Beta
×

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 vs Amazon?

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the man-i'd-take-a-vacation-personally dept.

The Internet 300

Zorglub writes "Feeling his book page at Amazon has been harassed by bad reviews, nasty tags, and a user-submitted vomit pic, anti-game lawyer Jack Thompson threatens to sue Amazon if the offending material isn't removed."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

book link! (5, Informative)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075278)

Pictures attached to the book (3, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075397)

If you look under the pic of the cover, there are two extra "customer images" attached.
NOTE: I'm not sure how the first pic slipped by Amazon,
but don't click it if you're squeamish

From W. Jones "bookreviewer" (Clemson, SC USA)
This was my immediate reaction after reading Thompson's Book. [amazon.com]

From Neil J. Miotto "Sponge-lueshi" (Menlo Park, CA, USA)
More images of JT. [amazon.com]

Re:book link! (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075519)

You MUST mouse over some of the small thumbnails just under the cover picture to see the vomit and the comic.

Your Sig... (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075570)

The way "Holiness" gets used, (the pope, for example) I don't want anything to do with it...The "Holy Spirit" on the other hand, is a much more complex issue. It could be that people could each be experiencing a higher entity devoted to them, and they all get lumped together into one concept, the "Holy Spirit", along with other spiritual phenomena. There are Biblical references to there no longer being a distinction between holy and common, Zechariah 14:21 is one, but those who try to lay claim to holiness don't understand it. They are those (2 Tim 3:5) "having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof" and Jack Thompson is one of their number.

All publicity is good publicity? (3, Interesting)

charleyb123 (618476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075280)

Isn't all publicity good publicity? At least there's interest in his book. ;-))

You Are So Sued!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075282)

I'm gonna sue you in England!!!

Amazon safe (2, Interesting)

a302b (585285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075288)

I'm sure Amazon & their team of lawyers has covered their backs. Shouldn't he be suing the people who posted the comments? But then he couldn't milk a mulit-million dollar cash cow then, could he?

Re:Amazon safe (2, Funny)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075316)

There's going to be a vomit posting teenager, running from a lawyer very soon.

Re:Amazon safe (3, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075342)

I'm sure Amazon & their team of lawyers has covered their backs. Shouldn't he be suing the people who posted the comments? But then he couldn't milk a mulit-million dollar cash cow then, could he?
That has never stopped a lawyer froms suing before. More precisely the sort of crackpot that would write this kind of book is exactly the sort that would sue, in the face of any common sense.

Re:Amazon safe (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075379)

Hey, everyone knows only lawyers win from lawsuits and never lose, right? Perhaps someone should inform Mr Thomspon that is only the case for lawyers who aren't their own clients as well.

Re:Amazon safe (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075449)

I don't know if I'd call them safe, because this lawsuit will cost big bucks to defend, but I think the consequences of Amazon backing down would be severe both to their reputation and the overall cause of free speech on the net.

In a trial related to the content of this book, the judge has threatened to disbar Thompson [gamesindustry.biz] . In response Thompson has withdrawn from the case.

With that kind of record, I don't even need to read the reviews to know the book is bad. And yet there they are. I read the first 30 of them and not one of them defended the guy. One said his writing was not that bad, but that the arguments were poor. In my book, if the arguments are poor, that's bad writing.

D

Is it even Amazon's property? (5, Interesting)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075289)

Does Amazon even own the comments? Like Slashdot, they probably have a disclaimer. Even then, isn't it considered free speech?

Re:Is it even Amazon's property? (2, Informative)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075302)

Nope. Having an opinion is officially a crime.

Overthrowing opinions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075339)

"Nope. Having an opinion is officially a crime."

Grey Ninja! Please turn yourself into the police. Your opinion will be confiscated and used as evidence in your trial, of conspiring to overthrow the duely-elected "Lawyer of one" government.

Re:Is it even Amazon's property? (3, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075318)

Amazon.com does claim reviews as its own property. There's a notice to that effect on the submissions page.

Re:Is it even Amazon's property? (1)

Fuyu (107589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075437)

From Amazon's Write Your Own Review page:

The Fine Print:

        * All submitted reviews are subject to the license terms set forth in our Conditions of Use - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/5080 88/102-3524443-9088154 [amazon.com] .
        * Your reviews will be posted within five to seven business days.
        * Submissions that do not follow our review guidelines will not be posted.
        * If you believe that the product you are reviewing is unsafe, please report this information to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) http://www.cpsc.gov/incident.html [cpsc.gov] or contact Amazon.com directly at product-safety@amazon.com.

-

From Amazon's Conditions of Use:
REVIEWS, COMMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER CONTENT

Visitors may post reviews, comments, and other content; send e-cards and other communications; and submit suggestions, ideas, comments, questions, or other information, so long as the content is not illegal, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable and does not consist of or contain software viruses, political campaigning, commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings, or any form of "spam." You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of a card or other content. Amazon.com reserves the right (but not the obligation) to remove or edit such content, but does not regularly review posted content.

If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant Amazon.com and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media. You grant Amazon.com and its affiliates and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such content, if they choose. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that you post; that the content is accurate; that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity; and that you will indemnify Amazon.com or its affiliates for all claims resulting from content you supply. Amazon.com has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any activity or content. Amazon.com takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted by you or any third party.

-

Amazon's General Review Writing Guidelines

Amazon.com wants your comments to be heard!
The recommended review length is 75 to 300 words.

Authors, publishers, and readers have separate review mechanisms. Please use the appropriate page.

What to include:

        * Your review should focus on the book's content and context.
        * The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a book, but also why. Feel free to mention related items and how this book rates in comparison to them.

What not to include:
Amazon.com is proud to provide this forum for you to air your opinions on the items we feature. While we appreciate your time and comments, we respectfully request that you refrain from including the following in your review:

        * Spoilers! Please don't reveal crucial plot elements.
        * Time-sensitive material (i.e., promotional tours, seminars, lectures, etc.).
        * Commenting on other reviews visible on the page. Other reviews and their position on the page are subject to change without notice.
        * Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks.
        * Single-word reviews. We want to know why you liked or disliked the item.
        * Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs.
        * Availability, price, or alternative ordering/shipping information.
        * Solicitations for helpful votes.

A review is not an appropriate place to tell us our catalog has typos in it. If you'd like to tell us about a specific problem, please contact us.

Any review in violation of these guidelines will not be posted.

Eh, Slashdot? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075290)

This guy is obviously an attention whore, so why indulge him?

Re:Eh, Slashdot? (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075414)

This guy is obviously an attention whore, so why indulge him?
I have a weakness for whores...
/shame

Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075291)

This man needs to be shot... and normally I am a nice guy...

Amazon page and tags (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075293)

The list is amusing, heres the few on the page:

First tag: lies (6mullet on Nov 17, 2005)
Last tag: Propaganda

Lies (7),Propaganda (5),Childish Name Calling (4),Unfounded assertions (4),Slander (4),Unscientific (4),Defamation (3),Self-promoting with fake reviews (3),Biased (3),lies (3),Racist (2),Scaremonger (2),toilet-paper (2),Money grabbing lawyer (2),Ambulance Chaser (2)


The amazon page listing them [amazon.com] is here.

Re:Amazon page and tags (2, Funny)

EiZei (848645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075378)

The listmania part is even more amusing, gay BDSM books anyone?

Re:Amazon page and tags (1)

Durrok (912509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075596)

"This is the worst book ever written. I wouldn't even use it to pee on. It deserves to be thrown in the garbage with dog poop."

You don't have the right to not be offended (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075296)

Short of slander, whatever nasty stuff someone says about you in a situation like that is fair game. If he doesn't like the attention, maybe he should shut the fuck up and stop making an ass out of himself publically.

Re:You don't have the right to not be offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075376)

Just remember that it's not slander if it's true.

Re:You don't have the right to not be offended (1)

elgee (308600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075388)

Tell that to the "politically correct" fascists who think otherwise.

Re:You don't have the right to not be offended (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075445)

By and large, that "PC fascist" crap is a fat load of tired conservative bullshit. Yes, sometimes the practice of not offending anyone goes a little too far, but the imagined persecution of those that complain about it is orders of magnitude worse than the reality. You have probably never, personally, been affected by it; certianly, you've never been sued or denied a job or anything else as the result of the supposed hypersensitivity. People like you tend to be upset about "PC" because it means you can't openly call people "niggers" without getting them pissed at you, or hang the titty calendar in your cubicle.

The inevitable reaction... (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075299)

Word is Amazon has just patented a mechanism for being sued by insane book authors.

You hurted my feeelings (1)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075300)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

he must be kidding! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075305)

This is America where we have freedom of speech. This includes what other may call abuse, defamation, belittling etc.

Re:he must be kidding! (2, Interesting)

Nazadus (605794) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075330)

Freedom is speech only applies to the government.
For example: Bush says we can't say "Bush sucks".
That would be illegal on his part.

However, I can tell you that you can't say anything bad about my website or I will sue you.
I can sue you.
Now, whether or not I will win is arguable and all depends on if you are telling the truth or not (libel, right? or is libel spoken? bah humbug).

Anways, you get the point.
Welcome to America. Anyone can sue anyone -- but they aren't gurranteed to win. In US the squeeky wheel concept applies.

Re:he must be kidding! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075363)

For example: Bush says we can't say "Bush sucks".

But I have heard people say that..."Bush lied to the American people to justify the [IRAQ] war."

Others have said he's not sincere and so many other [nasty] things. Some outside America have called him a chimp! Will he sue them? I doubt.

Re:he must be kidding! (1, Funny)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075385)

Others have said he's not sincere and so many other [nasty] things. Some outside America have called him a chimp! Will he sue them?

But he's not sincere, and he is a chimp. These are facts that can be proven in a court of law. That's exactly why he won't try to sue them.

Re:he must be kidding! (1)

weierstrass (669421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075465)

>>Bush says we can't say "Bush sucks"

He didn't actually say this. It's what's known as a hypothetical example. The words 'For example' are a clue.

Re:he must be kidding! (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075393)

I hope you are kidding.

The freedom of speech is a natural right; you are born with it. The Bill of Rights says that Congress has no power to abridge this natural right.

You are free to speak as you please on your pwn land and on government land. Your ability to speak on the property of others may be restricted, if the owners prefer. You can always leave their land.

Amazon.com is private property. They are free to moderate the reviews. For market superiority, they prefer not to.

I don't believe in the criminality of slander, libel or defamation. I believe in the complete freedom of speech. "No law" means no law.

Re:he must be kidding! (1)

nsasch (827844) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075418)

Your website sucks. Ironically, someone must really hate your site, because it's "Hacked by Pinguingillo" (good luck with that :-/ )

Re:he must be kidding! (2, Insightful)

Jack Earl (913275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075567)

The right to freedom of speech does not mean that you are allowed to say anything you want. It means that the government cannot try to stop you from saying whatever you want. This is meant to protect us from the government going the way of many others and trying to suppress people's beliefs. This does not protect you in such a way that you are allowed to tell other people to go fuck themselves, or to say things that ruin a person's character or reputation. You are still held liable for what you say, which is why you can be sued for slander, and other such offenses.

Message board is scary (4, Insightful)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075322)

That message board where the link points to is absolutely scary. The way I saw the piece:

1. Jerk writes book.
2. People who hate the jerk play underhanded amazon tricks to sabotage book on Amazon.com
3. Jerk complains to amazon that such tricks are clearly against amazon's rules and asks amazon to remove the offending material, which amazon does poorly or incompletently.

I expected the mesasgeboards there to be filled with "I disagree with what Jerk says, but I respect his right to say it in a fair way", instead it is full of Vigilante Logic such as pointing to Jerk's supposed jerk activities in a vein of "two wrongs make a right" logic criticizing the guy for asking for amazon to play by its own rules.

Sad.

Re:Message board is scary (2, Funny)

ilyaaohell (866922) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075387)

I expected the mesasgeboards there to be filled with "I disagree with what Jerk says, but I respect his right to say it in a fair way"

Just out of curiosity, what the hell kind of a psychotic utopian community do you live in!? Why in God's name would you ever expect that kind of reaction from ANYONE, much less an internet message board?

Re:Message board is scary (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075409)

I expected the mesasgeboards there to be filled with "I disagree with what Jerk says, but I respect his right to say it in a fair way",

I disagree with what Jerk says, I don't respect what he says or how he says it. But I do respect his right to say it.

Having said that, I respect the people who review his content to have the right to say what they want to, in reviewing the content.

criticizing the guy for asking for amazon to play by its own rules.

I don't know what rules these are, or how well they're enforced (for example, is it okay to write a "review" when your the author with the express purpose of flaming everyone else? I don't know, but Anne Rice did it). I expect Amazon's rules to be enforced as well in this case, as they do without the threat of a lawuit. But I think you'd find not everyone here is aware of Amazon's review rules or how well they're enforced. Besides which, a lot of the tags associated with his book are fair.

Re:Message board is scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075421)

Yet more evidence for the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com] .

Also related is the Internet Selection Effect:

The probability that a fool or a sociopath will post something in an online form is slightly higher than a person with insight and decent manners. Therefore, as the size of the forum approaches infinity, the stupidity will exceed the capacity of any reader to tolerate.

Re:Message board is scary (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075504)

... in a vein of "two wrongs make a right" logic

      Bart: Somebody ought to ruin Gabbo's career the way he ruined Krusty's.
      Lisa: Two wrongs don't make a right, Bart.
      Bart: Yes they do.
      Lisa: No they don't.
      Bart: Yes they do!
      Lisa: No they don't!
      Bart: Yes they do!!
      Lisa: Daaaad!
      Homer: Two wrongs make a right, Lisa.

Re:Message board is scary (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075531)

Jerk in this case specifically engages in censorship and defamation. What the gamers are doing is a much lighter of what he does. In this case its the punishment fitting the crime. For example Giorgio [amazon.com] killed civilians as part of the New Red Brigades and everyone believes he has the right to tell his side of the story. Even with something like anti-jewish/anti-black arian nations books [amazon.com] you don't see this kind of behavior.

I think we have a good example of the punishment fitting the crime (to a limited extent).

Re:Message board is scary (2, Insightful)

julesh (229690) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075632)

People who hate the jerk play underhanded amazon tricks to sabotage book on Amazon.com

I don't see how filing a review of a book that contains what is self-evidently an unfounded argument that claims that the argument of the book is unfounded is underhanded. It's what the review system is there for, right?

Irony (3, Funny)

Raleel (30913) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075329)

Perhaps someone else has a sense of humor, but there were these three links to "Listmania!" below this book... all three were to how-to books for gay men. One was about handballing...

amazon took a bad review down for us (3, Interesting)

notthepainter (759494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075334)

Not a bad review per se, but a review which revealed the ending of one of my wife's books. We don't enjoy bad reviews, of course, but they are a fact of being an author. But when when we saw a review of The Illusionist which gave away the ending, I contacted amazon and they took out the offending sentance within 24 hours.

Now this was about 4 years ago, maybe they've changed since then, but we've found amazon to be pro-author.

Re:amazon took a bad review down for us (2, Interesting)

julesh (229690) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075571)

Now this was about 4 years ago, maybe they've changed since then, but we've found amazon to be pro-author.

Well, sure. If you deal with them politely. But Jack Thompson...?

Re:amazon took a bad review down for us (1)

Random832 (694525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075636)

the problem is that [IDNRTFA] apparently he shot first. If he'd just reported it, but no he had to threaten a lawsuit

It's for the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075341)

He's sueing amazon to save the children from the evils of amazon comments and free speech?

He is also teaching the children that they can write inane BS and if people don't like their inane BS they can go ahead and sue them.

What a great role model.

People seem to need an excuse to convince themselves that they aren't totally whacko looney (oh its to save the children.. oh it's to free a people of a country etc etc.) //anonymous coward doesn't want to be sued for the children.

What exactly does he want? (1)

WTBF (893340) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075346)

Of the 52 reviews 3 of them are rated two stars and the rest have been given one. Does he want all of these removing? Has he considered that his book is actually not very good?

One thing that seems to be in most of the more sensible reviews is that the writing is bad, maybe instead of having a fit he should consider that these people are right and his book is awfull.

Not doing themselves any favors... (2, Insightful)

toupsie (88295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075349)

I don't agree with Jack Thompson but I do not see a problem with him expressing his point of view in our culture of ideas. Posting a very gross picture of a kid vomiting and an absurd cartoon does the anti-Thompson no good. Winning a debate does not occur when call someone a "poopyhead" enough times. Though I don't know if Thompson will win this sort of case, but if I found my product page defased in such a manner, I might do the same thing if Amazon were unwilling to remove these sort of items when requested. It hurts Amazon as much as Thompson to have vomit pictures on their website.

Re:Not doing themselves any favors... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075462)

I wish that were true, but the reality is that we live in a world where one gets a bestselling book by calling all liberals traitors, no one flinches when one asserts that while we have a second amendment right to bear arms, we do not have a first amendment right to disagreement with the government we vote and pay for, and every says hip hooray when the freest most compassionate country in the world tortures detainees, even though this was something we used to justify our own traitorous acts when the US was founded. The fact is the leaders set the tone of debate, and when hyperbole and hypocrisy is the standard, one cannot complain when the people follow.

As such, almost any free advertisement is good advertisement. He now will sell more books to the wackos that agree with him, and the wackos that disagree with him have now been made aware of the smear campaign. Everyone wins.

Thompson's point of view (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075475)

While I'd like to agree with you, John (Jack) Thompson is basically a Troll with a JD & a publisher.

http://croqaudile.com/?article_id=10299 [croqaudile.com]

People who behave like he does (in general, not just in that one example) would get modded down as a troll or flamebait if they posted to /.

We don't tolerate behavior like his because, when it isn't lowering the level of discourse, it ruins it all together.

I don't hate him for his point of view, I hate him for refusing to participate in anything other than a 1-sided conversation.



If God is a Meta-Moderator,
he's asleep on the job.

A very effective way of expressing their opinion. (0)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075496)

You talk about letting him express his point of view, but then you turn around and suggest that it is "defacement" when others express their opinion. Let's have some consistency, okay?

Like it is often said, a picture is worth a thousand words. That one picture of the person vomiting very concisely shows what many apparently feel about him, and the views he expresses. He chooses to write a book to get his ideas out, they choose to use a single photo.

Indeed, any true American should consider censorship of any medium, be it computer games, books, radio, television or photos, to be absolutely sickening. Such a picture is an apt description of that feeling.

What are you smoking? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075611)

I do not see a problem with him expressing his point of view

So.. suing people is "expressing his point of view", while people actually *POSTING* their point of view is not?

You're essentially saying "the only real expression is legal action."

Whatever it is you're on, you either need to up or cut the dose.

Child's play (3, Interesting)

matt me (850665) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075351)

First I must agree with every rational person posting here that this guy is an idiot, and has no right to sue Amazon. So to him I say, fuck you! Sue Slashdot now :P

But as we're on the subject of the supposed negative influence of games, I must post something original about Child's Play, a charity that provides games to children stuck in hospital. (previous Slashdot coverage http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/ 1647245&tid=105 [slashdot.org] )

To quote founders Gabe and Tycho (pennyarcade.com)
"For two years now we've set up and organized a charity called Child's Play. We set it up because we were angry the media decided to blame all the world's problems on games and gamers. Basically they said that gamers were bad people, and we thought that wasn't right. Apparently, you guys agreed: through Child's Play you sent nearly a million dollars in toys, games, and cash to the sick kids in Children's Hospitals around the nation."

So at some good (he'd disagree) did actually come indirectly from this guy voicing his wrong opinion. Argh, he makes me angry. Now excuse so I can kill some stuff in HL2.

Re:Child's play (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075451)

Penny Arcade as been doing Child's Play for a couple of years now. Jack's just got problems. Sure, he's entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't make him right.
It's almost like saying that Intelligent Design is science because it offers an explanation (Jack offers video games and media as an explanation for todays "violent" culture, while culture has actually been more violent in the past).
ID is no more science than any religion. Some of us know that. Some of us also know that life pre-20th century wasn't exactly easy. Life was violent. Mid-20th century made life for people like him much easier.
Life is about perspective, and Americans (myself included) don't have the experience to understand hardships and violence the way people did pre-20th century or even most of the world today.
So, if Mr Thompson is reading this, you might want to give thought to the possibility that we aren't living in a culture of violence, but that we are a violent culture despite your best intentions.

He only has about 52 negative reviews now.... (3, Funny)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075353)

just wait until the slashdot crowd gets finished writing their reviews.

Ugh (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075354)

The more Jack Thompson opens his mouth, the more of a joke he becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson [wikipedia.org]
http://www.google.com/search?q="jack+thompson" blowhard [google.com]

Here's an e-mail exchange between Jacko and a 14 yr. old boy.
http://croqaudile.com/?article_id=10299 [croqaudile.com]
The original e-mail is long, but if you keep reading you'll see how quickly Thompson's replies devolve into complete and utter asshattery.

Loud doesn't = right
lemme say that again for Jack's benefit
LOUD DOESN'T = RIGHT

Re:Ugh (1)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075413)

Loud doesn't = right
lemme say that again for Jack's benefit
LOUD DOESN'T = RIGHT


Alright, alright. We got it. You're right! : p

Great Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075356)

Post this on slashdot so the trolls have a target to post their goatse review!

Amazon's marketing (1, Funny)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075357)

If you look at the book for sale on Amazon, they'll tell you what other books people are buying if they've bought Jack's book.

Here's a sample:
How to Use DRM to Improve Your Profits
  by Sony BMG

In The Line of Fire:
A Case for War
  by Scooter Libby

Censorship for Dummies
  by the Parents Television Council of America

[yes these are all made up titles]

Jerk of the Year? (1)

One Childish N00b (780549) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075364)

Really, is this guy going for the 'Jerk of the Year' award? Darl McBride must be shaking in his boots.

Personally, I think Amazon have got their arse covered on this one, especially given the legal might they could probably rustle up - from the site (emphasis mine):
"Customers tagged this item with First tag: lies (6mullet on Nov 17, 2005) Last tag: Propaganda

Lies (7),Propaganda (5),Childish Name Calling (4),Unfounded assertions (4),Slander (4),Unscientific (4),Defamation (3),Self-promoting with fake reviews (3),Biased (3),lies (3),Racist (2),Scaremonger (2),toilet-paper (2),Money grabbing lawyer (2),Ambulance Chaser (2)"

The key word, there, Jack, is 'Customers' - not Amazon. That's the opinion of people being posted by people to advise other people what to buy - if it's slander, sue those people, subpoena Amazon.com for the IPs of the people that posted them, but don't sue Amazon, it just makes you look like a dingbat.

Jeez, I've never seen something so childish from someone with the supposed intelligence to become a lawyer - maybe it's different in the UK, but every person in the legal profession I've come across has been intelligent, respectable and level-headed - not someone likely to go off on a sue-fest if someone calls them names, and even if they did, they'd sure aim it at the right target.

As it's customers tagging it, and Amazon point this out, they should be OK - sure, an 'Amazon.com is not responsible for' blah-blah would help matters, but I'm sure that disclaimer that customers did it alone will get them out of any trouble, especially with the army of lawyers far more qualified than Thompson that Amazon's millions could muster - perhaps this could be a chance for Amazon to recoup some good feeling after their recent patent-grabbings; I mean regardless of how you feel about patents and Amazon's behaviour in that field, who wouldn't like to see Thompson get laughed out of court for suing over something that stopped bothering me when I left kiddy school?

Jack Thompson takes on the world, and loses! (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075366)

Gees, first Jack Thompson takes on Penny Arcade, and loses.

Then he takes on VG Cats, and loses.

He also took on a news reporting website, and lost (I forgot the name).

If history is any indicator on how successful he's going to be with this "lawsuit" (and I'll beleive it when I see it, this guy is a known liar [penny-arcade.com] after all) as he was with Penny Arcade.

He should just do what Anne Rice does, and beat people who say bad stuff about him to a pulp both online and offline. [somethingpositive.net] I'd also like to go on record as saying that if Anne Rice ever comes to Australia, I love her Jesus book. However if she doesn't ever come here, I wouldn't use it to wipe my ass.

Re:Jack Thompson takes on the world, and loses! (1, Troll)

Rich Klein (699591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075480)

It sounds to me like he's angling for a position in the Bush administration, such as head of FEMA.

Sockepuppets (1)

gtoomey (528943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075377)

I estimate 90% of reviewers have written just one review, for this book. So of the 53 reviews maybe 45 are from the one person/group.

Re:Sockepuppets (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075499)

Or maybe 45 people found his book so offensive/ignorant/etc that they got off their lazy order-books-off-the-internet duffs and wrote what they think.

A general rule of thumb is that: for every complaint you see or hear, at least 10 other people didn't bother to complain.

Reminds me of a line from A Beautiful Mind (1)

Dante Shamest (813622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075391)

Ah, the hubris of the defeated.

Just damn..... (1)

Xanlexian (122112) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075392)

When is he NOT suing someone/some company?!?

Search for Jack Thompson on Amazon (1)

Fuyu (107589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075395)

Search for Jack Thompson on Amazon. The first result is his book, Out of Harm's Way. The second book is Advanced Sex : 101 Positions and Techniques, for the Sexually Adventurous by Randi Foxx. Interesting.

If you kick somebodies leg... (1, Insightful)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075398)

Then don't be surpriced to get kicked in the face.

In other words, people as outspoken (disrespectfull) as Jack should not be surpriced to be called upon. He really think he can get away with saying thing that hurt people without retaliation?

Wake up to the world Jack!!

Looks like this is a bad read... (1)

Sox2 (785958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075408)

...the reviews on amazon make it sound terrible.

Freedom of speech (1)

broothal (186066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075410)

Itsn't this freedom of speech as long as it isn't directly libel?

This calls for... (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075415)

Someone should write a book about how lawyers are a bad influence on our children.

Article is trustworthy. (1)

DeusExMalex (776652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075417)

I know that Livejournal is a completely trustworhty for news and good poetry. That's why I hope to see more Livejournals quoted here on Slashdot.

Amazon already screwed up (2, Interesting)

miu (626917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075426)

Amazon already screwed up by even talking to this jackal. The second he contacted them they should have sent their own lawyers into attack mode and prepared for the inevitible lawsuit.

Seriously, lawyers should be treated like lepers - required to scream out a warning to anyone they come in contact with for any reason. "Lawyer, outcast, unclean! Beware lest I sue ye". Amazon attempted to treat this scum like a rational human being and he will use those efforts against them.

Dear Jack Thompson... (5, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075434)

Amazon.com Legal Dept.
Amazon.com HQ
November 20, 2005

Jack Thompson

Dear Sir:

Per your request we have instructed our client to remove all of the materials you reqested. Please accept our sincerest apologies. To ensure that such an unfortunate incident does not occur, we have also instructed them to remove this book from their catalog. Furthermore, we are recommending they remove all works authored, co-authored, edited, forwarded, or otherwise contributed to by you.

Again, we regret these unfortunate events and we trust that you will see that we are serious about making sure that nobody ever makes another negative comment about any of your works on Amazon.com in the future.

Sincerely,
The Amazon.com Legal Team

Most authors... (1)

segfault_0 (181690) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075435)

Most authors would probably like to get rid of all those pesky bad reviews but dont, perhaps in this case the lawyers should practice law and let the writers write the books because this guy obviously hasnt figured out theres a difference between the two.

Better Together (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075441)

On the Amazon page it has this beneath the book details:

  Better Together
Buy this book with The World Is Flat

Yup, I agree. Those who buy the Jack Thompson book would definitely like a book called "The World is Flat."

FuckJackThompson.com (1)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075442)

Never before have I been so proud of a domain name I purchased.

Now I just need to get off my ass and do something with it.

47 USC 230 (1)

matthewcharlesgoeden (764440) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075443)

Without all the facts, I cannot be sure; but Amazon seems to be squarely covered by 47 USC 230 and has been covered in the past [ericgoldman.org] . "[P]laintiffs continue to bring these meritless cases that have no chance under 47 USC 230." from here [ericgoldman.org] .

Reviews (1)

BMIComp (87596) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075466)

He's bound to get good reviews now that the story has been slashdotted........

By the way, who do you think his one positive review (that was allegedly removed by amazon) came from?

This review is priceless (2, Funny)

stox (131684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075467)

"If you like murdering little puppies than you will love this book! Ax murderers and serial killers alike will take ques from this wonderfully deragned book. Enjoy the life and times of this anti-bill-of-rights author that showers his reader with psycopathic rhetoric. A must read if you plan on being a dictator or child abuser."

Wow! You best watch out guys! (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075484)

By this guy's logic I can make a post or journal entry here on /. and sue anybody who flames me! I ddin't know that. Hella cool! I'll be rich by this time next year!

The Tags Are Funniest... (1)

thirty2bit (685528) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075493)

The Amazon tags cracked me up.

Customers tagged this item with:
First tag: lies
Last tag: Propaganda

Lies (7),Propaganda (5),Childish Name Calling (4),Unfounded assertions (4),Slander
(4),Unscientific (4),Defamation (3),Self-promoting with fake reviews (3),Biased
(3),lies (3),Racist (2),Scaremonger (2),toilet-paper (2),Money grabbing lawyer
(2),Ambulance Chaser (2)

The part that struck a nerve with me was the book description. "Jack, an outraged father and activist lawyer, is on a mission..." IMHO, 'activist' and 'lawyer' is a conflict of interests.

Jack needs to call a WAAAHmbulance and get some professional help.

I don't belive in coincidence. (1)

Voltageaav (798022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075507)

At least three of the reviews include some form of the name LUEshi. A quick search of the web reveals several forums where either, someone using that name is banned or someone is complaining about getting flamed by a person using that name. I wonder how many more of those posts might be from the same person?

Damn it (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075510)

Why can't he just sue someone already? He'll get laughed out of court and maybe just maybe shut his mouth for a while.

Video Games & Violence (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075512)

One of Jack's major assertions is that violent video games lowers inhibitions and leads to more violence, etc.

The general response to his claim is that "Violent crime in age group X has been dropping for years"

For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'd like to point out that such a response is meaningless as it represents the aggregate crime rate.

For either Jack or his critics to make a valid point, they would need specific numbers relating video games to violence. Just because the general crime rate has decreased, doesn't mean that viode-game violence has.

Jack's rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075514)

Jack Thompson also has a right to privacy. It is protected in the constitution. I recommend he exercises this right.

Let the lawsuits begin... (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075518)

Thompson also just got kicked off the videogame violence case going on in Alabama because of his frequent press releases. His response? Accuse the judge of being unfit and biased. Gamepolitics said that the letter Thompson wrote was so inflamitory they were afraid that if they posted it they might get sued for libel. While that seems unlikely, that gives you an indication of how outrageous his claims are.

I've written a lot about Thompson on my blog and, because I find it funny, I've put an Amazon affiliate link for his book on the front page. I'm just waiting for Thompson to send a threatening letter to Amazon because they let people put ads for his book on sites that disagree with him.

AI4U Amazon Trash Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14075521)

The AI4U textbook of artificial intelligence [iuniverse.com] was thoroughly trashed with vicious reviews by malevolent miscreants on Amazon.

Complaining by the textbook author [robots.net] to one of the reviewers accomplished nothing

Association for Computing Machinery [acm.org] publishes the truth, but Amazon won't.

A rebuttal to Amazon AI4U reviews [sourceforge.net] had to be published prominently on-line.

Slashdot coverage of AI4U [slashdot.org] was fair and open-minded, but there is no official review of AI4U on Slashdot -- until some brave, truthful, AI-savvy soul submits one.

AGI Radar [scn.org] is the ultimate antidote to Amazon review treachery.

Maybe the purchasers should sue him (1)

Stupor Man (926173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075527)

After all, you can't un-read a book. If the reviews are any indication, there was a lot of pain and suffering on the buyer's end.

My review (5, Informative)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075530)

First: yes, I really did read the book.

I decided to give this book a go after hearing that Thompson was actually suing Amazon over the reviews left here. Considering I already loathe Thompson for his consistent lies and self-serving press releases, and considering said lies and releases have him in ethical trouble, I was going in prejudiced. I really don't think that made a difference. The book is as rambling and nonsensical as many of Thompson's own statements. When obvious counterpoints to his zealous, frothing-at-the-mouth rage exist, he ignores them entirely (in the real world, he threatens legal action after committing slander. Gee, sounds familiar.)

Read this book over the hype, if you want. Yes, it will give Thompson some more money, and that's what he wants. It's worth it, though, because it exposes just how...well...insane he really is.

So. (1)

Vivieus (676170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075577)

if the offending material isn't removed

Does that mean they're going to remove his book?

What Ever (1)

tacocat (527354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075580)

I spent some time reading these reviews and just walked away.

Most, not all, of the postings are just dumb. Just a bunch of drivel about the same old shit without anything specific to back it up. And the funny part is, they spend most of their time belly-aching about how Jack has no facts presented in his book. Well, neither do they.

It's just a bunch of wind on both sides.

They allege Jack has no facts and they provide no facts to back that up. The closest thing I did find to any truth is he probably has poor writing skills and a poorly backed case against gaming.

We have to be careful between the balance of violence and non-violence influences in society. If we never have any exposure of violence in any form then we become a society of Welfare Pussies who are incapable of responding to anything which might appear violent in nature. If we only have exposure to violence then we end up a society of synics who don't give a shit or one giant anger management class.

Unfortunately, most games these days that are considered Violent to not present conflict resolution in any terms but 9mm versus BFG9000. On the flip side students in school have all these touchy-feely classes on conflict resolution. And where in the mix do they learn that there comes a time when your best option is to meet someone in the playground after school?

I see a lot of people who are told that they can't get angry because anger is bad and in their games they just blow the shit out of anyone who crosses them. So much Therapy!!!

A GameFAQs connection? (0, Offtopic)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075585)

It should be noted that some of the comments contain the name/word "LUEshi".

LUEshi is apparently an ASCII image of Mario riding on Yoshi. Some research suggests that it originated from posters at the "Life, the Universe, and Everything." forum at GameFAQs.com [1]. That particular forum itself was shut down or had its access limited by the administrators there, apparently due to excessive abuses by the members.

Considering GameFAQs' focus on gaming, it is quite plausible to see why people associated with GameFAQs might choose to post such reviews. It sounds like the users of that particular forum are known for intentionally causing trouble, as well.

The forums at GameFAQs widely known for having excessive rules, overzealous moderators, and what amounts to an extreme lack of freedom. It seems unusual that they wish to speak out against those who wish to limit free speech, while at the same time being members of a community that actively supports and practises censorship.

 
  • Note:
I have been informed that there is a moderator at GameFAQs.com who also uses the name CyricZ. We are not the same person. I am Cyric Zndovzny, while his name is Scott, if I'm not mistaken. I repeat, I am not the CyricZ at GameFAQs. We are different people.

  • References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameFAQs_message_boar ds#Jargon [wikipedia.org]

What did he expect (1)

buggerdchoirboy (575435) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075619)

He attacks everybodys fun and games and expects people to like him. Why does he expect a perfect world. What ever happened to not listening to show you don't like and what happened to parental responsibilty in choosing things for their kids. Trying to regulate everbody's lifestyle choices is futile anyway.

Bad reviews! Did he ever consider the subject was unpopular.

Amazon should just delist his book (1)

baseinfinity (18023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14075646)

Nobody forces Amazon to stock his book. They should just take it off the virtual shelves and be done with it. Don't sue the messanger when the messanger doesn't have to carry your message.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?