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
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?
You linked to Gandhi's wikipedia entry but still couldn't be bothered to spell his name correctly?
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?
I've heard the lawyer's name is revealed later in the game as Tom Jackson.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.