RSS
Rather Than Suing, Jack Thompson Apparently Should Have Just Clicked The 'Report Abuse' Button
from the total-morons dept
We recently reported on anti-video game crusader Jack Thompson's lawsuit against Facebook, which suggested an unfamiliarity with Section 230 safe harbors. But, it gets worse. The website GamePolitics, who is listed in Thompson's lawsuit as being a key player in "orchestrating" libel attacks on Thompson, spoke to Thompson about the lawsuit, and in the course of the phone call, the GamePolitics reporter, Andrew Eisen, noted that every Facebook Group had a little link that allowed anyone to report the group for abuse, with a promise of action in 24 hours. He asked Thompson if he had clicked the link, to which Thompson called him a "total moron." Eisen, though, is apparently craftier than Thompson took him for, and clicked the link on one of the groups that Thompson was complaining about. What happened? Less than a day later? That group is gone from Facebook. Aren't there rules in filing lawsuits where you're supposed to take actions to mitigate the harm? In the meantime, it looks like Thompson owes Eisen and GamePolitics at least a thank you...
I’m looking for research...
Geography Of The App Economy
The Growing App Market
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
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/10/01/one-mouse-click-later-thompson-fb-group-removed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"total moron"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean seriously, folks. Just because someone writes an opinion piece that you your an "asshole", "fucker" or your "mother says bad things about you" doesn't mean that it's true, nor are you given privileged against it.
If you're given much, much is expected. You're going to have to earn your place in Heaven.
As Jesus said:
Matthew 19:16-26
It will be hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Suppression of 230 means that I would need to say one of two things:
1) Yeah I worked there, and that was my honest perception.
2) I don't know anything about their business.
But the commentary was based on a number of public articles available here, here, here, here. (I usually take screenshots of the articles that influence me. )
3) I request presence of the CEO of the company.
This is complex:
Sure, we all often go online and say things. But, why are you believing anonymous shit on the internet? Seems you have an opportunity to disprove them. Why didn't you engage them? Instead, the decisions made off of a blog response will re-iterate that they see a much bigger internal problem. If someone outside your company knows your business better than you do, well, it seems they are a reasonably smart person. Can you make it worth their time to stay?
And they don't work for you because..?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
THANK YOU.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW you can't "earn your way to heaven", that was Jesus point. The distance between man and God can only be bridged by God and on his terms, not ours.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, good for you, I guess. My life has not been without consequence. Should you believe otherwise, good for you. I won't even get into it as you've shown your value.
I know they've tried to kill me a few times now because I speak the truth.
But the best advice against me is the same words my father said to me: "You don't need to know how to shoot if you put Buckshot in this gun."
I know who I am against. Thanks for the "Imaginary Friend" reference.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am not a terrorist. However, I understand the methods used to terrorize people.
Your way of business management which includes taking the legal system for a ride can be misconstrued as terrorism. Want me to get that kind of job? It'd be pretty easy, and I'd easily be able to build a group of people against you. Bring the guns on.
See Michael Moore "Capitalism: A Love Story".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As Atheists like to point out, the Bible tends to be a little hypocritical with Church teachings and more than a little inconsistent. So look at it scientifically rather than ignore it completely.
I swear, the only useful atheists are the ones that can still argue philosophy without being children about it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
He is to be pitied, and would be a harmless nut if it weren't for the fact that he goes around noisily suing everybody he can think of.
Jack should probably be institutionalised to prevent him from doing further harm to himself and others.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The email backstory
To: Joe Billy Bob
Subject: Please recreate facebook group
Crap, someone went and reported abuse on that facebook group I had you set up. Can you set up another one? I'll have to amend the lawsuit and hope that someone doesn't report this one too.
Yours,
Jacky
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Jack is so stupid that he can't find/push the button.
2. Facebook's censorship button.
Tough choice.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
What now? I'm confused.
What's all this about camels and kingdoms and CEO's?
Jack Thompson is a camel and so he gets to go to Heaven before a rich CEO? Got it. That's the truth man!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
More seriously, Jack Thompson is a Public Figure. I don't see that any of these people he's suing qualify for the "Actual Malice" standard for libel. How can this not get thrown out of court?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, I can assure you Thompson is very familiar with the Safe Harbors law. Its just that Jacky boy wants the law bent to his own narcissistic view and doesn't give a shit about existing case-law, court decorum, protocol, etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
To #15
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment