Jack Thompson Sues Facebook For $40M 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."
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:5, Informative)
Correct the Florida Supreme Court disbarred his ass
If anyone considers posting angry comments on /... (Score:2, Informative)
....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:Mental illness is no laughing matter (Score:5, Informative)
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:Next week: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
The man needs professional help (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (Score:4, Informative)
http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/668/668351p1.html
Re:Can't blame Facebook (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Yes, he really does. It was rap music before it was video games, but he honestly believes they are destroying our moral framework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)
Re:Can't blame Facebook (Score:2, Informative)
The difference is that threatening the current (and perhaps past as well?) President of the US is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, and that poll could possibly be considered as a threat. I know it's weak, but those folks in the Secret Service take that stuff VERY seriously. They have to. It's their job, and honestly, they don't want to risk blowing off one "threat" because it "just looked like a harmless wacko" and then have shots fired at the president in line with what that "harmless wacko" said.
I suspect that is why the Obama poll was removed quickly. There's a huge difference between a federal offense and potentially irritating a known irritant (Jack Thompson).
Posted AC so Mr. Thompson doesn't try to sue me.
The CAPTCHA is "synapse". I think Mr. Thompson needs a few more.
Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (Score:1, Informative)
>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?
Yes. Here's the Florida rules:
http://www.ccfj.net/VexLitbill.htm
Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (Score:2, Informative)
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?
There are a couple of things they can do to him for filing frivolous lawsuits. I don't remember all the specifics but the things that come to mind are
a) Anytime he files a suit the judge can throw it out as frivolous and make him pay all the legal and court costs for the defendant
b) Any courtroom he steps into the judge can simply hold him in contempt of court and fine him... judges can slap someone pretty damn hard for contempt. I don't have a link handy but I read a story about some guy who sat in jail for a decade because he refused to pay his fine after being found in contempt. Basically if you piss off the judge he can slam the gavel and say "you're hosed asshole, should've parked your mouth when I told you" and off you go.
I think there is another kind of action that can be taken where the courts can bar someone from filing civil complaints due to abuse of the system but I'm not sure exactly how that works or if it falls under a) or b). not a lawyer...
a full weight cock-jockey of the first order
Couldn't have said it better myself.
One Word (Score:3, Informative)
Barratry:
"The act of persistently instigating lawsuits, often groundless ones."
It's a crime. If anyone was seriously threatened by one of these, they could simply file charges. Facebook is already protected by the law per TFA, as Thompson should be well aware. Being aware and persisting makes it all the more likely he'd be convicted of this, and in each case receive greater fines and/or jail time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:3, Informative)
First off... 15 colonies? only 13 founded our country. what are the other two you are talking of?
Secondly, it was far more than one colony that was founded by 'Puritans',
Massachusetts, Puritans
Rhode Island, Religious folks fleeing from Puritans
Pennsylvania, Quakers
New Jersey 'New Lighters'
Maryland Catholics
Virgina Anglicans
6 of 13 colonies are founded out of religious beginnings, and New York city had/has such a high concentration of jewish folk since it was New Amsterdam
6 1/2 out of 13 isn't exactly propaganda. Its half the story.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Informative)
Why, there were quite a few founding fathers that didn't want slavery. In fact, it seems that the original drafts of the constitution banned slavery and had to be changed in order to get a few of the southern states on board. They compromised by placing the ability to ban imports of slaves and to tax their possession and make slave ownership and sales impractical in the future.
The act of slavery is irrelevant to someone pulling out a founding fathers argument. It's like Criticizing Obama's health care plan or foreign policy because he never rode a Farris Wheel.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:3, Informative)
First off... 15 colonies? only 13 founded our country. what are the other two you are talking of?
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Neither were part of the 13 Colonies (obviously), but both were early British colonies. IIRC, there were attempts early in the Revolutionary War to agitate Nova Scotia (which then bordered with Maine) against the crown, but the mostly military and loyalist population of the colony shrugged them off.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:4, Informative)
False. A considerable number of them were Deists, meaning that they accepted a supreme being - God, Allah, FSM, what have you - but not organized religion.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:3, Informative)
And sometime before rock and roll, swing destroyed our moral framework.
It's the fault of the church. The original corrupting influence was theatre, and the church knew this, but none the less allowed plays providing they were on religious themes, but before you know it you've got Shakespeare writing about all kinds of crazy secular shit, and eventually theatres allowed in the city, and the final nail in the coffin of morality, allowing female roles to be played by actually female actors. Everything after that in the collapse of morality is postscript.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:3, Informative)
Just a nitpick: Rhode Island and Connecticut were both founded by Puritans who disagreed with the Massachusetts founders and left.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Informative)
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".
On usenet, the distinction is made between a "troll", and a "netkook"; their behavior is often strikingly similar, except that the former is doing it intentionally to incite reponses, whereas the latter actually believes what he's saying.
Jack, I gather, is more of a kook than a troll...
Right. People think of the term "troll" as referring to some sort of monster, like the ones beneath the bridge in the story about the billy goats. But "trolling" is actually an old word for fishing by dragging a line with a baited hook or hooks behind a slow-moving boat. You can see how the older definition applies...