Jack Thompson Says GTA 4 Mission Target is Him; Threatens to Block Release
Jack Thompson Says GTA 4 Mission Target is Him; Threatens to Block Release
September 18, 2007
Plenty of gamers would give their left arm to be included in Grand Theft Auto IV.Miami attorney Jack Thompson, however, claims that he's depicted in the game and wants out. And he threatens to block the release of GTA IV if Rockstar doesn't comply.
In a document filed yesterday with a federal court in Florida, Thompson includes a letter written to Take Two Chairman Strauss Zelnick which reads in part:
I have this morning read with interest an article on page 80 and 81 of the September 2007 issue of Game Informer magazine which was generated when, according to its author, Rockstar Games "stopped by the Game Informer offices for an impromptu hour-long gameplay session with the Xbox 360 version of the game."
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.'"
...The fact that the lawyer, killed on Niko's first mission, would bring up video games, makes it clearly a reference to me... This is not the first time Rockstar Games and Take Two have targeted me in this fashion. Take Two references to me as a bisexual pedophile on its corporate website...
GP: What's he referring to here? See GamePolitics' September, 2005 article Jack Thompson Accuses Rockstsar of... Parody. Thompson's letter continues:
You have until five o'clock P.M. this Friday... to inform me that you are going to delete the above references and any other references that could reasonably be construed to be references to me in Grand Theft Auto IV and any other video games that are pending release...
Now you have descended this low - using one of your games to threaten my physical safety... Failure to comply with the deadline... will result in my having to take necessary and proper means to stop release of the game which targets me personally... given the copycatting of violent games...
Comments
That's part of the point, I think. User-created content is the work of a single user while this GTA4 mission is the work of the actual company. There is a difference in the two but whether the latter falls in to the category of parody is up to those who practice law (JT excluded).
And before he says anything, note that all we have is his say so - which is questionable to begin with. I doubt that Game Informer's article will be as specific.
Take 2 then is free to go after him. The smackdown they give him, combined with the one from the Florida Supreme Court, could be the one-two punch that knocks him out for good.
Goldenberg (the lawyers given name) is killed by Niko because he got on Mr McReary's bad side. Not because of his views.
actually, they didn't threaten you, nor your personal wellbeing. You just WANT people to take it that way.
Case in point;
1. I am going to kill Jack Thompson.
2. 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.’”
Which of these is a direct threat on your life, and the only one that would bring any harm to your person?
But when you make statements like number 2, its first amendment protected speech. Like the whole "Paula Eibel" thing? The game you wanted to see?
"You know, I think you’re probably right. I sit here and try to think when he’s ever succeeded in blocking ANYTHING. He couldn’t stop Bully, couldn’t stop Manhunt2… Has he stopped anything at all? Since Cop Killer??? "
Heck, he can't even stop his son from buying Bioshock.......
That's the sound of you violating your court agreement and opening yourself up to litigation. I hope your wife has DEEP pockets, because you're about to empty her coffers. Unless of course you believe that signing that agrement was 'satire' so you don't have to adhere to it. Try telling THAT to any judge, it will probably get you contempt of court at the very least.
Here's to Jack and his willingness to continually make an ass out of himself. It's like having front row seats at the circus.
Oh, right, that's too much of a resemblance, I'll put you in Phoenix Wright, then. It's a more lawyer-suited ame. You'll be the replacement for Prosecutor Payne.
I'm happy I live in Canada, where they're not trying to pin the blame on video games (or music, or D&D, or spanking, or time outs...) for all the ills of society.
This will backfire on him for 2 reasons... maybe 3
a) Jack will violate the previous agreement he made with Take Two as he will be taking LEGAL action against a game's release (something the agreement clearly stated he wouldn't do for that would be grounds for Take Two to counter-sue and ruin him).
b) Take Two can prove Jack's full of it as all they have to do is prove that he is a parody and NOT the actual game-hating attorney.
c) Jack Thompson is sued, loses, and is FINALLY ruined. I can't wait to see it.
As the Genius Bakabon's father puts it:
"Kore de Ii no da!"
(Translation: "It's all good!")
~Otaku-Man
However, he's got a point here, although I doubt he has the mental capacity to do anything about it at this point. The lawyer described is an obvious reference to Jack Thompson. All this crap everyone keeps posting about pie-loving doctors and how there are other video game lawyers misses the point. There is *one* lawyer which has been giving T2 fits in public about violence in video games and how he has deluded himself into believing it leads to real life violence. There is no need to start a contest with JT over who can make the most absurd claim.
I don't know what the court order said, so perhaps I am wrong here, but I am fairly sure the judge did not order Jack Thompson to refrain from filing any suit against T2. At most I can imagine he was ordered to cease filing frivolous suits about violence in games and generally acting as a self-appointed guardian of the public. To do much more would be an *extreme* abuse of discretion.
Last, there is a big difference between, well, most of the examples above and what happened here. Free speech doesn't allow you to shout fire in a crowded theater, no matter how awesome and funny you may think the results will be. Further, just because it's happened before without incident doesn't mean that this is parody, it just means that other people don't have a broken humor detector. I'm not familiar with what happens to Michael Jackson or Gary Coleman or whoever in video games, so I can't comment, but again you are compelled to sue just because you have a cause of action.
It's different than TV, since (last I checked, anyway) South Park is not an interactive environment. I don't remember steering Cartman around and making him eat cheezy poofs, anyway. It's not user-created content. It is definitely funny, but that does not make it parody. The representation of him definitely is, and if it were left at that it would be a no-brainer. But the game not only allows you to kill the character, it sounds like you are *required* to do so. The argument that video games make violent people by virtue of including violence has been tried and failed. The argument that suggesting that a specific individual should be killed may lead to violence against that individual has also been tried, with much more success.
As funny as we all may find it, courts have a definite aversion to being mocked, and T2 looks to be abusing the court order if it is their intended protection from the consequences of this. They very well may have given this obnoxious little imp a means of achieving a courtroom victory, thus shoring up his ego and ensuring we all get to put up with him for a few more years.
Good job!
For someone concerned about their personal safety and life being threatened, you sure do post your personal info at the drop of a hat, and you do not address others in a respectable manner. Have you *really* looked at yourself and the stuff you say/write?
While we here disagree with the likes of Grossman and Yee, we address them in a respectful manner because they in respect do the SAME! If they were as vile as you, we probably would address them in the same manner as they address us.
Too bad this is just one of those cases where the individual doesn't realize or want to admit how harmful their own personal actions are to themselves & others, and do NOT seek the professional help they need to improve themselves. And there are all sorts of medicines out there that can help with such matters, like stress....
Really, there's nothing I can say at this point that hasn't been repeated at least 2 or 3 times: This is a work of satire at worst, and no relation at best, Jack is a doof, blah blah blah...
Honestly I was hoping for more JT-related gold in here, what with him believing this to be a death threat and whatnot. He openly mocks a guy who just had a heart attack repeatedly, but can't be bothered to post about how he thinks GTA4 is killing him, except to comment "HAY! I'Z DEBATIN' AGAINST HOMOS SOON! COME WATCH!"
Where's my comedy gold, JT?
(Click my name if you have no idea what I mean)
Might I make a suggestion (actually two):
First, I look for Jack's posts, so I search for "Jack Thompson says". Unfortunately, it's in the text of the headline, which causes it to show up in all of the trackbacks. So if I might humbly suggest not writing the exact phrase "Jack Thompson says" into a headline?
Second suggestion, and it's just my opinion: don't even allow trackbacks. They're useless linkspam to 99.9% of us, only useful in large part to self-important "blogerati" who think links are more important than content.
Parody is one thing. Targeting someone who is a critic for copycat violence is quite another. Take-Two's deadline approaches.
Ironic ..
You're only going to fall off...
I'd love to be in a video game even if I was getting shot!
Poor Jack...imagine when he gets to court..
Basically he'd have to either a) admit the parody was nothing like him (and incur take two's legal expenses) or b) claim to be a bisexual paedophile (offering names of victims etc) and get arrested!!!!!
I just hope nobody manages to shut him down completely, he's too entertaining...
U think u felt threatens ya???
Well, y dont i send a bullet into ur brain???
Problem solve....
There r alot of lawyer which r better than u ....
U such a puny little lawyer ....
What the hell!!!
U such a jerk....
Go to hell...
What does the game have to do with u???
If u r going to stop whatever game that got kill lawyer...
Y dont u try to stop the whole world???
Did u use ur brain to think???
I guess u only got pig brain which is stupid...
Cant even think ya....
If u really stop the game from publishing...
Well i guess u not only make enemy with rockstar...BUT the whole world!!!
Am I a mentally handiccaped violent thug?NO.I play Bioshock,Gears of War GRAW 2 and pretty much every war game and what happened because of that? I had fun,hes threatening that fun so thats why I bloody hate him and his crusade.
"Am I a mentally handiccaped violent thug?NO."
Don't say it, show it.
Im gonna write a flash game that features
FRAGGING a Guy named Jack Thompson over and over.
sue me.
how is it i know more about lawyering from watching Night Court?
you have fun getting your ass kicked in court AGAIN!
And you know what, here's some other interesting facts:
- Jack Thompson is not the only anti-gaming lawyer around (although they are rare)
- Take Two will not relent to a 2 bit lawyer moonlighting as a crusader
Besides, he can do nothing if his name is not mentioned or if his figure is not used.
Are you a second amendment rights advocate, Mr. Thompson? For God's sake, you don't even fit the parody you're griping about. And even if you did, you couldn't file suit over it. If you could, don't you think the industry mucky mucks who were depicted in an FPS mod you called for would have sued you by now?
Does anyone think that Take two did this on purpose to get ole Jack to come out and try to sue them?
Knowing that they already had the settlement deal maybe they threw this in there to put the final nail in the coffin.
If that is true looks like T2 can use one of Jack's phrases to describe what they knew he would do. "So sad, so predictable."
The world does not revolve around you. In fact, outside of a small portion of the internet that seems obsessed with every little movement you make, most of the outside world doesn't even know who you are.
Come on. Is he suing Law and Order for depicting him as a female lawyer for the state?
So the parallels between Jack Thompson and GTA IV's lawyer:
1) both are lawyers.
Thats it. Someone needs to give this man a clue.
Furthermore, Rockstar could argue that this is a parody of the "Video games made me do it" defense that has been used in several lawsuits. It could be a parody of the current "Video games are evil! Worse than guns/drugs/abuse!" mentality that seems to be prevalent in todays older and out of touch citizens.
@Jack Thompson (for when he arrives with his next off topic post)
Assuming that a parody is of yourself seems like it might be another symptom of that Narcissistic mental condition that has been referred to.
"Now you have descended this low - using one of your games to threaten my physical safety…"
A little pixelated figure shooting another in an imaginary city on a screen hundreds of miles from where you live does not exactly threaten your personal safety, does it? Does the game contain your name/address/habits which might allow people to seek to harm you? I realise that you have plastered your phone number and home address all over your press releases, but Rockstar have not done that.
"Failure to comply with the deadline… will result in my having to take necessary and proper means to stop release of the game"
Which, as far as I remember, you are not allowed to do by judicial order?
" which targets me personally…"
Which you BELIEVE targets you personally. And even then, it doesn't so much "target" as "poke light fun at".
" given the copycatting of violent games…"
You are obviously referring to your theory of copycatting of violent games. Which has no proof to it. And which has been shot down once already in the Devin Moore case, I think you might recall that one, it was the one which led to your licence to practice law in Alabama being revoked and was the starting point the Florida Bar having to impose disciplinary action upon you. Surely you haven't forgotten?
He must have been starting to feel cold from the spotlight being off him. What a joke.
Besides, Thompson doesn't have enough context. If this really is the first kill, maybe the line that the lawyer says haunts Niko and he continues to wonder whether his life of crime is the fault of playing Tetris in the '80s, and ultimately change his life to become a crusader against video game violence.
...or it's just a beta and is a mission that they just threw in there for kicks.
Besides, why would you trust a gaming publication, they're just a bunch of lying untrustworthy jackasses who're puppets of the industry, right?
And what are you doing reading Game Informer, anyway? Or are you annexing all your poor kid's stuff? You might want to check his wallet for an ACLU card, you're steering him in that direction.
Haha, now that’s awesome. Take it like the man that you aren’t Jack, stop being such a pussy. You deserve every bit of negative publicity you get you lying, crazy, massacre chasing, waste of a human being. I know you like think you’re “holier than thou”, but that’s far from the truth. You’re a scum bag asshole who practically abuses your son forcing him to do your dirty work for you. Leave us alone, leave your son alone, leave video games alone, and just go and curl up in the corner of a nice padded room.
By the way, parodies of public figures, such as yourself, are 100% legal, you can't stop them from using an anti-video game lawyer just because you happen to be the inspiration for it.
copycatting GTA to go over to kill you? You are afraid of a bunch of 17-40 year olds running over to your house and sticking a controller in your face while pressing R1 and O at the same time? And Where does it say it targets you? HEY!! Well this just proves it. Jack Thompson is the ONLY video game hating lawyer around. And this lawyer in the videogame has to be him on the sole fact that he is a lawyer and that he hates videogames.
No dice Jack. Enjoy the contempt of court charge.
- Warren Lewis
...dude...
Let me state for the record that I've never been a huge GTA fan, I haven't liked the franchise since 3 really, and I'm an old enough fart that I remember 2. I was NOT planning to get the game.
That being said, oh yeah, if there's a Tack Jhompson in this game? You might as well sell me a pre-order right now.
Although frankly, looking at this article - he's reaching - reaching quite a bit. Lawyer in game + video game comments and he takes it seriously? Dude... hopefully he's not the only lawyer on the planet. (Geez, what an ego.)
Then when he acts stunned and confused at what you're doing, you run over to his car and start screaming "TRIANGLE TRIANGLE TRIANGLE!".
Video Games and the Second Amendment are both trademarked phrases of Jack Thompson. Come on.
Wait, no, they're not. This sounds more like an NRA lawyer, not Jack Thompson.
So Jack, this is, therein, clearly your weakass ploy, and I'm sure that Rockstar's lawyers, all of whom are bigger successes than yourself, will shoot your lawsuit down so fast you'll swear they were the Red Baron.
Paradies of public figures are legal; otherwise, how would South Park make money?
Go bitch in the corner you jackass.
And he claims he has no mental problems.
Ehh, I had no intention to buy this game in the first place, I'm not really into the whole GTA thing... except for Vice City, that's the only one I'm interested in.
Because we all know that you're the ONLY lawyer in the country who's allowed to mention video games. Get off yourself already, and just.. go away.
Yes. Yes he is.
But when has a little thing like the law gotten in his way before?
Way to go JT, you just increased the sale of this game by 20%+!!!!
Yeah, I did the same, and couldn't find the quote except for here.
He also has no sense of humor.
Jack, here's a novel concept, try to wrap your feeble mind around it: EVERYBODY HATES YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE AN EGOMANIACAL ASSHOLE. Any threat to your own safety, real or perceived, exists not because of GTA IV, but because of your big mouth and bad attitude over the years. You don't see threats of violence against Leland Yee or Dave Grossman, do you? Believe me, if you do indeed have some kind of beat down coming in your future, this GTA IV parody came along WAAAY after the scales had been tipped.
This isn't so far off. And it's not just the crazed video gamers saying it either. David Walsh publicly denounced you, and you're supposed to be on the same side! You seem to have a long history of not getting a long with people. Why does it seem like every person you work with is incompetent or an industry shill? At some point you have to think that maybe the problem is you.
Good luck with the Bar investigation.
I'll admit, that's funny. Rockstar does have a singular wit. Almost good enough, but not quite, to make up for the 4th iteration of a sandbox with shiney-er graphics that -by all accounts- GTAIV is.
If the first time is funny, the second time is silly, and the third is a swift kick in the ass, what is a fourth time? Oh yeah, instant best-seller because of the hype and notoriety. Hey, Jack, you want to stop R* from making another GTA? Here's a tip, STOP MAKING IT FAMOUS!
Secondly, this is not "parody." This is targeting. Big difference. This is rather foolish on Take-Two's part.
GP: That's true. Jack did NOT send this one my way. Which is odd, because he DID send something about a gay rights debate he wants to have down in Miami (um, Jack is against , in case you were wondering). I have zero interest in that story because there is zero video game connection.
So why didn't he send me this very relevant story?
Remember rockstar us and the sane part of the world know videogames do not lead to violence so this isnt in any way threatening you, its parody.
Guess what parody and satire are protected speech. just like your mock offer to charity is protected.
Oh no doubt, ever see South Park season 10? There's an episode where what is obviously a version of the president pretty much offs a guy execution style in the oval office to cover up that the government "is responsible" for 9/11. Considering that Matt & Trey probably aren't making new episodes from cells in Guantanemo - I think you're probably right.
note the use of the words THE FIRM, Jackie has an independant practice and is not part of any firm, as such this character is not a direct take on him and he has no ground to stand on
GP: Ummm... the entire letter IS available. It's linked from the article.
This was not a death threat, Jackass. They could care less about you because you can't touch them anymore.
It's not even a JT lookalike, merely a lawyer who blames video games?
Jackie boy, you're not THAT unique...
Maybe you should think about trademarking "video games made me do it". Then maybe you'd have a stronger case than the small chance in hell you actually have...
@jadedcritic
"There’s an episode where what is obviously a version of the president pretty much offs a guy execution style in the oval office to cover up that the government “is responsible” for 9/11."
Although that one wasn't really a threat against the president... So not a good example.
What makes me indignant is his cavalier attitude towards tactics like lying and character asassination.
A. You said yourself that you never uttered the quote "“that the firm supports the second amendment and that ‘Guns don’t kill people. Video games do.’
B. the lawyer the hitman takes out is named "Goldberg (of Goldberg, Ligner, and Shyster)"
http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=293408
C. The "hilarious response was actually a reference to the game, not Game Informer:
(From the site linked above) "After taking a seat, the interview began, As Goldberg chatted it up, Niko stood up and pulled a gun on him. This action was met with hilarious response on Goldberg's part."
Funny how you could also reference FOX News as a quote for your silly saying at th end, yet when you mentioned "copycatting of violent video games that is know by everyone" you couldn't even reference one source.
BAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Thompson, you're more amusing and lulzworthy than any GTA game. Keep it up!
Wow. He truly believes the whole copycatting thing, doesn't he? I guess I haven't let that sink in quite enough.
So he's going to drag Take-Two back to court, totally breach the settlement, and get his ass legally assassinated, all because he's scared to death of a theory that no study has ever been able to prove? Oh, this is going to be fun show.
The only thing worse than that would be something like offering to donate money to charity if someone made a game where someone hops a plane from LAX to New York to reach the Long Island home of the CEO of videogame company (Take This) in order to get "justice" by taking out this female CEO, whose name is Paula Eibel, along with her husband and kids urinates onto the severed brain stems of the Eibel family victims, just as you do on the decapitated cops in the real video game Postal2.
But that would be just sick for someone to make such a modest proposal...
"Secondly, this is not “parody.” This is targeting. Big difference. This is rather foolish on Take-Two’s part."
Then you have absolutely no idea what parody is. If your logic was correct, the police organizations of three states can sue Take Two, several celebrities, radio personalities, several soft drink companies, toy makers, sports organizations, rival game companies, , hell, three state governments could have sued Rockstar by now, but they haven't, mostly because they aren't full of narcissistic idiots like you.
Face it Jack, you have no case. Screenshots or STFU.
As Dennis pointed out the entire letter is available. Click the damn link. Secondly reading of the entire letter does nothing to further your point that it is "targeting" and not parody, so perhaps you should break it down here in your own words. Third, beyond the point that you and this character are both lawyers I fail to see what connection you are going to make. Prepare accordingly for failure.
It seems flawed, if not purely self indulgent for Jack Thompson to assert these claims. Unless the character in question features mister Thompson's likeness (on a photographic level), I don't see his other assertions holding merit.
At the risk of defending the devil - he's not totally without cause. Gamers are like any other group of people we have our good ones, and our bad ones; and there's very little doubt in my mind that over the course of decades of his sidewalk-puppet-shows he probably has recieved what could be called legitimate harrassment/threats. No doubt they've only served to reinforce his perception of himself. Of course, that's got nothing to do really with the subject at hand, and is hardly Take2's fault. There's actually a quote in GTA2: Vice where one of the characters says "Just because I think everybody's out to get me, doesn't mean they aren't"
What I'm basically trying to say is that Jack taking some precautions to protect himself doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Where it becomes offensive really is that he's long since gotten to a level where ALL gamers are guilty until proven innocent, and that's just offensive.
if Jack Thompson were inclined to be a decent human being, he wouldn't continually make personal attacks to make up for his inadequacies.
If you can't take it, don't dish it.
With all the verbal abuse John Bruce has dealt, all the false and fraudulent claims he's made, all the lies and deceit he's committed, a simple parody (yes, parody as John Bruce's name isn't referenced and the comment is a direct statement that John Bruce has only really implied through his ignorance and lies).
SHOULD Rockstar give in? Pah! Doesn't matter. There are ways to get the same comment across, making such a claim seem just as stupid as those who DO say it or even imply it in reality. So, no, it wouldn't be a big loss. Nor would it be a "win" for John Bruce because, in TRUTH, it would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt his FALSE claim that he supports Freedom of Speech. Way to go John Bruce! Let the world see you for the liar and fraud you really are! Woo hoo! You go boy!
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
A threat is when someone tells YOU directly or in some cases indirectly that your life is at stake. It must name you and be sent to you. This does not name you. It does not aim its message at you. If anything this bit is a character assasination of the whole "video games are evil" debate. They could have easily used a politician for this, its just that they have a more personnal relationship with certain lawyers.
I suggest you look up the definition of paradoy and satire. Then I suggest you actually study some law for once and learn why those are protected speech.
you know, the in comment rebuttals are quite amusing dennis, and kinds make up for not banning jack, thanks for the laughs.
Its funny to notice jack jump from point to point, does he even know youre answering him?
He's basically a mix of Edgeworth and Von Karma. He villifies EVERYONE on the opposite side on the off chance they might really be psychopaths, much like Edgeworth got every defendant guilty on the off chance a killer might get loose, and like von Karma Jack is building up so much bad karma it's coming back to bite him, hard.
Gosh Jack, they teach you that in lawyer school? I hope BLANK ROME crushes you. BLANK ROME.
How's the ol ticker doing now, Jack?
Oh, and Janet Reno.
How about now? You goddam nut.
Honestly, do you think the Daily Show could exist without that freedom? Editorial cartoons, comic strips, sketch comedy shows, stand up comedy acts, and so forth? It is one of those things that may make the target upset and resentful of their portrayal, but that is when you turn the momentum. For example, Rudy Giuliani was getting hammered on SNL for a while, and then who shows up dressed in drag? That's right, Rudy Giuliani himself. He had a sense of humor about it and likely got more support off that appearance than many speeches given. So, JT wants to change public opinion of him, make the skit, and then appear in a skit. If he parodies himself, while at the same time ribbing Rockstar he will have shown he has a sense of humor and is a human being.
As a footnote, and in regards to people thinking there is no proof of important and powerful people being spoofed in videogames, one need look no further than NBA Jam: Tournament Edition's secret characters. Fully covered in magazines, online, and probably by some news outlets the secret players included: Bill Clinton F1, B, F2, I, F3, L, F4, JUN, F5, 3,
Hillary Clinton F6, H, F7, I, F8, L, F9, NOV, F10, 6, and Prince Charles F6, C, F7, H, F8, A, F9, MAY, F10, 4. If the Clintons and British Royalty can be use for satire and/or parody, I do not think there is a lick JT can do about his own supposed inclusion. Especially if it is as vaguely just a second amendment lawyer as it seems. But if you must JT, go ahead and pull Hillary off the road trip of debates, and get Bill and Prince Charles to submit to the courts also. But wait, they will likely testify AGAINST your argument and show how they may not have liked seeing themselves slam dunk basketballs half and full court with a RAZZLE DAZZLE. It is one of the prices we pay for living in this land called America and being in the public eye.
And it's not for Thompson. Actually it's only for foxes.
Doesn't this scene evoke some kind of debate over the measure of violence in society?
In GTA IV, a law firm who claims that violent games are responsible for violence are taken out by a plain, ordinary, non-game influenced protagonist. From the inside, it points out the terrible point that (a) guns have a bigger habit of launching bullets than games do, (b) the person behind the gun makes the choice to pull the trigger (and the way that trigger is pulled) rather than a video game, and (c) there are more reasons for violence than "I saw Sonic do it".
Highlights the idea that violent people do violent things under their own cognizance, rather than being zombies to violent media.
To look at it all from outside of the game, we see a game in which a violent act is being committed by a video game character, which brings irony to the whole affair.
But to say the attorney in the game is you explicitly, without possibility of it being based on someone else, or simply it being a representation of the IDEA you put forth, is a tad egotistical.
also: how is it targeting you? your just a lawyer, last time I checked you weren't part of a firm. the only way it could be targetting you is if you worked at a firm. and I'm pretty sure you would have rubbed it in our faces if you were working for a firm.
get your facts straight and then speak.
To be honest, it throws me off too.
John Bruce's posts show up way back in the field, long after I've read up to a certain point, so I have to go back and look.
Plus GP tacks on his responses to some comments, rather than quote them, which means going back also.
Now, if there were a nice little GUI that could auto pull comments and highlight new (even if they were just released from hold) or edited comments (such as when GP adds their comments to someone else's), that would be great.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
GP: for some reason, his posts get caught in a moderation queue. Don't know why. I suspect he may be using a proxy server or something. I've asked him, but it's like talking to the wall. No response.
So... his comments don't show up until I get around to clearing them.
The secret good news is that we're exploring a re-design of GP (but you didn't hear that from me - LOL) ...and I am asking the developer for nested comments.
Isn't egotistical Jack's middle name?
Watch out Jack. Fictional characters are coming for you.
You know, I think you're probably right. I sit here and try to think when he's ever succeeded in blocking ANYTHING. He couldn't stop Bully, couldn't stop Manhunt2... Has he stopped anything at all? Since Cop Killer???
"One more thing: If Dennis McCauley were inclined to be a real journalist and “fair” he would make available the entire letter as the full context makes clear not the parody but the targeting, but such fairness, such journalistic ethics, would be asking too much of this “news” site.
GP: Ummm… the entire letter IS available. It’s linked from the article."
Dennis, I think the answer here is obvious. He's got "you didn't post the entire letter" written in a file somewhere and automatically copy/pastes it whenever a story is written about him.
Now, first and foremost, parody is protected, regardless of what you believe in the la-la land in your head. They can have this in the game, as they are not targetting you for harm. Your "copycat" theory was shot down in the Devin Moore case, and it's shot down here. Why? You have no proof, just and outlandish theory.
Secondly, you're not allowed to attempt to block sales of a Take Two, Rockstar - or whatever moniker they're going by today - game. You're actually legally blocked from doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if this letter was taken as exactly that by Take Two.