Slashdot Mirror


Jack Thompson Sues Facebook For $40M

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."

35 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. He never seems to learn... by A.+Kim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wasn't this idiot disbarred a couple years ago? Could he really be so desperate to feed his narcissism?

    1. Re:He never seems to learn... by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Correct the Florida Supreme Court disbarred his ass

    2. Re:He never seems to learn... by thepotoo · · 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.)

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    3. Re:He never seems to learn... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's odd, but they left the stick in place?

    4. Re:He never seems to learn... by Narpak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find this lawsuit fairly amusing and hypocritical; since Thompson himself claimed First Amendment protection against his critics, and then when for good measure that the criticism of him violated state religious protection laws since he was motivated by his faith.

      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".

    5. Re:He never seems to learn... by gbarules2999 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Uh, oh, Jack Thompson will sue Slashdot for that comment.

  2. Mental illness is no laughing matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This man seriously needs some help from a professional.

    1. Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter by Custard+Horse · · Score: 5, 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?

      And for the inevitable posts that berate the UK and make reference to CCTV, libel law etc. etc., the list 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.

    2. Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter by Firethorn · · 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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Mental illness is no laughing matter by cthulu_mt · · 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.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  3. Wasn't this tool suspended from the bar? by Nursie · · 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.

  4. Can't blame Facebook by Pedrito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry Jack, but Facebook didn't make people hate you. You did that all on your own.

    What a tool!

    1. Re:Can't blame Facebook by techiemikey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Next week: by bcmm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jack Thompson Sues Everybody, For No Reason.

    Why is he still going? Don't they make him pay his opponent's costs when he loses? Shouldn't he be broke?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  6. Opinions - People are entitled by realsilly · · 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.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  7. Might as well sue himself by FrostDust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think Jack Thompson's caused more harm to "Jack Thomspon" than any other entity possibly could.

    1. Re:Might as well sue himself by bcmm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jack Thompson is clearly part of the murderous conspiracy of video game manufacturers, paid to destroy Jack Thompson's reputation. Jack Thompson should sue Jack Thompson for a bajillion dollars.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  8. Forty million? by Max+Romantschuk · · 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.

    I wonder how much just keeping the legal system running and churning through all these cases costs in tax dollars for a US citizen...

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  9. The Difference between a Troll and a real Monster by djdavetrouble · · 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.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  10. Re:If I... by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somebody should make a flash game of violently beating jack thompson and post that online. :D

  11. The man needs professional help by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 5, Informative

    From a fairly recent Court Order

    "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.

    1. Re:The man needs professional help by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow. I've always wondered what the legalese for SHUT THE FUCK UP! was.

  12. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by Dotren · · Score: 4, 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?

  13. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by macshit · · 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...

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
  14. Breaking news... by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

    Breaking news... "Jack Thompson sues Slashdot and OrangeMonkey11 $40M for not removing angry postings about him".

  15. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by dwiget001 · · Score: 4, 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.

  16. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by jeffasselin · · Score: 4, 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!

    --
    If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  17. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by s4m7 · · 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

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  18. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  19. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    a country founded by the Puritans

    Bullshit. One colony out of fifteen was founded by Puritans. Virginia was already doing quite well by the time those idiots landed in Massachusetts and damn near starved themselves to death with their idiotic collective farming scheme.

    This mythology of the Puritans "founding the country" is progressive-era propaganda.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  20. You don't really believe that, do you? by Attack+DAWWG · · 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.

    1. Re:You don't really believe that, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  21. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by stonewallred · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I fail to see which of these should be considered bad. Maybe the wearing the hats in public?

  22. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by sumdumass · · Score: 4, 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.

  23. Re:The Difference between a Troll and a real Monst by bennomatic · · Score: 4, 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...

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?