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."
Mental illness is no laughing matter (Score:5, Insightful)
This man seriously needs some help from a professional.
Wasn't this tool suspended from the bar? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sometimes, exclamaitions say it all (Score:3, Insightful)
ARGH!
Can't blame Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
What a tool!
Opinions - People are entitled (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Might as well sue himself (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Jack Thompson's caused more harm to "Jack Thomspon" than any other entity possibly could.
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Forty million? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
The Difference between a Troll and a real Monster (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Can't blame Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:he's right ! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Forty million? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Next week: (Score:1, Insightful)
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:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:4, Insightful)
{{citation needed}}
CC.
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Next week: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
The truly ironic part is that people like him do far more damage to this country than any cultural phenomena they point their fingers at.
Just imagine if he got his way.. how many of our rights would be trampled and how many would feel oppressed due to someone else's morality being forced upon them?
Ignore him (Score:1, Insightful)
Why are we still reporting or even caring about this man? Ignore him. He's just trying to get back attention for his crusade. I repeat, ignore him.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeap, and before rap music, rock and roll destroyed our moral framework.
And sometime before rock and roll, swing destroyed our moral framework.
I am sensing a pattern here.
Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the mentally ill in the US have no insurance (because it's damned hard to get a job with clinical depression, bipolar disorder or schitzophrenia) and can't get professional help. Why would you give a monster like him the help a poor homeless schitzo can't?
Besides, I don't think they have any effective treatments for sociopathy yet.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the Morals of America have greatly changed since it's founding.
Yeah, I miss the old days of witch-burning, slavery, and industrial child labor, too. /p
You don't really believe that, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
to a country that bans prayer in school.
Prayer is not banned in school. Kids can pray all they want. Government-forced prayer is banned in school. For some reason that gets conservatives so mad you would think they were about to bust an artery.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:4, Insightful)
We've gotten better [wikipedia.org]. Just remember that every time someone trots out a "founding fathers woulda" comment.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't say he keeps me up at night.
There have been many such people in power over the years, and there appears to be no lasting damage.
It's pretty hard for these extremists to slip past public opinion, and even when the public is with them, it typically doesn't last for long.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:3, Insightful)
This mythology of the Puritans "founding the country" is progressive-era propaganda.
Don't you mean socially-and-religiously-conservative-era propaganda?
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:2, Insightful)
So they permitted slavery in the USA for the case of political expediency of getting a few more states on board. Sounds like a value decision to me.
Reminds me of something (Score:4, Insightful)
Back from July 2008, I think this was-
Summer-camp chaplain: This country was founded by men who were reverent...
Me: It was also founded by Virginia tobacco speculators!
*Those* guys certainly don't fall under the category 'reverent', unless you count the Almighty Dollar, er, Almighty Pound Sterling.
Re:You don't really believe that, do you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your link and post have a highly biased slant on this issue. Calling another poster ignorant of the subject when making misleading statements yourself is hypocritical.
Here is a more factual description of those events [aclu.org].
Re:You don't really believe that, do you? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should read more. Like, perhaps, the article you linked to.
The criminal charges, of which they were acquitted, were for contempt of a court order, not for blessing the meal. They were at a luncheon (not a dinner) on school property and had obviously done it in the past since a court had told them they couldn't do it anymore. And yet they did it anyway. And someone had to have complained on both occasions or the ACLU would have never known about it. That's hardly the situation you described.
Also, if you read more, you'd know the difference between the pledge of allegiance and the pledge of elegance. I'm not sure I've ever heard of the pledge of elegance, but it sounds like it would be making students pledge to wear ball gowns and tuxedos to school which seems like a stupid idea. I'd also venture that we'd be doing away with the pledge of allegiance regardless of it's references to God. Blind allegiance to the state is the stuff of fascist and communist governments, not supposedly free countries like the US. Students shouldn't feel forced to support their country any more than they should feel forced to believe in a religion.
And Christians are so quick to believe that Christmas is such an innocuous subject and yet would be up in arms if the school play or carols dealt with another religion. They don't want to see a school play depicting the miracle of the lamp oil that should have lasted only 1 night but lasted 8 nights (the basis for Chanukah) and they don't want their kids learning songs about dradles. Why should students and parents from other religions be forced to see plays and sing songs about Christmas when they're not allowed to see plays and sing songs about their own religion?
There's a good reason why the rules about separation of church and state are in place. Without them, state officials who are religious can and would use their authority to push their religion onto others. Christians don't get the benefit of the doubt for the same reason that Microsoft doesn't get the benefit of the doubt...they have a long history that indicates exactly what they'd do if not controlled. And laws cannot be applied selectively or there would be chaos. So we have to balance the occasions where something that seems innocuous isn't allowed against the occasions where something oppressive is allowed when creating laws.
What is fucking ridiculous is that we have to keep fighting this battle with Christians over and over again since they can't seem to practice their religion on their own time and in their own homes and facilities. If you want religion in schools, go to a non-secular private school.
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:4, Insightful)
It was a value decision. Or should I say valuable decision. Without it, the US wouldn't have come together and history as we know it would have been completely different with perhaps slavery existing in it to this day. Values such as the freedom of speech that allowed abolitionist to convince people on the ending of slavery wouldn't have existed as the newly formed states may not have ever pact together or if they did, the union would have been much weaker.
Most of the rest of the modern world had outlawed slavery in their main countries with their insular possessions coming soon after about the same as the US walked into the civil war. Even while England had banned slavery by the 1700's, it was allowed in their colonies like India and places in Africa. Africa still has parts that allow slavery to this day.