Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson Decides He's In GTA IV
gzerphey writes "Outspoken anti-games lawyer Jack Thompson has decided that a representation of a 2nd amendment lawyer in GTA IV is a mocking version of him. He has declared that if the representation is not removed he will attempt to block the release of the game. Excerpt from GamePolitics: 'The showcasing play of the game to Game Informer revealed that the first killing mission of the hero of the game, Niko, is to kill a certain lawyer. When Niko comes into this lawyer's office, having used subterfuge to do so, Niko pulls a gun on the lawyer who says, that the firm supports the second amendment and that 'Guns don't kill people. Video games do.'"
There is nothing better, in my opinion, than having others ridicule you, parody you, or even work to convince others that you're evil or crazy. Opinions that polarize attitudes in readers/viewers is a great way to get people to search out the topic, and possibly come across the ridiculed party's opinion on a given subject.
It's like slashdot's "friend/foe" system. I probably have more foes than friends, but I appreciate both equally, and might even have more appreciation for those who consider me their foes than their friends. If someone rates me a foe, it definitely gives SOME people an interest in "who is this guy that is so hated" moreso than "who is this guy with so many friends." When people trackback to my blog posts with aggressive posts against my opinion, it also brings in a new market of readers to peruse my topics of discussion -- people who likely will HATE my opinion, but in some cases end up jumping over to my side.
While I don't think Thompson will gain many friends because of the parody, he might get quite a bit of traffic for those who are unfamiliar with his opinion, and this is still positive traffic for him as he can then say "Look at how many gamers are looking up my opinion -- I must be right!"
I would never, EVER go against anyone who attributes me in jest, parody or ridicule, even if they're pushing libel or slander (especially if they're pushing libel or slander). All marketing and traffic is positive in some way. The more hated you are, the more popular you become, even if that popularity is towards the negative. Look at people like Hitler and Stalin -- they are STILL talked about, even though their legacy is horrific and detested by most people. To me, that's proof that polarization is a key factor in building fame or infamy for those who want it.
Maybe it's a sociopathic attitude, but it's still truth in my book.
I'm sure there's more than one lawyer in Manhattan that likes the GTA series. If any of you read this, send Rockstar a letter inviting them to use your name and likeness in the game. You get to put screenshots for publicity while at the same time stick it to Thompson.
Imagine the interviews. Jack Thompson claims the lawyer is him, then the camera cuts to you: No, it's me. Look at this screenshot. Here's a signed affidavit saying it's me!
Pity I'm not a lawyer, I'd go for it.
Unfortunately, quite a few people *do* take Thompson seriously -- he's still used regularly as a talking-head on news programs talking about video game violence (or at least was, before his recent crazy-turn; that my have been the nail in the coffin). He's dangerously effective at manipulating the media to listen to him, and I for one like to keep on top of what he's up to.
Who cares, it's good for a laugh. If he's really one of those 'Any publicity is good publicity people' then cracking jokes at his expense are really the best service we can do him and everyone else, by giving him publicity and making him out to be about as knowledgeable as Bozo the Clown.
As for the actual argument, I think we all know that Jacky was going to try and stop GTA IV's release already, no matter what cases are currently centered around him (wasn't there a case to stop him from preventing GTA IV's release?) This is nothing more than a silly excuse for him to continue his attacks on video games, now only is the lawyer not clearly Jack Thompson (he's a person who thinks video games are evil, and happens to be a lawyer...I can think of half a dozen people who fit that mold. It's only Jack Thompson if, A: The person looks exactly like Jacky and quotes him or something, or B: The person playing the game thinks the best RL example is Jacky.) but even if he was parody is legal so Jack wouldn't even have a case then.
No, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain some publicity (I'm sure at least some of the big papers will play up how the gamers are getting their revenge somehow or something like that) and give him an excuse to try and stop the game's release beyond his tired old 'videogames are evil' routine.
Anyone else find it amusing that Jack Thompson seems to think a lawyer who says 'Guns don't kill people, Videogames do' is him? Kinda gives a little insight into what he thinks about the matter now doesn't it...
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
A few months ago, didn't JT dare R* to make a game depicting him being "taken out"? or something like that, my memory is fuzzy...
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Sorry, Jack, but parody is protected speech here, and by making very public and very inflamatory comments every chance you get, you've made yourself a ripe target for parody. But even other media-whoring lawyers have managed to take it in stride in the past (see the late Johnny Cochrane), and have maybe even been a little flattered that they are culturally relevant enough to be parodied.
In general, you've made statements and filed lawsuits that show that you are either A: woefully ignorant of the law, or B: intentionally misrepresenting the law for your own benefit. Either way, you are an extremely shitty lawyer.
P.S. Don't try to sue me for libel. The preceding is a statement of fact.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
According to his latest filings, his email address is amendmentone@comcast.net -- he claims that TT and Blank Rome are oppressing his first amendment rights.
... but pointing out hypocrisy (take note folks, that's how it's spelled) is just really too easy. In fact, the only discourse I like to have with him is to bait him into further apoplexy. He's more entertaining than any video game that way.
Yes, I know
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Or am I the only person who played that?
OBJECTION! I thought Jackie Boy wasn't allowed to attack Take Two anymore?
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
You linked to Gandhi's wikipedia entry but still couldn't be bothered to spell his name correctly?
Heh, my ex-boss shows up on our local news programs from time to time as a Person Who Knows About the Internet (mainly because he's married to one of their reporters), and he knows as much about the internet/IP networking/etc. as I do about reconstructive plastic surgery. Another talking-head that proves empty vessels really *do* make the most noise.
Besides, if it was *really* Thompson's effigy in the game wouldn't they have come-up with a better way to shut him up? Tree-mincer, Fargo-style? Plastic explosive nappy? I'm sure there are more inventive ways to ash the imbecile's avatar.
Yeah, I thought I had moral objections too.. until I actually played the game (San Andreas). *poof*. Moral objections totally obliterated by gameplay. Moral objections are overhyped terribly on San Andreas. Most elements are nothing more than all too common movie fare, street violence and comedic sexual references. Just keep any kids away that you wouldn't feel comfortable watching a rated R movie with and allow us adults (I'm 40+ btw) to have fun on occasion.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
This happened with the comic book industry in the 50s and 60s. Hell even the early 70s. Look at where that industry is now. The Comics industry had its Jack Thompson of the day. This will blow over too. Guys on hypocritical crusades like this never win out in the long term. They may make one or two minor battles but by and large they lose the war due to the conflicting parts of their positions.
I can't help but wonder, with all of the free publicity he has kindly given to GTA, if he isn't on Take Two's bank-roll.
No, not with all the legal action he brought to and directed at them. And then there are the un-constitutional laws he has passed, and that game industry lawyers had to waste time and resources fighting, with the the states in the end wasting even more tax payer money.... This is just a disturbed individual who has himself fixated on a particular target, which he KNOWS is the only one that really gets his name out there. I mean, the twat singled out Take Two's "age verification system" on their website store when other MAJOR online retailers had the SAME "you must be 17+ to order" click through "age verification" bullcrap, and recently had his son target yet another Best Buy(picking them again out of countless others, I wonder what his beef with them is...) in a sting picking up Bioshock(Yet another Take Two related game, and is one that DEFINITELY one that doesn't need his publicity).
Seriously, this is great advertising. I'm sure they intentionally released this information about the game simply to get JT to put up a stink. What brilliance on their part!
Now this part I have no doubt about, but at least this time they are not saying Jack "massacre chaser" Thompson is a Bisexual pedophile...
But I would love to see a reference to his "massacre chasing" in GTA4.
Hey, I remember that episode of Night Court. The main character was a parody of Andrew Dice Clay who was getting followed and harassed by a preacher who objected to his profane and sexist humor. At the end of the episode we learned the preacher was paid to boycott and protest the comic in order to get him free publicity.
I've heard the lawyer's name is revealed later in the game as Tom Jackson.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.