewhat pleased that the order was limited to handing over the game for review by the court and not by Thompson (goodness knows what kind of a precedent that would have been), I still find it disconcerting that a court interposed itself into the process to decide for himself whether the game is suitable for sales to minors. Who appointed him the emperor?

Sources: Gamasutra | Play | ars technica | The Register | OUT-LAW.com | GameSpot | GamePolitics.com 1 | GamePolitics.com 2 | Miami Herald | Washington Post Destructoid | BBC

Sources: Albuquerque Tribune | Gamasutra | GamePolitics.com 1 | GamePolitics.com 2 | joystiq | Wall St. Journal Law Blog | Pantagraph.com

Source: GamePolitics.com

GamePolitics Full Coverage of Louisiana Violent Game Law

Sources: Gamespot | Gamasutra | Next-Gen.biz | Wikipedia Entry on Thompson | Gamasutra