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."
He never seems to learn... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:5, Informative)
Correct the Florida Supreme Court disbarred his ass
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:4, Funny)
That's odd, but they left the stick in place?
Wouldn't you?
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Depends on how much I need a stick to beat him with, and how easy it is to snap it off. ;^P
--
Toro
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only if I had a spare one to drive through his heart.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jack Thomson, what a knob. When are they going to put this guy out of our misery?
Re:He never seems to learn... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Florida Supreme Court already did. He's pretty harmless these days. All he can do now are "give me attention" tricks. Like this Facebook thing. Anyone with a half an ounce of sense knows it's not going anywhere. He's more like a Jack Thompson caricature these days.
As for me, I think these little public humiliations he sets himself up for are endlessly entertaining. It's fascinating to know that this guy was a lawyer at one time when he obviously knows very very little about what's legal and what isn't.
Breaking news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OrangeMonkey might be on to something here
We should all post something fun for Jack Thompson. For example:
"Jack, may the fleas of 1000 camels infest your bunched undies"
We all feel better, he doesn't know, everyone's happy ... except jack. ... well, maybe he can try ... goodluckwiththat
He can't possibly sue all of us
Re:Breaking news... (Score:4, Funny)
Would that be a reverse class action lawsuit?
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.)
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: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, 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...
Re: (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:4, Insightful)
{{citation needed}}
CC.
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: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: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.
Re: (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: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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly all that felon blood makes them more susceptible to the violent, drug using influence of video games!
It's a joke people, chill out.
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:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Funny)
This new rock throwing game is destroying our caveman morality! We must stop it and only allow the throwing of rocks in the time-honored ritual fashion of our tribe!
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the common moral framework has been destroyed and re-created over that period of time, more than once in some cases. Look at how we feel about "bastards" (born out of wedlock), or the "N-word" (which used to be part of childrens' rhymes). Look at the content of tv (now radio/internet) programming, it's totally different. Objectively, I do think it is fai
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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 propag
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. And Pennsylvania was sort of the anti-Massachusetts. It's always annoying when people categorize the early America experience based solely on the one colony.
However, most of the colonies were in the opposite camp of Pennsylvania on most issues, such as religious freedom, relations with Indians, and self-government.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Just a nitpick: Rhode Island and Connecticut were both founded by Puritans who disagreed with the Massachusetts founders and left.
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Posting my thoughts on this and the post above it here:
For the Obama song thing, that was probably across the line, unless it was an entirely optional student pushed thing, with no faculty or staff involvement aside from offering resources like the camera. Given the age of the kids (which makes that seem unlikely), I'm hoping there are some lawsuits over it.
As for "flagpole days", so long as it's clear that any faculty or staff involved are not acting on behalf of the school (as in teachers involved in the
Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:5, Interesting)
X (where X is a country more than two hundred years old) never had any morals. It was built on pillage and destruction of existing culture and then on slavery to bootstrap a new economy.
Fixed that for you (both the semantics and the syntax). Every country on the planet was built by the "winners," who almost always displaced prior inhabitants. Virtually every country (less than a couple hundred years old anyway) featured slavery (or a closely related form of cheap labor extracted involuntarily) at some point. No, that doesn't make it right, but as Dr. King said "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice." We aren't perfect, but at least we seem to be getting better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now now everyone, watch your language or he will get Slashdot taken down too! You're underestimating this geniuses power. I, for one, think he's going to rule the world one day [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Mental illness is no laughing matter (Score:5, Insightful)
This man seriously needs some help from a professional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: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:Mental illness is no laughing matter (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple hundred of us should sue him for equally frivolous, but distinct, causes. Let's see how he handles a couple hundred simultaneous lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re:Can't blame Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 ha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Next week: (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is he still going? Don't they make him pay his opponent's costs when he loses? Shouldn't he be broke?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re:Next week: (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 reme
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Jack Thompson's caused more harm to "Jack Thomspon" than any other entity possibly could.
Re:Might as well sue himself (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Get over it (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
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: (Score:2)
he's right ! (Score:3, Funny)
"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: (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!"
Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He WAS disbarred.
Re:Jack Thompson should be disbarred. (Score:4, Informative)
http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/668/668351p1.html
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: (Score:2)
....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.
Just another day in the life... (Score:2)
What can we do to help Jack? (Score:3, Funny)
Our right to free speech is a serious burden for this man, what can we do to ease his suffering?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I think he's trying to beat this guy (Score:2)
If I... (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What we need (Score:2)
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.
Quick /. (Score:3, Funny)
Is this guy for real? (Score:2)
Seriously. Who is pulling his strings??
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:The man needs professional help (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. I've always wondered what the legalese for SHUT THE FUCK UP! was.
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.