when will Jack thompson stop appearing and make me pissed the fruck off?

Saturday, at 8pm Pacific Time.

I don't think Jack Thompson will stop until he dies. You should see the round he had with Scott Ramsoomair.

Scratch that, he'll be causing trouble well after he dies. He'll probably be a lawyer for Hitler and his lovely wife Satan.

Jack actually is fighting for (on some levels) something understandable. Kids shouldn't play insanely violent games that are made for and sold primarily to adults. His method of achiving this is very self-destructive, however, and only hurts his case.

Basically we need a guy like Jack who just isn't as nuts as... y'know, Jack.

Jack wouldn't be so offensive to gamers if he was simply trying to keep games out of the hands of children. That isn't the case, however. I'm all for stricter enforcement of the ratings system, but Jack seems intent on making it so that nobody can have access to the games and that games are blamed for ALL of society's problems.

I don't think we have to worry much about Jack anymore. He was just put on trial and had his right to practice law revoked. While that can't exactly stop him from being an activist and we'll likely still be seeing his shenanigans from time to time, he can't take game developers to trial over vaguely-related crimes anymore. He has a lot less power now, if he even really had any to begin with.

I kind of agree, there's nothing wrong with keeping mature games out of the hands of children, but he did it in the most abrasive and flippant ways he could. He would never hesitate to insult and stereotype gamers. It seems like he'd do away with all games (from GTA to Tetris) if he could.

He doesn't sincerely care about keeping games out of the hands of kids. He has a sort of religious, evangelical, zealotry hate of the idea of computer games in general. He just uses the kids angle as part of that ambition. He's a sad, deluded little man.

I kind of wonder about that at times. After all, keeping people scared and angry with video games is what kept him rolling in the dough. So I wonder how much of it was his actual beliefs and how much was showboating to make a buck. I could see him potentially getting louder now that he isn't a lawyer. He can still pull in an income from TV appearances and if people ignore him, he might be forced to get a REAL job, so it wouldn't surprise me if we saw more of him from here on out.

you know that he tried to ban Mario games because Mario jjumps on tutles and he says that it makes kids jump on people's pets heads

I think you've been hearing some exaggerations or misinformation, Ganolink.

No, I heard about the jumping on people's heads thing too. I don't think they were trying to ban those games specifically, just using that as another example of how negative games are.

I don't think he does it for the money, I think he's sincere. He even went after those comic guys who do Penny arcade, which as a little bizarre.
I'm sure he showboats and makes what cash he can out of it, but I think he believes in it too. Most people do when they put so much effort into something.

I never got any of those fancy video games. I hope he takes them all away from the spoiled little children, out of spite. ):<

I agree with Ozone, I think he's sincere. There are dozens of ways he could make more money for less effort.

On the other hand, he could just be completely batshit.

Well, you don't see him taking any low value cases. He seems to prefer targeting major corporations and development studios and quite frequently multiple companies at a time. The cases tend to be for multiple parties for some outrageous sum, so I'm sure he makes a decent amount even when he loses the cases.

Not to mention he has a tendency to target whatever "hot button" issue is popular at the time. Before games it was rap music and before that it was radio. Amazing how now that games are the popular thing to blame, he's totally forgotten about the things he was "sincere" about in the past.

The way I see it, if he was really sincere about this whole thing, he wouldn't purposely take large sum cases that are pretty much guaranteed to lose. He would be taking smaller cases that have a better chance of setting precedent or he would be fighting to protect legislation put in place that actually forward the cause he supposedly fights for. I mean, Hell, he's AGAINST legally enforcing the rating system. He also detracts from his message with his ridiculous claims that the industry is targeting him, a tactic he has used frequently in the past to gain recognition for himself more than his cause.

I think Jack's been stereotyped a bit too much for our own good these days; it's getting harder and harder to tell the facts from the jokes. Anyway, one thing I do remember is that, when asked about it, he said that the people who were attacking Mass Effect for it's (very minimal) sexual content were getting all riled up over nothing. I don't think that clears him on all misdoings in the past, but it at least shows that the man has some kind of standard, and he's not just out to destroy all games that ever existed.

Never heard of this guy before. Whatta douchebag!

Inkmonkey
I think Jack's been stereotyped a bit too much for our own good these days; it's getting harder and harder to tell the facts from the jokes.

I think that's exactly right... Like how a few of you thought that he went after the Mario games because of turtle-jumping. Somebody did that, but it wasn't Jack Thompson.

I used to think he was passionate about his cause and really believed it, particularly after some of the stunts he pulled in the courtroom. No amount of death threats deterred him. But after seeing the video I linked to earlier, it made me feel conflicted and confused. I don't think he's entirely sincere about the whole anti-videogame crusade.

I mean, I do think he dislikes videogames, but if microchip implants or holo-porn became the new hot-button evil issue, I think he'd flock to that for whatever legal cash he could drain (if he was still a lawyer).

The thing that bugs me most about him is he is the typical textbook example of an ambulance chaser. He approaches the families of the victims of violent crimes and encourages them to start multi-million dollar lawsuits against major corporations or uses his "scare tactics" to put his foot in the door in case anything happens in the future. He never represents anyone in criminal cases. If he is so convinced the corporate entities are to blame, why don't we ever see him defending the criminals?

Anyway, one thing I do remember is that, when asked about it, he said that the people who were attacking Mass Effect for it's (very minimal) sexual content were getting all riled up over nothing.

Which is kind of ironic after the fit he pitched over a gay kiss in Bully. Maybe he didn't try to get the scene with two women.

Anyhow, why is this topic still not in the gaming forum?

isukun
Anyhow, why is this topic still not in the gaming forum?

Although he's known mostly for video games, he has gone after other media. That's why I personally didn't move it. However this thread is just another example of a horrible, stupid title for an excellent topic. :(

IMO, the guy probably overreaches because the compromise is probably more if what he figures he'll get. It's classic lawyering.

Not that I think it's a bad thing to make violent media harder for kids to get their hands on. I'd RATHER they go after violent media rather than sexual media. American audiences are disturbingly repressed (to anti-social levels) when it comes to sex.

Of course, Jack Thompson wouldn't agree with that either. But it seems like he's more focused on the violence. Elected officials focus on the sex. ;)

Jack Thompson seems more concerned with sexual themes when they involve same sex relationships. Having the male main character in Bully kiss another boy seemed to warrant an M rating in Jack's book. The ESRB didn't agree and had to reiterate that the scene in question was taken into consideration when giving the game a T rating.

There are other cases where he has gone gung ho against gay rights or accused other or trying to promote homosexuality to kids. Most of his attacks against people for straight sexual themes, however, seem to be more out of spite than any sort of personal objection to the themes. A lot of that was from back in his "lets get back at Janet Reno and her supporters" days.

However this thread is just another example of a horrible, stupid title for an excellent topic.

Can't you change it? I'm sure Ganolink would understand.

Not that I think it's a bad thing to make violent media harder for kids to get their hands on. I'd RATHER they go after violent media rather than sexual media.

Absolutely. Stricter policies regarding the sale of games to minors is needed. The problem is that Jack Thompson doesn't support the current ratings system and wants instead for the government to rule any video game with violent content under the current obscenity laws, making them unprotected speech and making it easier to ban them outright. I definitely don't agree with that approach.

Unfortunately, we can't change topic names. It shocks me that we've gone for so long without the feature.
And I agree. I dislike topic names that tell me nothing about what's being discussed before you click on them. This includes topic names like "I just noticed this..." and "This is so awesome!!!"

well sorry

but yeah what about GTA:sa he didn't want to complain about where you kill hooker soyou shoot people in the head he tackled the hot coffee mod only

and can you belive he ranted on code lyoko?

The part about gay censorship reminds me of that Chuck & Larry movie. In the original script, Adam Sandler was supposed to kiss the other guy, but that would have given it an R rating, so they deleted the scene. Makes you think, huh?