Thompson's Latest Tactic Equates Bully with Porn
Thompson's Latest Tactic Equates Bully with Porn
October 30, 2006
Having failed to convince a Florida judge that Bully is a public nuisance, controversial attorney Jack Thompson has a new tactic in what seems to be a never-ending crusade against the game.Thompson's latest approach is that the game's boy-kissing scenes are essentially porn, thus making Bully illegal to sell to minors. Although Thompson does not use the P-word, the statute he cites would generally relate to such material.
In a letter sent yesterday to several major retailers, Thompson writes:
"It turns out that the school violence simulation game Bully also contains homosexual activity between the game’s hero, Jimmy Hopkins, and other male students."
"It is my legal opinion that the sale of this game to minors, which is presently occurring at your stores in Florida, violates Florida’s 'Sexual Material Harmful to Minors Statute,' Florida Statute 847.102. Each such sale to a minor constitutes a separate felony."
"Such sales are occurring to children of all ages because of the game’s wholly inappropriate “Teen” rating, as opposed to the 'Mature' rating it deserves..."
GP offers a couple of points here:
First, the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said that pornography is hard to define, "but I know it when I see it." We agree, and we're definitely not seeing it with Bully's silly boy-kissing scenes.
Next, the statute Thompson is referring to is 847.012, and this is what it says (GP has taken the liberty if adding "no" where Bully does not meet the statutory requirement):
"It is unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, rent, or loan for monetary consideration to a minor:
(a) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, videocassette, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts nudity (NO) or sexual conduct (NO), sexual excitement (NO), sexual battery (NO), bestiality (NO), or sadomasochistic abuse (NO) and which is harmful to minors, or
(b) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or sound recording which contains any matter defined in s. 847.001, explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement (NO), or sexual conduct (NO) and which is harmful to minors.
In case you are wondering, kissing doesn't qualify as "sexual conduct" under Florida law. For that definition, click here.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN
Comments
I could make some arguments for why homophobe is, in fact, an accurate description and you're wrong. And I would make those arguments if you hadn't made it clear you have no intention of listening to anyone with an opposing opinion on this matter.
Oh wait, he is anyway? Good riddance Jack.
Screw him, while he was being coherent he was funny, now he's just a small minded prejudiced old fart.
How many times must one person sigh at the desperate antics of Jack Thompson? I agree with pretty much all the posters above me, and as someone who also participated in a few sports during high school (albeit not the really homoerotic ones like football), I can say that they are much more gay than a five-second guy-on-guy kiss in Bully. I mean, you can dress up a bunch of sweaty guys hanging out and cracking sexually explicit and homophobic jokes however you want, but as soon as clothes start coming off in the shower, that's Cinemax-quality soft-core porn right there.
I think Bully will ultimately lead to the demise of Jack Thompson. Everyone who has legitimately played this game finds it to be not all that bad, and certainly much better than most of the other violent games out there that don't even attempt to teach the players a message. And while Jack may have slipped his way through this unscathed had he stuck with the "ultraviolent" angle, I think his new homophobic angle will be the final straw. As others have said, America is increasingly okay with homosexual activity, and it's becoming taboo to actively discriminate against them in any way. I remember taking a course earlier in college where we broached the gay issue. As I recall, there have been "gay" people throughout history, but we're one of the first civilizations in history to classify them as such. I think people like Jack Thompson need to get off their high horses and just let people do what they want. Does my life change because some guy somewhere is kissing another dude? No, and neither does Jack Thompson's.
Much like Jimmy in Chapter Five, Jack Thompson is heading for the big fall. He's become too arrogant and obnoxious for his own good, and that can only lead to an untimely demise. Although I don't think Jack, like Jimmy, will be able to redeem himself.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only thing that keeps my head from exploding while reading his idiotic nonsense is humming Yackety Sax.
*still and forever humming Yackety Sax*
Glad someone pointed it out. Seriously, sports are kind of as gay as you can get without stepping out of the closet (in some cases). There's also the issue of when that locker room behavior extends past just the athletes (I've had athletes slip a butt pat on me when I wasn't even playing a sport). But conspiracy theories aside, no one is going to cry out against the homosexual undertones of organized sports just because they're such an American thing, as most people would tell you.
If anything, this is just JT being desparate. He keeps saying take the game off the shelves, first because it's a columbine simulator, which is false (no guns, no blood, no death). And now he's continually pitching the "harmful to children" angle because he expects support from the minority of parents who still think too much TV and Videogames makes ya stoopid.
If JT is right, then this game will sell to every child in the nation and we'll have a generation of homosexual columbine bullies destroying schools everywhere... But if you're a sane person you'd actually find that school and teen violence are actaully not such a massive issue nor have they gotten any worse since Bully's announcement or release.
On a final note.. Let's all share a laugh at Jack's expense, since he thinks kissing is sex. And also, let's laugh at him for thinking that boys across the nation will start kissing each other because of a game.
Thats the problem with things that the bible says. Most of things in it are very vague, and as such, people such as Jack Thompson can twist them in a way that makes all christians look bad.
Bit of a dilemma for the people stuck making the choices though. Buy into Thompson's ridiculous propaganda and they'll be effectively stating that any display of homosexuality in a game automatically equals explicit pornography. Homophobic, much?
I'm honestly sick to death of the media hype over a game that looks like hardly anything to be concerned about. You can develop homosexual relationships in The Sims, so why didn't Thompson preach about that? Only because there wasn't so much goddamn pre-release hype over the game, no doubt.
Also, @Brer: In most of his previous correspondence I'd agree that what JBT says is either a biased but still valid interpretation of fact, or an opinion of his. And in hindsight, the body of his letter could still be called that, though barely. But the title of the memo is not such a case:
"Re: Gay Sex in Bully Video Game; Retail Sale of Sexual Material Harmful to Minors"
Gay Sex in Video Game. You cannot say that something, IN YOUR OPINION, contains gay sex. This is attempting to make a factual claim about what is or is not contained within the game.
What he can complain is that the game contains acts that, to him, fall under the category of Gay Sex. He can make this claim, but according to the Wikipedia stuff on defamation I don't know if this is a defense because he might be the only person who considers guy-guy kissing to be gay sex - a 'reasonable person' would not agree with him.
In the body of the letter he calls it 'homosexual activity' which is valid. But I say that the subject line of this letter is libel - though I don't know if that line alone would justify a case or if my judgment on the matter is less kind than that of the average judge.
Not that I know florida law but that state has legal rights for gays no?
It's called wikipedia, read it.
He once ran against Janet Reno and his entire campaign was based on the premise that she should not be elected because she was a closet lesbian. He also has made about as many venomous anti-gay statements as Fred Phelps, just not quite as nasty.
Like it or not, when it comes to the mainstream media Jack's had some good PR; if it's widely out that a Florida court is examining the game on grounds that it contains sexual obscenity, that could be enough for parents' associations and family groups to band together to have the game pulled.
We know that his assertions are groundless, but if JBT gets the right person on side, to report a skewed account of the game's content, it could have pretty bad repercussions.
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!
... I really don't fancy JT's chances of being in the news in 2007...
JT is right there is a cultural war in this country, the war is getting this frivolous junk out of the spotlight so legislators could fix some real problems for a change (and plus the pro-health pro-nutrition legislation won’t be struck down by the courts, vetoed by the president because he has ties to the food industry yes… but that a whole another rant entirely.)
I've long maintained Jack was a bigot, and here's incontrovertible proof right here. His true colors are now out in the open for all to see. You can clothe yourself in rightousness when you talk about protecting children from gratuitious violence and it'll look okay because, well let's face it, no one in their right mind will say they're for kids being exposed to that kind of stuff. But when you openly come out against homosexuality at a time when it's becoming accepted by society, that's very bad form. Homophobia is being increasingly looked down upon, and politicians who have taken an anti-gay stance are finding themselves losing support among all but the most die-hard conservatives. He's now probably just as disgusting an individual as Fred Phelps, Anita Bryant or Phyllis Schlafly.
If you ask me, his contempt trail can't come fast enough. He really needs someone to put him in his place.
That's the REAL thruth right there...
http://gaygamer.net/index.php?id=1686
Andrew Eisen
JT needs to grow up and move on. How many times must the guy fail before he realises he is so very wrong!
Mr. Thompson, I was a regular four sport athlete who participated in a combination of 6 sports for 6 consecutive years, and I am heterosexual. Before you start liking me for that, let me point out that playing sports leads to more homosexual moments and tension than anything found in 'Bully'.
In organized sports, these activities are common:
A) Mass showering with the same gender (nudity and explicit 'drop the soap' jokes)
B) Dressing and undressing on a daily basis in front of same gender (nudity)
C) Celebratory Butt-Patting from same gender (touching)
D) Finally, as a witness and not a victim, hazing rituals that involve such activities as kissing fellow rookies of the same gender, streaking in front of entire family units in communities, and towel whipping of naked groups from same gender.
Please note that I was either involved in, witnessed, or sneakily avoided these activities before Bully, before GTA 3, before Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, before Will & Grace, and on and on and on.
However, someone made agood point ealier, forgive me for not remembering whom you are and for being to lazy to scroll up and check. The point was that he's going after videogames when his state, and for that matter, America in itself should be dealing with problems that are more important then videogames.
Homelessness, Medical Care, Unemployment...Stuff like that should be more important then videogames and what do we have American politicians wasting time and money on? Video Games.
Is it just me or does everyone else see the flawed logic that seems to have gotten itself a soapbox for the majority of the past few years? It's created more controversy lately then almost all other 'problems' of society like Rap music, violent TV shows, comics and the always dreaded D&D. (Yet the books based on D&D and not actually given that name were always ignored. Gasp.)
At least almost none of this nonsense is here in Canada.
Well too bad, it got a T, so you lose again Jackass.
@Majestic 12 x:
"Does Jack know that he’s opening a can of worms here? Think about it, do parents have a right to be angry if their children are presented with homosexual relationships in their media."
Crude Humor, Language, *Sexual Themes*, Use of Alcohol and Tobacco, Violence
In other words, it's their own damn fault if they missed that.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/judas_kiss.html
"A recent Reuters story indicates that parental concern about this is growing, as reportage of this new video game industry scandal is making headlines today around the world."
The only stories around the world now are about how Bully isn't that bad and all the ho-hah about it is clearly misplaced. The stories even point out JT's lack of knowledge for judging the game before it was even completed. Pity he didn't do his research again.
"now that we know that it contains not only high levels of unpunished violence"
Who's 'we' - everyone who's seen or played it knows that it does not contain high levels of unpunished violence! Once again, no research, just babbling out the usual garbage and lies.
"Neither the game’s maker, Take-Two, nor the Entertainment Software Rating Board, told you of this homosexual content"
Every review I've read (and pre-view) mentioned the fact Jimmy could kiss boys and girls, so exactly who wasn't told - Oh hang on, the only person who doesn't matter in any of this; the only person who thinks he's important; the only person who never researches or looks at the facts - dear old loopy lawyer Jack Thompson!
"However, now each of you knows, and from now on, from this minute forward, you are all on the hook"
On the hook? Come on, on the hook from what? Selling a Teen rated game which features activities that any teen can see on television or film, or read about online or in the news.
What a sad lonely little white haired old bigot!
Rich
Wouldn't it be funny if his son "came out" at the dinner table tonight?
- Warren Lewis
"Check Thompsons wikipedia entry - He repeatedly alleged that Janet Reno was a lesbian and even tried to convict her of sexual assult after touching his arm…"
Wouldn't that imply that he's transgender himself? I mean, if she were actually a lesbian, why would she hit on a man?
OMG you do get pregnant from kissing!!!!
All kissing must end now!!
...I love fundies.....they are a riot a minute.
lets face it the guy is a desperate joke. When this angle fails he'll try to find another angle to justify himself. He sure hates the country he lives in tho and is pissing people off left and right, needless to say the line to dance on his grave will be a long one.
I wonder if our old bag of wind keith vaz will pick up on this angle?, still i saw the game on sale over here a few hours ago (had a label on it saying "also known as bully") and people wernt stooped over in front of it crying and shouting think of the children.
I'm sure the anti-gaming crowd will hit that angle at one point or another.
- Warren Lewis
First off, this whole debate really isn't about homosexuality to begin with. It's about simulated boy-boy kissing. Simulated boy-boy kissing has been in both Sims games and in a small way in GTA: San Andreas as I pointed out in an earlier post. None of it was pornographic.
Secondly, it's a term that just gets applied as a free "get out of jail free" card for any arguments made against homosexuality. Anyone says the slightest little thing against it, and "Oh, you're a homophobe!" and we're supposed to be better than that. If we wanted, we could start calling Jack a "gameophobe" in response to any arguments he makes, but how is that any better than his labeling us as pixelantes or what have you?
Thirdly, it's often inaccurate. Fear is often not the basis of objection to homosexuality. Disapproval or even disgust are not fear.
And lastly, usage of the term is hypocritical. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness. I'm sure supporters of homosexuality find that very idea repugnant. Yet at least some of them now turn around and accuse those who think differently than they do of a mental illness.
Due to the off topic nature of this content and the absolute sureness that certain people around here would want to engage in a flame war on this topic, I'm not going to respond any in this vein.
But I hope I can make some people think and realize we don't need to resort to kneejerk PC name calling for Jack. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms we can level. Especially focusing on the first point that this is not about homosexuality or pornography in the first place.
I love how Jack keeps using phrases like "in my legal opinion." It should be pretty obvious by now that Jack's "legal opinion" isn't worth the crayon it's written in. Won a case yet, Jack?
"Re: Gay Sex in Bully Video Game; Retail Sale of Sexual Material Harmful to Minors:
I agree, calling him a homophobe? Uncalled for. Calling him a nitwit for trying to argue that gay kissing is equivalent to illegal sexual content? Completely acceptable.
Although considering JT's past with Janet Reno, I think it's totally valid to infer that he's uncomfortable around homosexuals, or at least willing to exploit other people's reaction to them.
Congrats, Jack. You've actually sunk low enough that you're going to have to look up to see the bottom of Satan's feet in the Ninth circle. Say hello to Brutus for me.
Luckily for Gamers (I include Gaymers in that catch-all), this crusade of Thompson's will be his undoing. I am not advicating the "Ignore him and this will go away," tactic. However, once the agendaists have had their say, the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. I firmly believe, from the reviews of Bully, some from parent groups, that this game -ear-marked as the focal point of this culture clash- will turn out to be laughed off as harmless, or at most mildly controversial, as other anti-establishment media has been in the past. I have only played the opening, so time will tell. But those who pre-judge it; their days are numbered. Your time is reaching an end, Jack. The majority of people that play the game disagree with you, and your "this game is obscenity" angle is born of desperation.
Even the implacable Dennis has come out on a 'side' here - placing NO's squarely in the middle of Jack's obscenity tripe.
If he thinks two boys kissing qualifies as "sexual material harmful to minors," I'd say it's pretty obvious that he's either homophobic, or trying to get homophobes to denounce the game.
If he were denouncing any and all kissing in the game, I'd call him a prude. Since he's just singling out boy-on-boy smooching, I'm forced to assume he's a homophobe, or at least encouraging people to be homophobic.
But this latest letter of his definitely reeks of defamation and I could see TT/R* building a reasonable case against him. He's basically claiming that he has found gay sex in the game and that as such it should be pulled from shelves.
--The statement is clearly malicious in nature - he's accusing TT of shady business practices and attempting to do damage to their trade by using his claims to encourage retailers to not sell their product.
--The question is whether his claims are in fact libellous. Saying his claims are false would likely fail - he can claim that guy on guy kissing = gay sexual acts (kissing is often sexual in nature) = gay sex. Which means it's not really true or false and is a matter of semantics. But (according to that fountain of legal information, Wikipedia) the likely defense to me seems to be:
"Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected."
JBT migth think that he is acting in the matter of public interest. The last bit of that statement is what would make or break this. Would a 'reasonable person' honestly entertain that there is gay sex in Bully? Signs point to no.
I don't want to be one of those people that say we should sue JBT at every turn, because it's hard to do and, like him or not, he is quite the weasel where the legal system is concerned. But he's not going to stop with his outlandish claims until the industry goes on the offensive and this particular letter seems like one of the more sound methods of doing so.
For instance, a boy and a girl kissing is heterosexual activity. A boy and a girl going on a date, holding hands, is heterosexual activity. A man and a woman getting married is a heterosexual activity. Yet none of those involve SEXUAL ACTIVITY.
So something can be a homosexual activity without being sexual activity.
...where was he when Fear Effect 2 came out?
It is okay when two girls kiss....but two guys...that is disgusting and offensive!
"Mr. Thompson? You need to come out of the closet right now, sir!"
I think some old testament book in the Bible denounces homosexuality (or can be translated as such). IIRC, it also denounces things like rabbits in the same book.
Anyone got a link to that .gif that was in the forums a couple months ago?
Allowing schools to introduce homosexual topics in elementary school, or middle school, is just not the right place. Such children have no conception of what sexuality is, nor what the significance of it is. High School should introduce homosexuality into its sexual education courses, however.
Some people just don't want to acknowledge such behaviour as acceptable, which is their right, so long as it causes no harm to said persons.
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=1409764
*ahem* Aaaanywaaaaay...all this is a sign that Jack Thompson is getting desperate. The violence angle is falling flat rapidly with the press and official government censorship boards (like in Austrailia) are really seeing Bully for what it is, a satire on high school life where the characters are more caractures of high school than true to life characters. There's no blood in the game, and there's really nothing objectionable that requires an M rating for the game.
Jack is losing, and he's getting desperate.
Ummm hasn't Jack's other favorite game the Sims had same sex kissing since the Sims first came out years ago??? If Jack was so soncerned about "teh nekkedivity" in the Sims which was proven false, why wasn't he so concerned about about the kissing in the Sims?
Why wasn't he concerned when that episode of Rosanne had a woman kissing Rosanne -- on the public air waves!!!!! Or that time on Star Trek DS9 when Dax and a woman made out -- on the public airwaves!!!!!
Maybe, just maybe Jack is a bit biased against Bully and is grasping at straws in his attempt to get it censored??? My legal opinion says yes. (since the phrase "my legal opinion" is totally meaningless because it is legal for anyone to have an opinion, I'm going to use it whenever Jack is the topic of conversation.)
This reeks of desperate...
Does anybody else find it ironic that he himself is a bully?
We all know Guilty Gear does that.
An accusation of homophobia is not an assertion that that person suffers from mental illness, so your accusation of hypocrisy is entirely groundless. It's an accusation of irrational fear. Also, if you'll consult the dictionary you'll find that a phobia is also synonymous for a strong aversion or atavistic reaction to something...such as the "disgust" you mention. In any case, the key descriptor is -irrational-, the point being that people disapproving of or reacting with disgust, fear, or hatret to homosexuality are being accused of doing so without the backing of either rational or empirical evidence.
@Benji
Again, there isn't enough here for a successful charge of defamation. Due to our free speech protections the standards that have to be met to prove defamatory speech are very high, and there are a lot of exceptions. The simplest one that's relevant here is simply that you can't be guilty of libel or slander by stating your opinion. That Thompson -thinks- male-male kissing is harmful to minors is his opinion and is therefore protected. Now if he made specific factual claims about the nature of the homosexual content of the game (which he hasn't, he's simply stated that there's "homosexual activity" which is true, strictly speaking) and they were proved to be A) false and B) made with foreknowledge that they were false AND the intent to cause harm, then -maybe- he could be sued.
So I guess we should sue the various tv shows that have had male-on-male kissing...
Actually, that particular irony has been pointed out more than 5.7 billion times by about 200 million posters on this board over the last 4 millenia.
@brer:
Yup. One only needs to use this wonderful new site that just opened last week called "wikipedia" to both learn what homophobia means and learn that Jack Thompson is one. As Jack Thompson has said before "I may not be a smart man, but I know what homophobe means, and I sure as hell am one!".
I think it's just sad that he keeps on going after Bully when the battle has so clearly been lost. On the plus side, Jack refusing to give up and move on just means a greater chance of the Bully war destroying all credibility he has left with everyone, which just means less Jack for us in the future, and I think we can all agree that that's a good thing.
http://gaygamer.net/index.php?id=1689
And since JT usually associates himself with major left or right wingers like Hilary Clinton, I'm pretty sure that being anti-gay isn't going to help his case with these "allies"
So basically now JT has only one group of allies to fall back on... the religious right.
And considering that the amount of conservatives becoming moderates increases everyday, I would think his allies are going to be dwindling
I think like many others have said, Bully will be Thompson's undoing, because frankly he bit off more than he could chew. So he's searching for something...anything about Bully that will get it off the shelves. I believe that at the least when this is all said and done, Jack Thompson will come out of this sans-dignity.
-Auto
On a side note, if JT thinks MK having the ability to create him is bad, I wish One Piece grand adventure had it to. If for nothing else then the ability to hit JT with this move everytime he does something stupid. To see the move in question, go to Youtube, and search for Gum Gum Cannon. It should be the first thing it finds.I'd link, but my office doesn't allow youtube use. Anyway, Jt should be grateful all the gamers do to him is make digital versions of him to vent there anger on. Lord knows he's safer with that then if they actually chose to go after him themselves, least, if he belives the things he says, we should all be hyper violent murders.
So how is it that he's still alive if he's made hundreds of thousands of homicidal enemies? Bit of a hole in his logic, isn't it.
Some have speculated that perhaps JT was a victim of bullying when he was in school...personally I think it's more likely that his son is getting the brunt of it. How'd you like to get up every morning knowing that you have to go to a place where (figuratively) everyone there hates your dad? I bet that poor kid gets harassed and bullied on an hourly basis. I've always wondered how he really feels about his dad's bullshit, but I'll probably never know. Then again, maybe HE doesn't know, either.
Remember a while back how he railed against Postal 2? One of his arguments was that the game was anti-gay and prejudice against the homosexual community, due to the fact that one level had a gay bar you could go to (and rampage through, etc.). He raved about how the publishers of Postal 2 were targetting homosexuals for violence and inciting anti-gay behavior.
He really is just a whore who'll try anything to get his agenda carried out.
man this guy's an idiot...
I think the accusation he made was battery, not sexual assault.
If I remember correctly he was more concerned in trying to convince people that you could use The Sims to fulfill all your darkest pedophilic fantasies. Or was that Sims 2? Even if it wasn't an EA game (a company I have no interest in supporting anymore) I'm not much of a Sim* gamer (not since SimEarth was a new release, anyway) and so haven't followed the accusations there too closely.
If this isnt slander,defamation and libel all in one i seriously do not know what is at this point,im kinda also wishing someone just outrigth stab him ina back alley somewheres and end his miserable existance.
Sure being a uneducated bigot fundamantalist is one thing since most folks ignore them anyway but intentionaly harming others indirectly though his warped view of law is entirely another.I love freedom of speech but i hate those who intentionaly use it to cuase harm to others.will some drunk driver just hit jack and put him out of our hair already >.>.
ps:why is it we seem to have freedom of speeech and yet freedom of art doesnt exist >.> .
If said reason for "banning" this game is such acts..
What about loony toons? Bugs bunny probally kissed more men then jacks mind could even fathom. Daffy went as far as kissing even hitler.
If we end up banning Bully then loony toons must also be banned. (infact it is even more violent then most games out there now. )
This part seemed kind of interesting to me. Do video game companies and/or the ESRB usually inform retailers about what's in a game? I'm guessing at best the retailer looks at a brief description and the rating. Thompson uses the term "fraudulent" and "deceptive", neither of which are true, because no one ever claimed that Bully didn't have homosexual content.
“now that we know that it contains not only high levels of unpunished violence”
Whos We? Got a Turd in your Pocket?
That aside, I Thessalonians 5:26 allows this behavior, as it states "Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss."
Do video game companies and/or the ESRB usually inform retailers about what’s in a game?
Remember the rating did include "sexual content". That covers things like kissing. Even homosexual kissing. Some stuff you just assume people won't get anal retentive about. Does the ESRB inform retailers that you can see women's ankles in the game? No. Do they inform the retailers that the main character has a single parent? No. How about what religion the main character practices? Some stuff reaches the realm where it becomes absurd to detail on the back of the box.
Maybe it's a sign of the times that the ESRB can consider gay kissing as benign and commonplace as regular kissing, and it's also a sign that someone like JT just can't let it go. Cripes, is he the kind that marches in protest just because a teacher is of the homosexual persuasion? Judging by his past clashes with Reno, highly likely.
It just puts him more and more in the category of "out of touch". Doomed to be marginalised by those who come after him.
JACK THOMPSON IS NOTHING MORE THAN A HATE MONGER AND NEEDS TO STFU if someone can send me a link to where i can e-mail him, i know a ton of people over in san francisco that are gay rights activitst that'll tear him apart.
Well, isn't Jack lucky that he lives on the other side of the country from San Francisco.
"If this isnt slander,defamation and libel all in one"
That would be rather difficult. Slander and Libel are two different -types- of the broader category "defamation". Slander is -spoken- defamation (or more technically in any non-permanent media, I think) whereas Libel is in some more permanent form of media such as print, film, website, etc. I don't like to be pedantic but since the topic comes up about once every other thread we should be clear on what the words mean.
@Benji
In general, titles (specifically the precedents I'm finding refer to newspaper headlines) aren't considered sufficient grounds for a libel action. The defamatory claim has to be in the "meat" of the document in question. Even in the one or two cases where the court's found that the headline alone proves grounds (cf Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp. in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), if the claim is modified in the body (as it is in Thompson's letter) then that has to be taken into account as well.
In short I'll stand by my previous statement that there isn't enough here for a successful suit.
i kinda used defamation and its meaning (terms) in teh same sentance by accident, so far jacks been useing indirect way to do it without showing a much malice such as what jack has been doing over the past few years.
Bullying(ironic aint it?) folks around with opinions that hes entitled to have while keeping away from comments that would show his criminal intent basicly a hitler tactic to where you throw enough mud some of it will stick and slowly warp others opinions over time.
Sadly this kind of defamation is legal in the sense that thier is no way to prove malice in most cases.
however brer you are incorrect in saying this is not a winnable defamation case as jack let 1 to many comments get absorbed by the media and im sure both GP and destructiod wopul;d love to give the judge a huge helping of all jacks threats,bullshit and general asshattery all ona 6 dvd set in .txt form(the equvilent of 50+ 500 page stacks on his desk)to prove what kind of person he is.
show his tendacies and bullshit ona massive scale and winning a defasmation suit is not far off.
"show his tendacies and bullshit ona massive scale and winning a defasmation suit is not far off."
Defamation suits are not about tendencies, they're about specific statements. And in the case of public figures (which Rockstar and Take-Two certainly are) you can't just prove that the statement was false, or even that it harmed them. You have to prove "actual malice", and the term doesn't have anything to do with how nasty the person defaming the plaintiff was or is. For the specific precedent:
"Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" - knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -is alleged and proved"
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove or disprove what someone does or does not know to be true or false at any given time? Hell, it's one of the great questions in Epistemology, let alone in law. 99% of the time in cases of public figures or officials, an affidavit from the defendant saying "Well Gosh y'Honor I really did think this was true" is enough to get the case summarily dismissed by the judge.
If you're confident that there's a strong enough case to be made for a defamation lawsuit, lay out the particulars so as to demonstrate "actual malice" on Thompson's part. Note that I'm not necessarily saying that I don't think Thompson made assertions he knew were false. It's entirely possible (likely even, given his character) that he did. It's important to remember that Law is concerned -primarily- with what can or cannot be proved to a given standard ("beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a preponderance of the evidence", for example), not necessarily with "The Truth".
I'd say everything but the subject line is defensible either as opinion or JBT acting in what he feels is the public good. He's walking a fine line but according to what Brer said earlier he's still within his rights. And will likely stay that way - he's enough of a legal weasel to probably have a solid grasp of what he can get away with saying.
For that matter, I wonder if he's aware of what Brer found, that the subject line alone wouldn't cut it. In which case he knew that he could make reckless acccusations of gay sex that would make great fearmongering material in the title, but then pull enough punches in the body that it sounds nice and wouldn't substantiate a libel claim. I definitely wouldn't put it beyond him to pull that - in which case he wins ten points cleverness, and loses a million for perverting the law and playing on the fears of the uninformed simply to fuel his personal crusades.
Well as I said, in a -few- court cases (specifically in Tort-Happy California) the judge considered a title alone as sufficient cause for a defamation case, but they're very much the exception to the rule. In general even if you have the entire body of a document it's almost impossible to win a defamation suit if you're a public figure. There's a reason Justice Scalia felt the need to comment to a body of reporters that he felt the standard established in NYT v Sullivan was a bad mistake (I have the link to that if anyone really wants to read the transcript. Scalia apparently got into a fight with Al Franken during this event).
@Shaun
The assertion that male-male kissing is immoral or pornographic can be defended as opinion and therefore exempt from defamation. It's a normative/value judgement, not an assertion of fact (normative judgements are -supposed- to be rooted in facts, but they generally aren't). Even "harmful" is vague.
A quick textbook example of the subtle distinction between opinion and a fact-based assertion that may be defamatory:
"I think Jack Thompson's a shitty lawyer." -Opinion
"Jack Thompson is not competent to practice law." -Possibly Defamatory
And yes, there are linguistic and legal differences in the meaning and significance of those two sentences.
im actually a contributor to wikipedias articles,but its mostly video game articles,lol. but what i meant to really say was that JT doesnt care about anybody, he attacked Postal 2 for the ablility to kill gays,BUT he also attacked Janet Reno for the whole closet lesbian thing awhile back,and his current agenda is to ban Bully,and is using the boy-on-boy kissing as a weapon against it,basically he contradicts himself to the point of making himself look insane, just to get what he wants,and he fails everytime
Jack is so DESPERATE for a win (when was his last one?) he's actually making a bad name for himself in the hopes that he can feel good about himself later. It's unbelievably pathetic.
(right?)
*sigh* hey thompson youve probably lawsuited about sign language because of this *sticks out mid finger*
...
Post new comment