In the ongoing Florida Bar trial of Jack Thompson, a lawyer and advocate against violent video games, Thompson is represented by…..you guessed it, himself. In this transcript of the hearing, he cross-examines the judge who oversaw the trial for which Thompson was charged with inapproriate conduct. The trial in question concerned Thompson’s attempt to have the video game Bully declared a public nuisance in Florida. His goal was to prohibit it’s sale throughout the entire state regardless of age, and during the course of the trial, behaved in a way that at best could be described as ‘unbecoming a member of the Florida Bar Association’ and realistically as ‘neurotic’.
During his cross-examination, he comes back to the old issue of the game Bully, trying unsucessfully to argue his point, rather than defend his behavior. I don’t understand why he argues the issue when the game was released a year ago. Does he think he can make a law that will allow him to pop inside peoples homes and take any copy of Bully inside? He also argues the judge should create a law that will prevent indirect sale of the game, which seems just a bit difficult when you think about it. I’m sure the DEA would like to hear how he plans to do that.
At no point during the transcripted conversation does he mention his improper conduct, which he must feel was justfied. The only thing Thompson seems to be proving in this case is that he has a fool for a client.