Unless you follow video games, you probably have no idea who Jack Thompson is, and even then you may have no idea. He is an attorney whose "religious right" politics have had some impact in this country; he has fought long and hard to suppress media obscenity. Although his efforts are not limited to video games, he is particularly reviled in the gaming community.

I have some theories as to why this might be. Certainly, Jack's name seems to pop up alongside bad or unconstitutional video game laws from time to time, but honestly Hillary Clinton has probably done more to attack individual freedoms with regard to the reasonable enjoyment of video games. You don't see people publicly expressing their hatred of her in t-shirt form... well, at least not on t-shirts purchased from ThinkGeek.

Rather, start digging around the big video game blogs and you'll see why Jack has been singled out by the gaming community. There's this and this and (most recently) this. He's not just a lawyer out to save people from the horrors inflicted by freedom of expression, he seems to be extremely litigious, and he makes it very clear that those who publicly disagree with his position or question his credibility risk the wrath of his mighty Juris Doctorate.

Well, even to this point I guess that just makes Jack a lawyer who loves his job. And certainly, the more extreme (or particularly young and inexperienced) among the gaming community respond to Jack's antics as the extreme, young, and inexperienced are wont to do: they advocate death and maiming and other expressions of displeasure that generally exceed the realm of the legally protectable. I'm sure 99.9% of these "threats" are utterly hollow, but then, I'm not entirely convinced that Jack wants them to stop--if nothing else, they do make for great press, and Jack is a man with a mission. Missions need press, and death threats certainly have a way of raising visibility. It's hard to imagine anyone really enjoying such infamy, but I haven't got any other explanation for the way Jack persists in throwing rocks at the hornet's nest of (admittedly rabid) game fans when he could be much more effective in his quest just quietly drafting legislation. Maybe I'm just wrong about what it takes to be effective.

Anyhow, that's all background. This post is not really about the manifold virtues of video gaming, the sort of "anti-celebrity" status Jack has among hardcore gamers, or even the counterproductive nature of gamers who employ death threats in their attempt to prove that violent video games don't make them violent people (hint: your attempts at irony will be misread). Rather, this post is about something every law school tries to teach, and too many lawyers seem to forget.

This is a post on civility.

Believe it or not, civility is a hot topic in the legal community. I'm having trouble finding a link, but one of my professors shared with us a story of the Supreme Court of Utah handing down sanctions or refusing certiorari (or maybe it was both?) based on an appellate brief that impugned the character of certain judges, attacked the opposing counsel, and was in general just plain unprofessional. Similar stories abound. The idea is that a court of law exists to resolve legal disputes; the adversary system requires that attorneys advocate strongly for their position, but their advocacy should take the form of professional, logical, mature assertions. Other words from this fabulous article on civility include dignity, class, propriety, taste, and grace.

In my 1L writing courses, this meant avoiding over-the-top statements, giving opposing arguments their full weight in order to maintain credibility, and above all maintaining a professional rather than acerbic tone. Of course you want to weaken your opponent's position and strengthen your own, but there is a point at which effective advocacy degenerates into immaturity or, more to the point, incivility. There is a difference between stating your opponent's mistakes and taking personal potshots. The former is professional; the latter, disappointing at best.

The good folks at Kotaku were kind enough to share this document (pdf warning!), a complaint filed and amended by Jack Thompson against various people he feels have wronged him. As a 1L who hopes to spend at least some of his career advocating for the video game industry, I thought this was a good opportunity to read a pertinent document.

Frankly, I'm horrified.

I don't know how I should react to this. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised? I mean, obviously, I am not a lawyer. I am not in a position to really evaluate this complaint from the perspective of someone like Jack, who has been practicing law for years. But it reads like a blog entry! Seriously. His legal complaint reads like a blog entry. The sort of hyperbole I engage in when I'm upset about something and I want to make a point? Yeah, that's not really the kind of writing I would dare turn in to my professors, let alone put in an official court document. But look at some of the "statements" Jack makes, keeping in mind that this is a standard complaint format. Each complaint is numbered and each number will require an individual and specific response from the parties involved:

73. There is a whole subculture of people in this country, however, who think that "defense of the First Amendment" means driving people with whom they disagree out of the public square. These people are in the company of SLAPP Bar complainants, The Florida Bar, and others.

Hmmmm... borderline. I would say Jack has described himself better than his opponents, but this might be worth considering, I suppose. I can't imagine under what circumstances, but I still have two years of law school left.

76. What followed this screed by Mr. Crecente at Kotaku.com, owned and operated by Gawker Media, was a rather stunning but predictable response from the bloggers who are video game industry lemmings who are attracted like moths to a flame at Kotaku.com. This histrionic response is precisely what Mr. Crecente, Kotaku.com, and Gawker Media wanted. The entire Gawker Media empire, such as it is, is built upon the wretched excesses of the "blogosphere" and the most famous aphorism of P.T. Barnum. Gawker Media has a long history of acting irresponsibly in various regards. It organized a campaign to stalk actor George Clooney, for example, learning nothing from the stalking of Princess Diana.

I added the emphasis to show the relevant portion. Is this civil? I mean, "video game industry lemmings?" "The wretched excesses of the 'blogosphere' and the most famous aphorism of P.T. Barnum?" (Never mind that Barnum never said what Jack is alluding to here.) Seems a little over-the-top, I don't know.

78. This was followed with other posts that Thompson should be struck with a baseball bat, shot in the face by an irate gamer, castrated and his testicles stuffed down his throat, and the exercise of other basic "constitutional" rights to advocate violence against an individual........................Not!

Here Jack is complaining about comments left by Kotaku users. Now, I can't say how meritorious his actual case is; as I understand the state of the law (which is to say, better than most people, but not as a lawyer), Kotaku can't really be held responsible for the words of members who post their own comments. But nothing on the internet is really "settled law" so who knows? Jack might conceivably prevail, if not against Kotaku then at least against the specific users who made what might reasonably be understood as actual threats.

No, the issue here is... who uses ".....Not!" in any kind of professional document? Where's the decorum in that?

85. One Internet idiot sent Thompson the following e-mail message just this day, out of the blue, which helps underscore the sociopathy of typical Kotaku knuckleheads...

"Internet idiot?" Now, strictly speaking, the "idiot" in question is not party to the suit (as far as I can tell), so I guess this doesn't qualify as attacking the other party... I don't know. It seems like a bad idea to be tossing around words like "idiot" in an official court complaint. To say nothing of sociopathy. Am I a Kotaku knucklehead? Did Jack just call me a sociopath?

94. Thompson has been a human piñata gleefully whacked by defendants herein, and he has had enough of it. America is not about using either a state regulatory system as if it were the thought police. America is not about using the open public square to target a citizen for death, and in doing so wedding the function of The Florida Bar to that effort to intimidate this undersigned citizen with threats on his life.

...? Human piñata? Certainly Jack seems more deserving of the "thought police" appellation, but that irony aside, human piñata!? Despite ubiquitous threats to the contrary, I am unaware of Jack actually being the victim of a video-game inspired beating, and metaphorically? Meh. He's a public figure, really, that's all there is to it.

Anyhow, none of this should be taken as ad hominems or attacks on Jack's competence as an attorney; interspersed throughout his complaint are perfectly reasonable statements of potentially applicable principles of law, relevant statutes, and so forth. Of course, also interspersed throughout the documents are veritable hymns to the good work Jack apparently feels he has performed. On the whole, it's a very odd document, so here's my question:

What should I, as an attorney-in-embryo, learn from this?

Has Jack so departed from standards of professionalism to warrant sanctions? I don't know, maybe not sanctions but if I were the judge I'd at least comment on this sort of language. I mean, Jack doesn't say anything shocking. Some of his words are a bit over-the-top, and in a different forum might be functionally valuable rhetoric--as I mentioned, blogging out a rant or something is always a great place for a really passionate argument. But the points I quoted above just seem to taint the document.

And that's really what it comes down to, in my mind. I expect folks like Jack Thompson to show up on television and make outrageous claims. I expect people with a "cause" to write inflammatory emails and start flamewars and insult their opponents. Heck, I keep calling him "Jack" when in a court document I would absolutely use "Mr. Thompson." It's just the nature of the beast. But the way Jack's points are phrased in his complaint seems needlessly insulting, deliberately flamboyant, and just plain unprofessional.

Am I wrong?

Or worse, do my feelings reveal more respect for the law as an institution than I prefer to admit? d^_^b It's entirely possible that my evaluation of Jack's work is skewed by my distaste for his position; I love liberty, perhaps to excess. But you tell me. All the links are there (with this one about civility being the most relevant, I think). Am I nitpicking because I think Jack is an overly litigious zealot, or is his complaint a shining example of unprofessional lawyering?