×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jack Thompson Sues Facebook For $40M

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe dept.

The Almighty Buck 421

angry tapir writes "Jack Thompson has sued Facebook for US$40 million, saying that the social networking site harmed him by not removing angry postings made by Facebook gamers. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Thompson is best known for bringing suit against Grand Theft Auto's Take Two Interactive, Sony Computer Entertainment America, and Wal-Mart, arguing that the game caused violent behavior."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

421 comments

He never seems to learn... (5, Interesting)

A. Kim (620073) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603949)

Wasn't this idiot disbarred a couple years ago? Could he really be so desperate to feed his narcissism?

Re:He never seems to learn... (5, Insightful)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603993)

Whether he was disbarred or not doesn't really seem to matter.

Slashdot (and the gaming media in general) are doing a fantastic job feeding his narcissism just by reporting on every frivolous lawsuit. He's just a really skilled troll, and everyone always falls for him.

(Of course, if we ignored him, he'd probably go away only to be replaced by an anti-gaming figurehead that wasn't batshit fucking insane, so maybe it's best for everyone to just keep him around for the amusement factor.)

The Difference between a Troll and a real Monster (5, Insightful)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604075)

He's just a really skilled troll, and everyone always falls for him.

I would have to disagree, a troll is aware of his/her trolling, it is intentional.
Jack is like a troll, except for the fact that he is dead serious, and there is no "lol, trolled".
He really would restrict your rights and regulate the hell out of video games and the
rest of the online world that in his eyes is destroying the morals of America.

Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604325)

He really would restrict your rights and regulate the hell out of video games and the
rest of the online world that in his eyes is destroying the morals of America.

But can he really believe that? I mean, seriously, most historians and anthropologists would agree that the "morals of America" haven't changed very much in 230+ years. I just don't think people have a problem discerning between video games and reality.

Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (3, Insightful)

foobsr (693224) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604527)

most historians and anthropologists would agree that the "morals of America" haven't changed very much in 230+ years

{{citation needed}}

CC.

Re:He never seems to learn... (0, Offtopic)

berwiki (989827) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604327)

I did not click the link, so I did not feed his website or anyone else's with ad-revenue besides slashdot.

Reading about him on a forum at best results in little or nothing. When it is taken Beyond this forum in a various manners, that is when his attention and his ability get a rise out of people will pay off. Bashing him on slashdot is ok. R'ing The FA is bad.

Low Bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604271)

Bottom line: he's a fucking idiot!!!!! My tax dollar going to waste for this crackhead's court cases, just because he's too fucking lazy to get a job like a normal person. This bastard is as low as they come.

(sorry slashdot, but he might be suing you next for allowing me to post this :D")

Re:He never seems to learn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604355)

Yes. Presumably he somehow managed to find and hire a real lawyer.

Re:He never seems to learn... (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604363)

Unfortunately, disbarring him didn't seem to stop him... only changed the direction of his frivolous litigation.

Re:He never seems to learn... (4, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604587)

I find this lawsuit fairly amusing and hypocritical; since Thompson himself claimed First Amendment protection [law.com] against his critics, and then when for good measure that the criticism of him violated state religious protection laws since he was motivated by his faith.

Mister Thompson wasn't damaged by "angry postings made by Facebook gamers" he was damaged by all the stupid, unethical (and illegal) crap he did that spawned those posts. This is just a greedy lawyer who got himself disbarred through his own machinations trying to get himself a payout so he can finance his insidious campaign of ignorance and fear. Hope Facebook takes this to court and tear Mister Thompson a proverbial "new one".

Mental illness is no laughing matter (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29603951)

This man seriously needs some help from a professional.

Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (0)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603995)

A professional warden, you mean. Filing frivolous and harrasing lawsuits is a crime, and he belongs in jail for making other people's lives miserable. If they can get him therapy while he's in prison, that's fine, but get him off the streets before he costs someone else another million dollars to defend against his criminal actions.

Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (5, Informative)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604155)

In the UK the courts can declare somebody a vexatious litigant which requires them to apply to the court for leave to make an application to the court. Is there something similar in the US?

And for the inevitable posts that berate the UK and make reference to CCTV, libel law etc. etc., the list [hmcourts-service.gov.uk] of vexatious litigants is quite small and made up of people entirely like Mr Thompson who are, "batshit fucking insane". I know because I had to deal with one of the people on the list - a full weight cock-jockey of the first order. That list of people could bring any country to its knees.

Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (5, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604433)

a full weight cock-jockey of the first order

You people do such lovely things with the language. Oscar Wilde would be proud.

Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (5, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604211)

but get him off the streets before he costs someone else another million dollars to defend against his criminal actions.

It's unfortunate, but filing harrasing lawsuits is one of the few crimes people in prison can commit on those outside of it.

Personally, I think this shows just why Jack was disbarred - a blatant, persistent disregard for any laws that don't say what he wants them to say.

In this case, while I'm not a lawyer, I know that angry letters can be submitted to a newspaper and published without consequence - they can be angry in tone as long as they don't pass into libel.

A facebook page is just another point of distribution, with a lower cost of entry so the editorial controls are lowered. In some ways, it can even be considered self-publishing - at which point as long as you avoid libel/slander you're supposed to be protected under the 1st ammendment.

Jack is a legally trained lawyer, even if he's been banned for malpractice. He should realize this.

I've had an idea for types like this - at some point you award anybody they sue in an asshat way all their legal fees, lost wages, etc... Be generous. Until they're paid off they can't sue anybody else.

The slight loss of justice for them* would be outweighed by the increase in justice for everybody else.

*IE a construction company could 'accidentally' knock down their house, shrug and say *so sue me* and the asshat *couldn't*, not until he's paid all his court mandated settlements off.

Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (1)

chortick (979856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604609)

I'm not sure what the case is in your/his jurisdiction, but in the Province of Ontario (Canada), there is a designation of 'vexatious litigant' that can be applied to someone who wastes the court's time with repeated frivolous lawsuits. A person designated as a 'vexatious litigant' cannot initiate proceedings without a judge's permission.

Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (1)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604367)

He is a professional troll waiting for a $40 million paycheck. All his maverick ideas made him celebrity already.

Wasn't this tool suspended from the bar? (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603959)

I know that doesn't stop him using other lawyers to sue people, but I would think it probably says a lot about the validity of said facebook postings if he *was* struck off for being a serial asshat.

Re:Wasn't this tool suspended from the bar? (1)

DRBivens (148931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604065)

His disbarrment doesn't prevent him from filing suits on behalf of himself; he just can't provide legal representation to others, right?

He may remember the advertising adage, "Bad publicity is better than no pulicity at all."

Sometimes, exclamaitions say it all (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29603963)

ARGH!

Can't blame Facebook (5, Insightful)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603965)

Sorry Jack, but Facebook didn't make people hate you. You did that all on your own.

What a tool!

Re:Can't blame Facebook (5, Insightful)

techiemikey (1126169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604091)

I agree completely with you that Facebook didn't make people hate him...his own actions did. Unfortunately Jack Thompson might (for once) have something on his side since he's complaining that Facebook didn't remove the hate groups against him (like the now removed "i'll pay someone $50 for a video of you punching Jack Thompson in the face" post) but removed a poll of "Should Obama be shot." I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.

Re:Can't blame Facebook (2, Interesting)

Red Cape (854034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604219)

Threats against the president's life are a serious criminal offense. Someone making a video game about punching a well known figure in the face repeatedly is perfectly legal.

Re:Can't blame Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604421)

Someone making a video game about punching a well known figure in the face repeatedly is perfectly legal.

A video. Not a video game.

Although I would probably be inclined to fork out $50 for that video, too.

Re:Can't blame Facebook (1)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604227)

I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.

Legally speaking, there may be some leeway there. But what kind of lawyer would take on a borderline frivolous case filed by a man disbarred for bad practice including, but not limited to, the malicious use of frivolous lawsuits? Any reasonable lawyer would need a rock solid case before they'd touch that, given the nature of their client, and his history.

With that in mind, it may not be unreasonable for him to have found a lawyer, but there's a better than even chance he's hired an unreasonable lawyer.

Re:Can't blame Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604337)

You really don't see the distinction between a bunch of kids inciting a minor assault on a minor figure and deliberate incitement of assassination of the President of the United States and of civil unrest? Who are you, Jack Thompson?

Re:Can't blame Facebook (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604349)

I agree completely with you that Facebook didn't make people hate him...his own actions did. Unfortunately Jack Thompson might (for once) have something on his side since he's complaining that Facebook didn't remove the hate groups against him (like the now removed "i'll pay someone $50 for a video of you punching Jack Thompson in the face" post) but removed a poll of "Should Obama be shot." I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.

Excuse my european ignorance for not understanding. But is it illegal to hate people in the US? If not, is it illegal to form groups sharing the same hate? Please before anybody answers, I'm not referring to hate crimes, which infact doesn't tend to be about the hate, but rather what actions people have taken against eachother. Basically I understand that shouting "nigger" and hitting a black person is illegal, but is it illegal to tell that same person: "I hate you. Infact I've formed a group and we all hate you. It has nothing to do with your heritage, but with the choices you have made in life that have affected me."
 
If there has been threats made towards him then it's not even up for debate, no matter what kind of an asshole he is, it's not fair to make illegal threats to him or anyone. If he truly wants redemption he should sue those who have threatened or urged others to harm him illegaly. Still Facebook was merely a tool in this case. If I call you and threaten you, can you then sue your phone company? And if it's more about Facebook not preventing/correcting this when having the knowledge that this is occuring I'll paint another more relative scenario. Hypothetically, if your phone company knows that I am going to call you and threaten you, and they choose to not block that call, is it then justified to sue the phone company at hand?

Re:Can't blame Facebook (1)

techiemikey (1126169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604401)

I believe the hate groups themselves are perfectly legal. It's the things said in them such as offers to pay people who have video of punching Jack Thompson that he is suing that facebook hasn't taken down yet. And I would say no, the phone company is not responsible. Jack Thompson would apparently say yes.

Re:Can't blame Facebook (1)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604545)

Excuse my european ignorance for not understanding. But is it illegal to hate people in the US?

Firstly, IANAL. I think it's not illegal, but I could sue you for suggesting it. I wouldn't stand a Jack Thompson's chance of winning, and it might be 'dismissed with prejudice' (meaning I would have to pay you, or could be countersued for being an asshat). Just hating is not illegal, but as you pointed out threatening is. It's not the phone company's position to block calls, but if they had given out an unlisted number, or you called and said you want to threaten someone what's their number? then they might have some liability. Again, IANAL.

Re:Can't blame Facebook (2, Informative)

Mattskimo (1452429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604463)

Facebook didn't remove the hate groups against him (like the now removed "i'll pay someone $50 for a video of you punching Jack Thompson in the face" post)

The one example given in TFA has now been removed, either by the author or by Facebook. It is, however, a moot point as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Therefore Facebook have no real legal responsibility to do anything about it. Facebook would be down within days if it were forced to remove every possible defamatory comment one of its users posted.

Violent gamers posting violent messages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29603969)

Violent gamers posting violent messages? What did he expect?

Next week: (5, Interesting)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603975)

Jack Thompson Sues Everybody, For No Reason.

Why is he still going? Don't they make him pay his opponent's costs when he loses? Shouldn't he be broke?

Re:Next week: (1)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604007)

He's probably hoping he'll win and be able to pay off some of the huge debt he's racked up.

Re:Next week: (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604165)

Why is he still going? Don't they make him pay his opponent's costs when he loses? Shouldn't he be broke?

No. You don't automatically pay your opponent's costs when you lose in the U.S. They can ask the judge to grant it, but it doesn't always happen.

Re:Next week: (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604445)

Why is he still going? Don't they make him pay his opponent's costs when he loses? Shouldn't he be broke?

No. You don't automatically pay your opponent's costs when you lose in the U.S. They can ask the judge to grant it, but it doesn't always happen.

First, thanks for that info. Second, why would anyone even hesitate to ask for that?

Re:Next week: (3, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604213)

I'm not sure the US operates on a "loser (almost) always pays" system.

The theory is that by not having such a system, it's harder for the big guy to steamroller the little guy by saying "You do realise if you carry on we will apply for costs, and our costs so far have been $X hundred thousand?".

So instead what happens is they've got a fantastically complicated system whereby the big guy can keep going back to court until the little guy can no longer afford representation in court.

Note: IANAL, nor am I a merkin.

Re:Next week: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604315)

I'm not sure the US operates on a "loser (almost) always pays" system. ...

So instead what happens is they've got a fantastically complicated system whereby the big guy can keep going back to court until the little guy can no longer afford representation in court.

As opposed to a system where the little guy might have a solid case but can't risk taking it to court because if he loses the big guy is going to soak him for every cent he's got.

I suppose if you needed a legal system that tended to keep the peasants in their place a "loser pays" system is just the ticket.

Re:Next week: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604413)

If he has a solid case, he'll win. Simple as that. Only in America, where we have a Punishment System instead of a Legal System, it is doubtful someone who is innocent and has a solid case "may not win". American courtrooms are a fucking joke, everybody sneers at us because of our so called "Legal System". I wish someone made something about it already, stop this bullshit litigious society we have.

Re:Next week: (2, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604619)

I don't think a "loser always pays" system is the best, but I think that the plaintiff should be heavily penalized if the lawsuit is determined to be frivolous by a jury of his/her peers. There is a big difference between filing a losing lawsuit, and using the court system as a personal vendetta machine. If it is found that any particular lawsuit was frivolous, the plaintiff should be obligated to repay the defendant any court costs incurred, any lost wages, and punitive damages (the amount to be determined by the judge) to repay the unfortunate defendant for their troubles.

Re:Next week: (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604397)

That's not to say there's no protection for the little guy exactly: the judge has the option of awarding the victorious party attorney's fees, and a lot of judges are willing to give that out if the losing side appears to have been taking advantage of the fact that lawsuits cost money.

The trouble is that the little guy might have already been driven broke by the attorney's fees before that award can occur, and if the big guy doesn't pay might not even be able to move for contempt. So it's not a perfect remedy unless you have trial lawyers willing to work on contingency (which brings along a whole different set of problems).

Re:Next week: (2, Funny)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604507)

Note: IANAL, nor am I a merkin.

You're not a pubic wig for women?

There must be some subtle joke in there that I am completely missing...

Opinions - People are entitled (5, Insightful)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603977)

I really hope this Lawsuit is thrown out, simply because people are entitle to their opinions of this guy and what he stands for. He seems to forget that he's on some sort of one man crusade to fight computer game industry, and puts himself out there ans is not ready to be scrutinized for what he believes in. These individuals are using the tools provided to them to voice their opinions. We still have that right to free speech. I have not read these posts, and nor do I want to, thus the beauty of the Net. Now that Mr. Thompson has advertised that these posts exists, he's drawing national attention to them and may find that more people agree with the angry posts rather than his points.

I don't necessarily agree with vial and viscious things but people will do what people will do.

Re:Opinions - People are entitled (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604225)

"I don't necessarily agree with vial and viscious"
Me nether!
It's file and fishes indead.
Please won't somebody think of the Atari 2600.

Might as well sue himself (5, Insightful)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603987)

I think Jack Thompson's caused more harm to "Jack Thomspon" than any other entity possibly could.

Re:Might as well sue himself (4, Funny)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604013)

Jack Thompson is clearly part of the murderous conspiracy of video game manufacturers, paid to destroy Jack Thompson's reputation. Jack Thompson should sue Jack Thompson for a bajillion dollars.

Re:Might as well sue himself (2, Interesting)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604059)

I wouldn't be surprised if the video game companies are paying him to make the anti-video-game movement look (even more) like a bunch of fools.

Get over it (2, Interesting)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29603999)

Angry comments by gamers on Facebook? Gamers, get over it. The man's just a litigious nut who hasn't got anything successfully banned in the United States. Saying bad stuff about him only gives him more ammo to criticize and sue companies with. Don't worry, Jack Thompson isn't going to get between you and Grand Theft Auto 19 or Halo X Spin-off.

Forty million? (4, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604009)

Living in a country where you can't sue people for amounts like forty million dollars for Facebook postings sounds, well, friggin ridiculous.

I wonder how much just keeping the legal system running and churning through all these cases costs in tax dollars for a US citizen...

Re:Forty million? (3, Insightful)

Leebert (1694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604309)

Living in a country where you can't sue people for amounts like forty million dollars for Facebook postings sounds, well, friggin ridiculous.

It sounds ridiculous in America, too.

Re:Forty million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604321)

Yeah - makes me feel happy I live in Europe (sorry, guys - it's true :| )

Re:Forty million? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604353)

You can sue for any amount you like here, pretty much, however getting it is another matter. Depending upon jurisdiction you might have to prove the damages or get some judicial buy in on that and some amounts are so large as to be unconstitutional. Then there's the part about actually collecting, which isn't necessarily easy as some types of wealth and income can't be garnished. That's who OJ was living such a lavish lifestyle up until his arrest and subsequent conviction.

he's right ! (2, Funny)

Atreide (16473) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604011)

"Jack Thompson [said] that the social networking site harmed him by not removing angry postings made by Facebook gamers."

"Jack Thompson [argued] that the game caused violent behavior."

Seems to me these angry postings prooved his cause
by showing game caused violent behavior.

Re:he's right ! (2, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604135)

You have a different definition of violent than I do.

"Oh, I know what I'll do! I'll beat the tar out of him! NO! Better! I'll post an angry message to his facebook page! Why, he'll be so upset he'll start to cry! That's way better than beating the tar out of him!"

Re:he's right ! (1)

ratinox (582104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604479)

Funnily enough, there are other things that can cause angry or violent behaviour, including - but not limited to - being a vexatiously litigant jerkwad.

Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (2, Interesting)

Xpendable (1605485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604017)

Jack Thompson should be disbarred. His lawsuits are nothing but frivelous and a waste of tax payer money. He must have blown all his money that he earned from his tv show and now needs to keep filing idiotic lawsuits in hte hopes to make money for his ridiculous lifestyle. This guy should be disbarred and then he should be exiled from our country.

Re:Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604171)

He was disbarred.

Re:Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604195)

Eh... he WAS disbarred, over a year ago. It is even mentioned in the article itself. And everyone posting a comment in response to a slashdot post reads the article first, right?

Re:Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604217)

He was disbarred. Last year. Sept 25, 2008. I think it should be a national holiday. Call it national ass-hat day. Everyone goes home and cracks open a copy of GTA or some FPS and uses it as a 'murder simulator'.

Damn, Should have called in gamer last friday.

Re:Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (3, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604405)

He was disbarred in Florida & had his license to practice law removed in Alabama.  I'm not sure how those two things differ, but there you have it.

http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/668/668351p1.html

If anyone considers posting angry comments on /... (1, Informative)

vchoy (134429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604021)

....Jack Thompson has already threatened Slashdot with a US$100 million lawsuit, saying that if the "news for nerd" site does not filter and removing any angry postings made by its' members.....

Re:If anyone considers posting angry comments on / (1)

elnyka (803306) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604033)

....Jack Thompson has already threatened Slashdot with a US$100 million lawsuit, saying that if the "news for nerd" site does not filter and removing any angry postings made by its' members.....

Good luck with that.

Re:If anyone considers posting angry comments on / (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604111)

It is my personal OPINION that blocking a person's ability to openly express his or hers OPINION is only an action a person or persons would do who may or may not be the product of interspecies breeding or possible breeding too close to one of too similair genetic makeup.

I would hate to suffer the actions of such a person or persons.

Punitive Damages (1)

jimmyfrank (1106681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604035)

"Well, would it be possible to sue you people?" "Sue me? Why would you sue me? What are talking about?" "Punitive damages." "Yeah, but why would you sue me?" "I don't know, sue everybody!" -Sol Rosenberg

What can we do to help Jack? (2, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604061)

Our right to free speech is a serious burden for this man, what can we do to ease his suffering?

Re:What can we do to help Jack? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604233)

Well, you either abolish free speech nationwide or you make arrangements to get him residence in a country which is quite happy to silence people on the whim of someone powerful.

I believe Zimbabwe should fit the bill quite nicely.

Re:What can we do to help Jack? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604427)

I was thinking more along the lines of euthanasia.

How can anyone be this dumb? (1)

Capsy (1644737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604067)

Wow, this guy is a total sissy. If he really thinks he can win this lawsuit, then he is sorely mistaken. Here's why. Facebook claims no ownership of anything said on Facebook, much like slashdot. In fact, Facebook's only guidelines really are simply no pornography/racism. Seeing as this doesn't include slander/libel (whichever fits, cannot remember which is which anymore), Facebookers are free to say anything they want. Facebook's only real obligation is to report anything that could be of concern to the Department of Homeland Security. Now, being that Facebook is such a big thing right now amongst people with both no social life and people with huge social lives, I'm going to go ahead and say Facebook is going to win this one. Good for you Facebook, but you're still a website for attention starved assholes. Anyways, when Jack Thompson made his claim against GTA and it's publisher, he HAD to know he was going to piss people off. Congratulations Jack, you're famous, but you're an idiot.

December, 2009: Jack Thompson sues self (1, Redundant)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604077)

Jack Thompson has sued Facebook [...] saying that the social networking site harmed him by not removing angry postings made by Facebook gamers. [...] Thompson is best know for bringing suit against [...] arguing that the game caused violent behavior.

A few months from now, he'll be suing himself, arguing that he caused violent behavior.

If I... (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604093)

If I post on here that I would pay someone $50 to punch Jack Thompson in the face, would that cause him to sue Slashdot for $40m? :)

Re:If I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604317)

If I post on here that I would pay someone $50 to punch Jack Thompson in the face, would that cause him to sue Slashdot for $40m? :)

How about if I offer to pay $50 to somebody who succeeds in paying $50 to somebody else for punching Jack Thompson in the face?

Violent games create violent people, Strategy games create strategists... Hey, maybe JT's onto something after all... ;)

Its not like (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604129)

this guy may even get the chance to see a judge. He's been disbarred, and his legacy is one of contempt for the US Legal system.

What we need (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604147)

Is tort and legal system reform...

Proven batshit crazy nutjobs like Jack Thompson should be banned from filing lawsuits himself and should have a sane person appointed on his behalf to judge as to whether or not to file a suit.

Facebook Lacks Liability (1)

Secret Agent Man (915574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604157)

Even if the suit itself had merit (which it does not), I highly doubt Facebook would be held liable for what its users say or do (even a expert in the article says this). This is just another attempt by our favorite lawyer to get in the news again. Well, I guess he succeeded somewhat.

Sponge Bob censored best (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604173)

For those of you who know the Sponge Bob cartoon, you're familiar with the episode where Sponge Bob sees some graffite on a Garbage bin outside the restaurant. When he read the statements allowed, the foul words were the sounds of dolphins. I'd personnally love a few facebook comments to inject the dolphin (porpoise) sound bite. It would make me wonder if he would insist on interpretation of such sounds to find out what was being said so he could then turn around an sue people.

Phhhhhhbbbbtbtttttbtbtbbbtbbtbtbt! Mr Thompson. Ha

Re:Sponge Bob censored best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604239)

When he read the statements allowed,

It's aloud. For the love of God learn to write properly...

The man needs professional help (5, Informative)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604221)

From a fairly recent Court Order [floridasupremecourt.org]

"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, Thompsons 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. All other pending petitions, motions, and requests for relief filed by Thompson are hereby denied without prejudice."

After reading that Court Order, I must say that this man needs professional help. No, I am not talking about legal help. The examples provided by the Court are very convincing.

Fastest rejection known to man? (1)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604243)

Even faster than if Comic Book Guy asked out Jessica Alba?

but seriously, there must be a first stage screening/review before it's accepted to proceed... right?

Re:Fastest rejection known to man? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604483)

I don't know about the specific venue he filed in, but the unofficial rule in NH (according to a lawyer relative) was that the judge and court clerk must be able to read your complaint without cracking up for it to go forward.

In most US jurisdictions, the formal request for an initial review is a "motion to dismiss" (arguing that the case should not go forward on legal or procedural grounds) or a "motion for summary judgment" (arguing that the claim is legal but should not go forward on factual grounds).

Given facebook is largely private (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29604313)

in as much as you are only telling things to people you know, and presumably would use your mouth to say much the same thing - are you not immune from a lot of this?

Surely there is something in freedom of speech when it comes to talking to friends..

I assume these comments were on a "We hate tiresome prick Jack Thompson" type page, so I appreciate this doesn't reflect this article directy.

Well... (1)

Mattskimo (1452429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604369)

Surely "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". I realise that there was to violence, the guy offering $50 to anyone who punched Jack Thompson in the face isn't protected but this was removed. He could possibly argue under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974), (opinions could not be considered defamatory. It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that someone is a bad lawyer, but not permissible to falsely declare that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact.) that some of the messages posted were statements of facts but any comments about his unfitness to practise would surely be vindicated by his disbarrment anyway? Also since Facebook has no liability for comments posted on it they were going above and beyond what is required of them by law by removing even the incitement to violence. He doesn't really seem to have a leg to stand on.

Re:Well... (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604621)

He dared it and even to fall under hate crime law there would have to be a crime in the first place the only crime right now is that a pathological narcissist like Thompson is not seeing a shrink.

Jack Thompson 1990 (1)

LtGordon (1421725) | more than 4 years ago | (#29604385)

Once again, Jack Thompson attempts to sweep the concerns of the people under the rug. Why won't Jack Thompson respond to rumors that Jack Thompson raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? Is he afraid of the truth coming out?

/playingwithfire
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...