Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Jordan

Take-Two Sues Jack Thompson!

Recommended Posts

Brish

 

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. They couldn't commit libel if they wanted to, because they aren't a newspaper or a magazine, they also couldn't do slander because of the 'coincident likenesses' dislaimer that shows everytime one of their games is started up. Could you name one illegal obsenity in a GTA game?

No, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm pointing out some obvious flaws in your logic.

 

I'd like to point out that libel is not only applicable to magazines and newspapers, but any fixed medium. (Something on a website or in a picture could apply, it varies from state to state.) So even though they haven't committed libel, they could have. Likewise a disclaimer saying "I have not slandered anyone" prefacing a slanderous comment doesn't make it okay.

 

They haven't committed libel, slander, or broken any other laws, that's why he loses in court. (I've said that already by the way, read slower.) But saying he should never have been allowed to sue in the first place is obviously fallacious. If they had actually broken any law it would most likely take a court case to prove it. He obviously should be allowed to sue at least once to determine if the speech is protected, and it obviously isn't unacceptable to do so. Just as he should obviously lose, since they've broken no laws, hurt no one, and the speech has not been found to be unprotected.

 

The reason Take-Two should win this case isn't because "he should never have been allowed to sue in the first place." He should lose because he's repeatedly sued solely to be a nuisance even though no unprotected forms of speech have been found.

 

Examples:

 

Libel is impossible, even if I didn't list off all the mediums that can commit it. He has never claimed libel as a reason for suing them.

 

The Likenesses and Coincidences Dislaimer, is meant to protect the company against claims of slander or libel.

 

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

 

So if someone where to claim they were slandered in a GTA game they would have no case because the dislaimer--which you agree to when you buy and start up the game-- says that everything in the game is fictitious. This seperates the content in the game from reality, thus making it impossible to commit slander. Ex. Even though they comment on Ronald Reagan in GTA Vice City, if he comes back to life and decides to sue, he wouldn't have a case because everyone in the game is 'fictitious'.

 

So the arguments of Slander and Libel aren't even worth making, because everyone in the game is fictitous. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I never said that he could never sue, I just said it is unacceptable; meaning that it is inappropriate, in bad taste, and a nuisance to the court system. If I had said that he should be allowed to sue, the fact that he has done it in the past would have been enough to prove me wrong.

 

"he should never have been allowed to sue in the first place."

 

I never said that. You are taking this 'I'm gonna argue for no reason' thing way too far, even to the point that you are willing to make up quotes so you can argue with yourself.

Also you're arguing about little details that have nothing to do with my original statement. How is it not unacceptable to sue someone for the content in the game. You said yourself that you agree that they haven't broken any laws.

 

Acceptable in terms of behavior, not in terms of being allowed or legal. For instance I think it's unacceptable to cuss, but it's still allowed and legal. You're mixing the two words up.

Edited by Brish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norway's_GTA_ambassador

jack thompson and his little friend

 

 

 

please give comments to my revenge of jack thompson

 

Edit: the picture are a little to small i'm sorry for that

Edited by Norway's_GTA_ambassador

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
die Catalina die
Wow, this is brilliant news! I hope they make the f*cker homeless.

Are you against opinions?

What are you blabbering about? He's been constantly attacking the GTA series from day one for no reason. There's a difference between having an opinion and being a pain in the ass. I hope he rots in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astpro

Sweet!!! icon14.gif I hope this motherf*cker will shut up!!! devil.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wattafax

Damn... I can just imagine it: JT living in a box under a bridge....

 

Happy times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Platinum.

 

Wow, this is brilliant news! I hope they make the f*cker homeless.

Are you against opinions?

What are you blabbering about? He's been constantly attacking the GTA series from day one for no reason. There's a difference between having an opinion and being a pain in the ass. I hope he rots in hell.

Oh no don't worry, he was just being a c*nt, a lot of them are cocky lately.

 

And wishing him to be homeless was my way of showing my hatred for him, of course I wouldn't really want him homeless, but if I had to choose someone he'd be at the top of the list.

 

 

user warned

Edited by GT-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gamerzworld

I'm O.K. with this happening!! tounge.gif

(Click the link for a Jack Thompson game.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

 

Libel is impossible, even if I didn't list off all the mediums that can commit it.

 

The Likenesses and Coincidences Dislaimer, is meant to protect the company against claims of slander or libel.

 

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

 

So if someone where to claim they were slandered in a GTA game they would have no case because the dislaimer, which you agree to when you buy and start up the game, says that everything in the game is fictitious. This seperates the content in the game from reality, thus making it impossible to commit slander. Ex. Even though they comment on Ronald Reagan in GTA Vice City, if he comes back to life and decides to sue, he wouldn't have a case because everyone in the game is 'fictitious'

 

So the arguments of Slander and Libel aren't even worth making, because everyone in the game is fictitous.

No, it's not impossible. I can't say I remember offhand what was said about Reagan in VC, all I remember is a pic of him hidden in an ammunation. Regardless, if they used Ronald Reagan's name, either by having a character of the same name, or just accusing him (by name) of something, the disclaimer would not be enough to protect them. They could be taken to court, and the court would determine if that speech (comments or otherwise) were protected. Just as the court would determine whether the likeness truly was "coincidental", if the the court believed that it wasn't coincidental, that the character wasn't a fictional one, but a representation of the real Reagan (and if they found that the comments were also malicious) they could lose. Again, I'm only arguing that the disclaimer alone would not necessarily protect them.

 

Although it should be mentioned that such a thing would never happen anyway, because you cannot bring a case of libel or slander for any speech against a deceased person. So even if the comments could be deemed libelous or slanderous, a court would never hear it because his family (or estate, whichever applies) cannot file on his behalf.

 

 

I never said that he could never sue, I just said it is unacceptable; meaning that it is inappropriate, in bad taste, and a nuisance to the court system.

Well "acceptable" is a matter of opinion, and I'm sorry, but I happen to disagree with yours.

 

 

it is still unacceptable to sue a company for exercising it's freedom of speech.
Do you honestly think it is acceptable to sue someone for something that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

Those are the comments I took issue with, because they make no sense. You don't know if the speech was "guaranteed" until a case has been brought and a ruling has been made. You can't know if the company was just "exercising it's freedom of speech" or committing a crime. If it's unacceptable to even take them to court to find out, then it's unacceptable to try and stop people from committing slander or libel. I happen to take issue with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
die Catalina die

 

Wow, this is brilliant news! I hope they make the f*cker homeless.

Are you against opinions?

What are you blabbering about? He's been constantly attacking the GTA series from day one for no reason. There's a difference between having an opinion and being a pain in the ass. I hope he rots in hell.

Oh no don't worry, he was being a c*nt, a lot of them are cocky lately.

 

And wishing him to be homeless was my way of showing my hatred for him, of course I wouldn't really want him homeless, but if I had to choose someone he'd be at the top of the list.

Yeah I noticed there are a lot of idiots on the board lately. We should have a Guantanamo Bay type sub forum to lock them up in so they could feel each other's penises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DemonKing

well i for one are glad for this not only has he sued r* but countless other video game companies for feeble things. good on r*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Neighborhood Terror

You all know as well as I do that he's trying to put them out of buisness so the making and selling of extremely violent games would take a nosedive,seeing that R* is the leading maker of games in that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheDude5000

It's about f*cking time they did something about this pissant. I hope more and more people notice how much of a hack he is after this law suit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UnitedDestruction

Look ok of course jack thompson is entitled to opinions, if he wants to hate gta and think its bad then good for him, he is joining a bunch of other people out there. But hes been taking these people to court when they havent done anything wrong. This is why others have to wait for f*cking ever to get their just cases into courts, because crazy (ParentsTelevisionCouncil/ParentMusicResourceCouncil-like) people think they can cradle their kids forever, and decide to sue the whole f*cking world, backing up the courts with senseless cases. I dont think anything bad should really happen to JT, i just want him to leave take-two alone, and stop filing lawsuits against everyone (including those who are against him the same way hes against take-two). Maybe we'll get lucky, and he'll have some revalation and think hey, maybe ive been taking things a little too far this whole time, but that seems unlikely lol. so just be happy with this, and hopefully if taketwo wins they will get their legal expenses back, dont want them to loose too much money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poopskin

Een soviet russia...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ecwphan

all i'm gonna say is it's about damn time happy.gif what would be funny is if he worked for R* in 5 years lol.gifShifty41s_beerhatsmilie2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UnitedDestruction

http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/newsanal...=FREE&cm_ite=NA

 

theres another source

 

it quotes "This shows the extent to which I have become a problem for them," says Thompson. "Or maybe they are trying to show that I won't be a hindrance in the sales of their upcoming products."

 

also says: Recently Thompson acquired some shares of Take-Two and has asked to speak at the company's annual shareholder meeting, scheduled for March 23.

 

 

what an asshole

Edited by UnitedDestruction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
die Catalina die

This kinda reminds me of Deathrow Records Vs. Delores Tucker, where the old bitch was constantly riding Deathrow's ass, trying to shut them down. She even had the nerve to fly to California and attempt to become a part of deathrow so she could control what kind of music they put out.

 

Same sh*t here, another old unknown fart trying to ride the coat tails of a major company with hopes of getting power and making a name for themselves. He wont succeed, and I hope he burns in hell.

 

Can he be contacted in anyway by the public? I'd love to give him a piece of my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

Do you honestly think it is acceptable to sue someone for something that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

There are forms of speech that aren't protected under the first amendment. Libel, slander, and (in this case) certain obscenities for example. Likewise, you don't have the right to threaten someone. I can't call someone up and tell them I'm going to kill them, and then when the cops arrive claim "yeah, I threatened him with death, but I have the right to free speech."

 

So no, it's not unacceptable to sue if you believe you have been wronged, or that a law has been broken. Freedom of speech doesn't free you to break any other laws, and a lawsuit is one way to determine if what was said was in fact protected.

 

Again, I don't think he's right, and I am on Take Two's side, but he doesn't lose suits against them because "they have the right to free speech", he loses because no laws have been broken. Though I'm sure the fact that he's too silly for anyone to take seriously also hurts his arguments.

Half wrong. Irrelevant. And wrong.

 

The First Amendment does protect the right to utter speech which is considered libel and slander. One can only be held civilly liable for such speech after the fact. The government-- vis-à-vis Thompson, acting under Color of Law --are expressly forbidden from enforcing prior restraint upon speech. As in, you cannot ban someone from speaking because they may commit slander or libel at some point.

 

Ergo, this lawsuit is, in its entirety, an issue of free speech. In that Thompson seeks to silence them (ban the game) before they even have a chance to speak (publish the game).

 

The only time prior restraint is ostensibly Constitutional is in regards to national security and, to a lesser degree, obscenity. But even with obscenity, the State has no authority to review and approve all speech beforehand, but instead must prove in court and after the fast that said speech was obscene. This, however, is beside the point, as every Federal Circuit which has touched the issue has ruled that the Miller Test is inapplicable to imaginary violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Flight

A good one by Take Two. That dude Jack Thompson ain't got no freakin' life! rahkstar2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PyroHazard

It was only a matter of time too.

 

The perfect analogy here is that if you poke a dog with a stick, it won't do anything but if you poke it long enough and more vigorously, it's natural instinct will be to bite back at the stick.

 

Besides, we all know good ol JT wouldn't of won his case anyways as evidence by declaring Bully a 'public nuisance'. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parliament
i was going to make a screen of the JT-lookalike ped in vc getting wasted, but i couldn't find the gxt string to change to "owned!". any help?

THAT IS SLANDER! THAT IS SLANDER! You have libeled my client (the Jack Ass in question) and I am filing suit against you, GTA forums, R* for compelling you to be so offensive, Take Two because we sue them for everything, Google because thats how we found this site, AOL because they gave me the opportunity to be offended in a totally new forum, my electric company for powering my computer, my mother for being such a bitch when I was 12 and has thus caused me to be this way, and of course anyone who has looked at this thread and was forced to laugh.

 

I will see you in court maybe if I don't forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Forbes
Do you honestly think it is acceptable to sue someone for something that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

There are forms of speech that aren't protected under the first amendment. Libel, slander, and (in this case) certain obscenities for example. Likewise, you don't have the right to threaten someone. I can't call someone up and tell them I'm going to kill them, and then when the cops arrive claim "yeah, I threatened him with death, but I have the right to free speech."

 

So no, it's not unacceptable to sue if you believe you have been wronged, or that a law has been broken. Freedom of speech doesn't free you to break any other laws, and a lawsuit is one way to determine if what was said was in fact protected.

 

Again, I don't think he's right, and I am on Take Two's side, but he

doesn't lose suits against them because "they have the right to free speech", he loses because no laws have been broken. Though I'm sure the fact that he's too silly for anyone to take seriously also hurts his arguments.

 

 

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. They couldn't commit libel if they wanted to, because they aren't a newspaper or a magazine, they also couldn't do slander because of the 'coincident likenesses' dislaimer that shows everytime one of their games is started up. Could you name one illegal obsenity in a GTA game? They never threatened anyone, nor did they yell fire in a crowded theatre. Please name one person who has been directly hurt by the content in a Rockstar game. They are still protected by freedom of speech, as they have never ruined anyones reputation with lies, or even come close including child pornography in a game.

In all fairness there have been people such as two kids who took their farthers shotgun and unloaded at passing cars after playing vice city, and that kid that took a plastic carrier bag and suffocated his 'friend' to death in the shadows of a park in a secluded area (MANHUNT). To be honest he's right that Best Buy and Target have been waaay tooo lenient on age restrictions in the past and the volentary codes of practice need to enforced. Take-two are really the poster-boy for adult content in their games so are rightfully targeted but he seams rather more bent on furthering his own career the way he drops his cases and sort of goes off wandering.

 

His cases are one sided, and his statements to Bono and Bill Gates were 'delusional', but aside from personal character asasination... being rational he should realize by now that GTA is a valid artistic expresson which millions enjoy, and banning the franchise for everyone for the sake of a handful of seriously messed up individuals is as criminal as any case he has brought present against Rockstar and Take-two. My $0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-=A FITZ=-
Rate this topic good or bad. I hope you know which one is right.

 

http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fu...y.php?id=118226

 

After so many problems stemming from Jack Thompson's ridiculous legal games, Take-Two is going after Jack Thompson!

 

------------

 

According to a copy of the complaint, Take-Two has just about had it with Thompson's threats, lawsuits, retractions, and dismissals.

Take-Two asks that Thompson be prevented from bringing a "nuisance" lawsuit against either of the games in question, and they want attorneys' fees from him.

 

------------

 

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070...e-lawsuits.html

yay, colgate.gif

 

xmas.gifrahkstar2.gifrah.gifmuppetmaster_karma.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crokey
...also says: Recently Thompson acquired some shares of Take-Two and has asked to speak at the company's annual shareholder meeting, scheduled for March 23.

Which if this case goes to court it could then work against him, as it shows a degree of desperation on his part in trying to state his campaign against the company. A campaign that is clearly showing a lack of foundation for several reasons, the first being that some of his clients are wishing to pursue Take-Two and their subsiduary company Rockstar Games, claiming that games that they have produced have influenced crimes for which they are either victims of or have commited. The sole act of commiting a crime cannot be blamed on any medium such as video games, television, film, radio and the press as an influencing factor, for the very reason that the crimes that are being committed have been similarly committed for generations and even further back throughout our history before the advent of such media even existed.

 

The second reason is that the crimes that have been committed are being blamed on the games produced by Take-Two et al, but the majority of the crimes in question where blame is apportioned to the games makers have been committed by people who are below the age that the games makers and the relative classifications bureaus recommend that the games be rated for users above the age set. If however the games in question are being bought by those under the recommended age then then the makers bear no responsibility as then the blame rest solely on the vendor for counteracting the recommendations and/or laws governing such practicies. If however the games have been acquired through a third party above the recommended age and then passed onto those who are below the age recommended the blame should be then apportioned to the third party as they have put themselves in the position of responsibility.

 

The third reason is that those cases not covered by age restrictions are now apportioned to the sole reason that they committed the crime either through a will to commit these acts or due to a lack of mental understanding of what they are doing either through severe lack of psycological reasoning or psycological immaturity. Regardless of their mental state it cannot be the fault of the games makers that acts were commited in a style of which has been portrayed in a work of fiction, as is claimed in the likeness and coinsidences statement given by the games makers.

 

So to sumise, blaming a crime that has a similarity or has been influenced by any form of media cannot be upheld as history itself show us that crimes of these nature have been in existence long before even the invention of electricity therfore electronic media, case in point would be the case of Jack the Ripper, London, UK, a speight of crimes that took place when electricity was in its infancy and the only media available was the printed press which in itself was reserved by current standards.

 

Judge G rules in favour of Take-Two games and rules that Jack Thompson should stop being a whiner and get back to representing cases which have a basis. <THUNK>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blind Joe Death
This guy finally got what he deserved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elias2k2

It is crazy how there is always a retard out there that always want to make a big deal out of everything. I am very happy that Idiot Thompson got a taste of his own medicine. rahkstar2.gifviddy_pirate.gifviddy_pirate.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cran.

I just find it amazing how he bases his cases on a game that isn't even intended for minors in the first place. Ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GycuBrun

All I can say is that GOD exists.

 

Maybe one of his relatives died while playing GTA,maybe that`s his reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GAWD

i think rockstar should win and shut him up'....but he will just get more pissed and come back even stronger for revenge(with an intern)' i wonder how much he's worth'. i can picture him homeless , in his dirty tattered buisness suits' with a sign around his neck saying ROCKSTAR IS EVIL' trying to gospel the word' but no body listens.

 

exzactly what he deserves, for not shuting his effin' mouth that_guy2057_evilgrin.gif

if he cant pay the certain amount asked by rockstar, will he be sent to jail?

im not to aware of law stuff, by the way i am GAWD

Edited by GAWD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TonyResta

Finally, i guess R* want to get rid of this tw*t before the release of GTA IV just incase Thompson would screw up the sales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.