Where Politics And Video Games Collide

OK, first thing - I do hate Jack Thompson. He is clearly the devil incarnate, and I am sure that he is responsible for all the evil and murder and self-touching in the world.
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!