| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (77)

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:19PM rivaldi22 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I loved that animated short as a kid.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 7:47PM WedgeTalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed! As soon as I saw the image I thought to myself "Self, as soon as you finish reading this article, you MUST go out and find that animation!" And lo, Joystiq shined upon me in all of its warm, fuzzy goodness and bestowed upon me said video. and the world was once more peaceful and right.



Well, at least until Jack issues his next press release.
Reply

Posted: Sep 1st 2007 5:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Cat Came Back... The Cat's Perspective - http://thefump.com/fump.php?id=84
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I believe this is the most appropriate comment...
"Oh God,not this s*hit again..."
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, this would be better "What the Fu. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh"
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 4:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Shaq Fu?
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 11:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Your comment reminds me of how I parody Symphony of the Night.

"Ah Alucard, what brings you here?"

"I've come to destroy this castle."

"Oh not that shit again."
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There are worse things than violent games out there, like drugs - why can't he fight drugs or prostitution, he could even fight children skipping school but nooo he has to fight games which entertain people.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 3:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Drugs and Prostitution are more areas thats shouldn't be touched on. Its someone else's life let them do whatever they wish with it. Legislation and Prohibition never offer good results, only black markets, violence, gangs, and resistance groups. I am sick of this socialism crap. Don't tell him to go spit his religious influenced bullshit elsewhere. Instead, just don't take it at all.

Ron Paul 2008
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:22PM corosato said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Jack Thompson not listening to his own legal agreement? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How is Jack Thompson not in a mental asylum yet it baffles me.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bong tokin alcoholics
420 Mario FTW
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:21PM BPMOmega XBL PSN Steam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Somehow... JUST SOMEHOW... He passed a mental exam as being sane... @_@
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 3:25PM PoisonedAl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, by a shrink HE PAID FOR.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 5:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Zaphod it's 420 Luigi :)
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks you so much for the video I couldnt found it by myself in youtube.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:37PM samfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dude, I remember that little cartoon! I loved it when I was a kid.

Awesome.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Unless I have it backwards, this video says Jack will win..
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Or that Jack Thompson will Die and torment 2K for all the eternity.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Thompson's emails remind me of a forum troll; stupid, banal, nonsensical, and rutting useless.

I'm actually kind of glad that the main advocate for banning violent video games is some crackpot, unaccountable, loony.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 12:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It was half way through this story when I realized I misread Jack Thompson as Jack Johnson. I was going through reading this like, "but he seemed like such a peaceful guy!"

... :P
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:12PM samfish said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm Jack Johnson.

and I'm John Jackson.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:25PM hvnlysoldr said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
And I say we're not going far enough on the 72 cent tin tax.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:34PM Dr Stabbingworth said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
And I say your 72 cent tax doesn't go too far enough!

Maybe Jack Thompson will go into T2's house during the night and wreck up the place.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:05PM hotpuck6 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i really don't understand how a lawyer has this much free time on his hands. does he just not practice?

that email exchange was like watching a 3rd grader argue with their teacher, jack literally has no poise or dignity left.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Jack is actually right though. Any agreements which restricts his speech are defacto unconstitutional and void. Hes agreed not to personally litigate Take-two (which is a nonsense agreement which he can break at any point); but he certainly never agreed to remain silent. Thats a basic right of his.

Call him crazy or an asshole, but Jack is not stupid when it comes to the law.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Taken from a poster on game politics:

"Whether the “settlement” counts in the same manner, there are plenty of legal documents that exist that legally prevent individuals from making comments or taking certain actions. Documents which could be seen as violation the Freedom of Speech of individuals, yet are legally binding.

Certainly, Confidentiality Agreements and Non-Disclosure Agreements are such documents. And formal Gag Orders are also among them as well."

Not sure of the accuracy of these claims, but what this poster said certainly makes logical sense.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:58PM Duke said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Just because you paint it with law in your argument doesn't mean you are right.

"Any agreements which restrict his speech are defacto unconstitutional and void" is soooo untrue. Confidentiality agreements for employment or after litigation are valid and upheld under contract law. There are also many forms of speech that are limited and controlled, such as hate speech for instance. The 1st amendment is not so liberal that you can defame people or break your own contracts regarding the same.

Also, "He’s agreed not to personally litigate Take-two (which is a nonsense agreement which he can break at any point)" Yes, he can breach it at any point - its called breach of contract, and it is something that the other party can litigate as soon as it happens. An agreement to no longer litigate for events surrounding prior litigation is valid. If he continues to try to fight with them over the same issues, then he is in breach. Nonsense or not, he signed on using his own free will. Unless he wants to argue that he was legally insane when he signed, and therefore was not competent to acquiesce to contract terms.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:13PM Lemmiwinks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As I understand it, Freedom of Speech protection in litigation pertains to criminal cases. This would be a civil case in which a document was agreed upon and signed by both parties. Slander, harrassment, NDA violations... they all can be damaging offences with a a doller amount assigned to them in civil court.

They can't take you to jail for your freedom of speech, but there are many instances where you can be taken to the cleaners for things you say.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:31PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lemmiwinks,

This has nothing to do with the subject, but just as a factoid. Speech can get you thrown in jail.

A threat made to a judge will get you locked up, or speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action, which is also likely to incite or produce action gets you a trip to the hole. The idea is that public policy demands for safety are compelling and need to come first. Its the good old Brandenburg test. (Yay law school!)
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
You cannot alienate your right to free speech in a contract; especially not a private contract. That goes without saying that its unconstitutional. If take-two has an issue about slander, that is a different story and still be a mighty tough case to make. But certainly, any contracts in which you forfit your right to speech on a public forum is absolutely worthless. you cant do that
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 3:34PM Duke said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
borntokill - You are wrong. Go to law school, quote some case law, and then hit me with that.

You are simply wrong. Just because you hear that blanket statement made by people doesn't mean you are right. I graduated from law school friend, I have studied this junk a lot, and you can't persuade me that the Supreme Court is wrong because you think it" goes without saying that its unconstitutional."

I don’t mean to be harsh, but you can’t make a definite statement on something you don’t have the case law to backup. The 1st is not as wide open as you think. It’s wide – but not nearly as wide as you wish it was. You can certainly contract free speech away in many respects – If I rent a shop in a mall I can contract away the right to place a sign in the front window, or to advertise with handouts, or to scream “eat at Joe’s” at people walking by.

Hell, forget it, I can’t teach you 1st amendment constitutional law in a blog thread. Believe what you want. The law be damned.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 4:13PM Lemmiwinks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yo Nato,

Thanks for the info. I think I kinda knew that, as it's pretty obvious these days that yelling "bomb" (or "fire," for that matter), can land you in the clink.

Sorry for piggybacking on your thread, borntokill.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 4:44PM duerra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@borntokill,
Umm... you are wrong. Dead wrong. You absolutely CAN contract away your right to free speech. Not only that, but people do it all the time. Go tell your web hosting company, for example, that you have a free speech right to host pornographic material on their servers, even if their ToS forbid it. Then take them to court and find out just how easily it is to contract away your right to free speech. That was a very ignorant comment.

Free speech is only guaranteed against criminal charges filed by the government, not against civil lawsuits.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 7:36PM sqlrob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He's not stupid when it comes to law? You mean like his "bulletproof" law he wrote in LA that the judge practically laughed at?

And he is free to go into a contract that limits his speech. He's not forced to accept the deal, he can turn it down and have all the free speech he wants.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Personally, I hope Jack keeps pushing them until they decide to take it to court and hammer his ass. He needs to be taken down a few hundred pegs. Maybe if we're really lucky he'll be disbarred.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Jack, I know for a fact you read these comments.

Jack, you are an immature man-child. You don't do this for moral or ethical reasons. You just like hearing yourself talk and believing you have power over other people. The only people paying attention to you are your deriders and a scant few who have been tricked into thinking you actually care about children. It is only a matter of time before your perversions become apparent to even your supporters, and the whole world is turned upon you.

Having claimed so many religious motivations before, you have only acted to benefit yourself and demean others. You are clearly a master of some dark charisma; why don't you put your legal and humanist skills to use in the service of Christ's will instead of this constant, inane, self-aggrandizing idiocy?

Sincerely,
the Internet
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:55PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LOL @ "Sincerely, The Internet"

But you are absolutely right. He's deceived more than spoke the truth. He is not acting in a Christ like manner, at all. Jesus didn't force anybody into doing anything, he let people decide to follow Him or not.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 3:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree, I also think what's happening to Jack is an example of what happens when people try to use their God-given gifts and talents simply for their own gain snd such... but that's a topic for another place at another time...
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:22PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's people like Jack that have made Professional Responsibility classes more necessary than ever for people training in the legal field. It is also people like him that have made bar associations treat incoming lawyers like they are the enemy from day one. Thanks, that’s something to be real proud of as we all collectively give you the finger.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow... I mean wow, you must be kidding me...

oops

Up until now I always thought Jack had some problems but after reading that email exchange I have the opinion that this man has some serious issues.

I'm actually surprised he passed his psychological exam, then again maybe tests don't work when an insane grown man acts like a normal small child.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:58PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I seriously think its all a show. His public persona is quite insane, but privately (and legally), Jack Thompson himself is more than capable of passing a psych eval.

Just proves he doesn't actually believe half the stuff he's saying.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sweet baby moses, what the hell is wrong with this guy? He's just a bully with a law degree. He's... he's a frat-boy-lawyer. "You trying to pick a fight? huh? huh?? C'mon, I can take you!"
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:32PM Zertoss said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I like how Wacky Jacky misspelled "because" as "becasue." Freudian slip?
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:28PM BPMOmega XBL PSN Steam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How is it a Freudian slip? "Becasue" isn't a word... That's just a typo.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 3:35PM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
prolly has something to do with beca"sue", you know, irony and that stuff?

but i honestly don't know
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This guy reminds me of my 2 year old. I mean it Ronan, do it one more time and youre going to your room.
Why does Take 2 coddle this asswipe? Please Take 2, do us all a favor and nail his ass to the wall. Stop treating him like a misbehaving little kid and put him in his place.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 1:52PM Dr Stabbingworth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You named your kid "Ronan"...
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2007 2:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, please do not confuse Ronan (old Irish name) with Ronin (dishonored Samurai)
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW