RSS
Jack Thompson's Latest Suit Ridiculous By Even His Standards
from the the-lady-holding-the-scales-of-justice-cringes dept
You sort of have to admire Jack Thompson, the "blame the video game" lawyer: just when you think he can't get any more ridiculous, he goes and outdoes himself by accusing a number of video-game web sites of racketeering. Several days ago, Thompson was sued by his favorite target, Take-Two Interactive, makers of the Grand Theft Auto series and other games, in an attempt to head off his inevitable attempts to block the release of two of its upcoming games. Thompson, of course, saw another opportunity to do some pro bono marketing work for the company, and filed a countersuit, written in his own inimitable style, in which he suggests the company is behind a "vast conspiracy to deprive [him] of his civil rights". Thompson has alleged before that certain media outlets have been paid off by Take-Two -- you know, places that are generally regarded as less than credible, like The New York Times, USA Today and Reuters -- but the racketeering allegations are a new twist. The world-vs.-Jack conspiracy isn't anything new, since he's even gone so far as to accuse an Alabama judge (who tossed him from representing a case there) as being paid off by the game industry, allegations which have gotten him in some hot water with the Florida Bar. It's easy to understand Take-Two's frustration with Thompson, and it's hard to understand why he continues to be allowed to use the legal system as his personal plaything.
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
I have an idea...
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
Why and How Developers Use Mobile Payments: Infographic
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Why does he get away with it?
Lawyers are NOT going to admit one of there brethren might be just a wee bit frivolous because it might lay them open to similar charges. For example, the RIAA's thugs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why does he get away with it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I thought that was a requirement to pass the bar.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Good to see a lawyer get a taste of the medicine they dole out to everyone else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Jacko has not come put of the closet yet
and GTA. Bet he's just like that politician that was drawing up bills against child porn and then was doing it himself.... Remember when we were in kindergarden and if you liked a girl you would mess with her and piss her off and stuff... Same principal.
JACK YOUR A DAMN FAGGOT
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
...and you deal with them
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I am a longtime gamer. I have played games for around two decades now, and I've played everything from "Pong" to "Super Mario Bros." to "Street Fighter" to "God of War". I've seen the rise of violence in video games, and been around to hear about all the controversy around violent content. And after studying all the evidence and going over all the lawsuits and statements, I have come to a conclusion -- you, sir, are a jackass.
You have repeatedly tried to destroy the First Amendment rights of Take Two Interactive by both threat of lawsuit and other legal motions -- your attempt to get "Bully" pulled off shelves without a review of the content, thus acting as if you're the Attorney General of Florida, is proof of that. (As an aside, I played "Bully", and I find nothing objectionable in the game, and if I had a teenaged child who wanted to play it, I would let them without question. Notice, Jack, that I said "teenaged", because the game IS rated "T / Teen", after all.) You've tried to sue production companies and distribution houses for video games in an attempt to bolster not only your claims that video game violence somehow leads to real-world violence (a claim that, even today, is disputed), but your own wallet as well. You've tried to draft laws that would eradicate the First Amendment rights of game publishers by making it illegal to sell games featuring "objectionable content", which is so open-ended in its language and intent that you could essentially prevent the sale of ANY game as long as you say it has "objectionable content".
Now you not only are trying to prevent the release and sale of two Rockstar games six months in advance, you're using Bible quotes in your letters and harassing possible investors of Take Two Interactive, threatening that you will bring consequences of "Biblical proportions" to them should they invest in Take Two.
You need to stop this, Jack. You're out of touch with the general public. You're a horrible lawyer with a penchant for grandstanding and self-aggrandizing so long as you get some press. And now, on top of that, you're starting to sound like a religious zealot. You're a horrible human being, Jack, and the sooner you give up your license to practice law and stay away from an issue and an industry you clearly don't have any understanding of OR want any understanding of, the better off the industry, the Florida legal system, and the general public of the United States of America will be.
Sincerely yours,
Anonymous Poster
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Anonymous Poster
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just Bravo.
i mean almost we all reading this play or have played videogames, street fighter, mortal kombat, you name it.. and still we're not mentally unvalanced,.. at least not all of us.. so whats the point on jack's play,,
in words of julius caesar "for the romans, bread and circus."
this guy's thing have to stop im anoyed already.-.. even i don't play GTA's too often im pissed couse dudes like this make the company's twice before launching a game... geez.
att. BulmaRO
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
and all the other gramma errors get justfied becouse im a mexican guy barely english wise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ugh
She managed to pull strings to get to be a judge. When NOBODY voted her back in, she... actually refused to vacate the office. Oh, and when she finally did, she locked the door and literally threw away the key. She also PUT OUT A WARRANT on the guy who serves legal papers to people. Yes. You heard me right. She figuratively shot the messenger.
Said messenger REALLY hopes she pushes the lawsuit so he can maybe set in motion her disbarment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Vexatious litigant?
In Commonwealth law, I believe, it is possible, in extreme cases, to take the step of declaring somebody a "vexatious litigant". That means they've been guilty of clogging up the legal system with useless lawsuits, and it puts much greater scrutiny on them if they try to bring any new ones.
Is the same sort of thing available in US law?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Removed from the bar
T2 should sue him for evry category offence which vaguely covers being an annoying asshole, and forxe him to settle for a huge amount of moeney and a promise to never act against them in any way.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Does the character "Half-cocked-JacK' ring familur
//
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vexatious litigant?
But, in the other bowl (since we're holding the scale) we also have SLAPP (or, rather, anti-SLAPP):
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html
-"Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation." protection; should we, as 'honorable' (or otherwise) citizens be slapped with a Big-Money vs. outspoken-citizen suit.
...comparison non perfectio...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright Law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment