Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Good articles Jack Thompson (attorney) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Page Archived 10/24/06

Issues:

1. Disconnect between editors on whether REPUTABLE gaming sources such as GameSpot and the like qualify under WP:RS. Currently they are not allowed, even if Thompson himself confirms it in those articles. Try to get a consensus on this.
2.Constant target for anonymous vandals, slow, long term. maybe a candidate for Semi-Protection?
3.Minor visual editing to make the page read better (paragraphs, etcetera)
I believe the page needs protection, from both vandals and from a few particular (legitimate) users who are a little overzealous in cutting information out. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with FULL protection, I do think Semi-Protection is a way to go. Perhaps we can file a WP:RfC and get a consensus on the WP:RS issue. I do understand where the other side is coming from, after all, this page has gone through WP:OFFICE once, and to avoid liability to a point. However, I do believe that the fact that Thompson himself confirms that it's real via email discussion (copied out to several other media sources) qualifies it. SirFozzie 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I should have clarified; I meant semi-protection, not full. Also, in terms of the past liability of Wikipedia, Thompson has threatened action towards Wikipedia because of information posted by the users, cited by outside linked sources. Though Thompson threatened Wikipedia, he did not threaten the sites that Wikipedia linked to, which were the basis for the information posted by the users. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made a request at WP:RFPP to Semi-protect the page. SirFozzie 20:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Page Semi Protected

Thanks to NishiKid64 for semi-protecting the page, which means we'll see a lot less vandalism on the page. Hopefully we can make the article look better while it's under protection. SirFozzie 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Show Cause Order

Yup, we're back to this one: Considering Jack has now replied to the Show Cause order, and a hearing could be held today (see [this page for his reply to the request to the show cause order] Surely the man himself qualifies for WP:RS SirFozzie 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:RfC on the article. If you're coming here from the RfC, it's also on archive 12
There was some discussion about a month ago about using gaming sites as sources for legal documents, and I don't think we really decided anything. It would be best, of course, if someone personally had access to the documents. Even then, there's the question of notability. Regardless, I think at this point we can wait and see if anything actually happens. --Maxamegalon2000 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?7663 is the first non-gaming publication to mention the Show Cause order although it is in a columns about various things in the video game world. SirFozzie 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's OK that it's a video game column, but it's a college paper that I know doesn't do a good job with fact checking. I read an article of theirs about the newest Weird Al album, and I was this close to writing a complaint to them about the startling inaccuracies it contained. Again, at this point we can probably wait for something notable to actually happen first. --Maxamegalon2000 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Max, we could be waiting for a long time for something notable to happen AND for it to be reported in an unbiased manner on a mainstream news site (as most of the stories on Thompson make him out to be a champion to parents); that's part of my argument why we need to open up our horizons in terms of the sources we select, be they from gaming sites or otherwise. Just because there's inaccuracies in one article on that site, does not mean that you need to strike down every article as unreliable. Sometimes I think Max is secretly a Thompson fan... --PeanutCheeseBar 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
By "open up our horizons" you mean lower our standards. No thank you. There are more than just inaccuracies in one article, there are inaccuracies in the very article in question. Take, for example, the following sentence: "In the event that Thompson should be held in contempt of court, a substantial fine and imprisonment of several months would be levied upon Thompson." That sentence is wrong, and the error symptomatic of the lack of understanding with which the article was written. The author clearly doesn't know the consequences in advance, even if Thompson did get found in contempt, and in most places jail time would be out of the question for this situation. It's entirely speculative, both about the basis for the motion and the potential consequences, just like the other sources (a few of those did a little better at signalling that they were speculating - "it appears" or "this is all we know"). These problems are exactly why we insist on reputable mainstream sources. --Michael Snow 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's because we were hamstrung by the decision on WP:RS to exclude 95% of the sources from our source. Anything that accurately portrayed it we couldn't use because "it was on a gaming website". For example. GameSpot, no one-man blog, had everything right, INCLUDING CONFIRMATION FROM THOMPSON HIMSELF that such a request had been filed, and we couldn't use it. SirFozzie 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
GameSpot had everything right? Don't make me laugh. Their story doesn't even manage to be consistent with itself. Blank Rome is "asking that Thompson be held in contempt of court for his comments to Judge Friedman" vs. "no contempt charges have yet been leveled at Thompson." All of the reports I've seen so far on gaming-related websites are largely speculative and frequently contradictory (about virtually every aspect of the situation: whether he's in contempt, what the basis would be for finding contempt, and what the penalties could be). It's a perfect illustration of why, as a general matter, those sources should be avoided. --Michael Snow 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It's exactly right, you mean. That's because Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a PROPOSED ORDER for the judge for Thompson to Show Cause on why he should not be held in contempt. That was why there was a hearing on the Proposed Order yesterday, where the judge in the case recused himself from the case due to the fact that the judge himself was filing a complaint with the Florida Bar. So YES, Blank Rome/Take Two was asking that Thompson be held in contempt of court, but no finding of contempt of court had been entered. SirFozzie 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
They didn't say entered, they said leveled. --Michael Snow 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's because if the Judge denied the proposed order, they never existed. It was a hypothetical. SirFozzie 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately Michael, given your self-admitted lack of experience in journalism, I doubt that you're in a much better position to make commentary on the legal consequences of Thompson's actions than GameSpot or any other site. Your insistence on using only mainstream sources not only hamstrings Wikipedia in terms of resources, but also in terms of credibility and respectability; after all, mainstream news sources rely on third-party or lesser news sources for some of their information, and with proper research, they typically USE them. Even blogs by virtual "nobodies" are used as sources, by your so-called mainstream media. As I have said in the past, information from gaming sites is allowable in the event that they link to their sources or proof of the story (and given how much gamers just HATE Thompson, many welcome the chance to find legitimate proof of his treachery). After all, the source of information, regardless of whether or not you find it via Google or link to it via a gaming site, still exists; finding it without the aid of a gaming site is simply cutting out the middleman. Add to that the fact that Thompson himself confirms some of this information (as SirFozzie so astutely pointed out), and that just gives further reasoning that gaming sites can be used. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Your points are valid for the most part but beating up Michael isn't the way to go as your criticisms apply to Wikipedia in general and not just this article. It's a known limitation of Wikipedia's policies. They tend to work rather well for most subjects but for a minority, including current events not reported by the mainstream press or academic publications, they do not work well. --ElKevbo 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What sources of the information are you talking about, then, PeanutCheeseBar? I haven't seen any site, gaming or otherwise, link to, say, the actual motion or proposed order, or any court ruling. If we had those, we might be able to use them. Instead they mostly link to each other, in typical echo chamber fashion.
It would appear that you've glanced at my user page, in an attempt to convert this into an argument about people rather than sources (a tactic you've already adopted before). Perhaps you should read it more carefully, in order to get a hint of why I might be in a position to "make commentary on the legal consequences of Thompson's actions".
As for the issues of journalistic practice, I may not have that much experience with it, but I do have some understanding of how it works. Reputable news reporters may sometimes learn about things from inferior sources, but the point of the process you describe is that they check their facts, so that they're not relying on those sources, they know the information for themselves. Your argument boils down to saying they get some of their facts right, so we should use whatever they say, without worrying about whether it's right or wrong. --Michael Snow 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
ElKevbo, my criticisms of Wikipedia go beyond this article, though that is not the issue at hand; this article is. That aside, I am glad you understand my points. Unfortunately, Michael does not understand my points; from what he is posting, he apparently has not read the most recent archive with subject matter concerning reliable sources. In addition, he has also not read and fully comprehended my last post; if he had, he would have realized that I stated that mainstream media may use information after having done research on the information, or found some kind of proof. After all, when information is passed down the line by multiple people, facts are bound to be changed or misrepresented, justifying the need to do further research; nowhere did I state that news should be constructed in a piecemeal fashion, as you've attempted to twist my argument into sounding. Furthermore, no matter what kind of "lawyer training" you have, I am fairly certain it is not all-encompassing, and unless you do the subsequent research based on the case, laws of the state, and so on, it does not necessarily make you a reliable or qualified person to speak on matters of litigation (as much as I'm sure he'd like to make himself out to be).
Beyond that, the mainsteam media is also subject to gross bias, and people aren't entirely ignorant of that fact; this is the reason why CNN is construed to have a Liberal bias, and FoxNews a Conservative bias. As I was attempting to iterate in a previous statement, the mainstream media is also guilty of not checking all its facts (or even worse, being ignorant of factual inconsistencies) before releasing news to the people. This is partially the reason why Thompson has made himself out to be a hero, because the media won't report on the extreme statements and legal threats he's made, and people don't know any better because they don't do any additional research. The worst part of it all is that he places the blame on people who play games, people who may them, and people who sell them, but NOT the parents who buy them. Why? Parents don't want to take responsibility for the actions their children take. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I've read the archives alright. I'll admit to not understanding your point, seeing as how it seems to be an argument that the sources currently being offered are reliable. As I've already pointed to instances of contradictory statements and flawed understanding about the legal procedure, I don't know how this makes any sense. I also don't see the point of rambling about generalized bias in the mainstream media - if you've got any reason to think any source currently in use is inaccurate or biased about Jack Thompson, by all means explain why and we'll consider removing it. --Michael Snow 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not what my argument is about at all; I've already broken it down into much simpler terms both in this discussion and in the archive. If you cannot understand it at this point, then there is little more I can do; I would have hoped that your "lawyer training" would have enabled you to understand my argument a little bit better, regardless of how simple I tried to make it. That aside, my "rambling" must be entirely lost on you, and that's all the more reason why you're not the best person to pass judgment, especially when some of the other people here understand my point just fine. --PeanutCheeseBar 11:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone have a link to Florida's case system online?

We can sidestep the WP:RS discussion if we confirm that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a proposed Show Cause order to the judge.. after all, if we just report that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a Show Cause order (as I put in, with no POV Leanings earlier in the article), and the judge deferred, as he had recused himself from the case due to partiality (due to the Florida Bar complaint), that should satisfy both WP:RS AND WP:NPOV, Correct? SirFozzie 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete his article altogether

I hate this guy. I don't understand why he can't just leave us gamers alone and go mind his own business. I even bought the toilet paper with his name printed on it on the internet! If he dosen't like the video game industry, that's his own problem, but he shouldn't ruin millions of other gamers time by starting these stupid petitions and a whole bunch of other legal crap just because he dosen't like the game. He is not worthy of gracing Wikipedia with his poisonous presence.

Unfortunately, as much as I wish the world could ignore him (I call him Whacko Jacko on a regular basis), he does definitely fall under WP:N, and Wikipedia is NOT only for the good folks in the world, and deserves an article. SirFozzie 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. We're certainly not going to delete the article on the Holocaust, so why would we delete an article on an ineffectual notable lawyer?--Vercalos 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There is no chance that this would get enough support on an AFD for a deletion. --65.95.16.170 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If anything, wikipedia has an obligation to document his gradual descent into madness and eventual downfall as he is disgraced, disbarred and dissapears in oblivion. VTNC 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with VTNC; for the sake of history and for the sake of taking a stand against Thompson's incessant bullying, we need to document anything that happens with Thompson. --PeanutCheeseBar 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't feed the trolls. --ElKevbo 12:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the guy is actually a troll. He's not being particularly offensive or annoying(Unless you happen to be Jack Thompson).--Vercalos 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the guy is a troll either; however, if he really wanted the article to be deleted, he will need better justification than what he has posted. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section summaries?

It's rather hard to read through the litigation section, could we break it down into cases with sub-headers: James v. Meow Media (Paducah), Lynch, Tennessee, Devin Moore, Best Buy "sting", Bully lawsuits, and Cody Posey? Or even move the case files to new wiki entries, such as with James v. Meow Media? Jabrwock 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With the size of the article, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but how many articles do we want? I know of one with his involvement in the Jacob Robida situation. SirFozzie 20:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is in my opinion too big. I think all the video game stuff should be placed in a seperate article, and a summary included here instead. Andersa 08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not yet in contempt, but complaint filed

I know I know, not reliable. But it's a heads up. Judge Friedman reclused himself from ruling whether JT was in contempt, apparently due to the fact that he had filed his own Florida Bar complaint against JT. JT grabbed by 4 police officers when he refuses to stop holding up a large posterboard in court. Destructoid will have the videotape of the event posted later. Presumably Take Two will ask the next judge to continue with the contempt ruling. Jabrwock 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the video: http://www.destructoid.com/jack-thompson. It also seems that Jack Thompson is a Mortal Kombat: Armageddon fighter as well. Boy, he sure seems to get around these days. :P (Oh, and apparently Jack is also demanding that Midway cease and desist because of this.) MarphyBlack 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There should be a section about his actions in the case Friedman is presiding over. It should also list his actions as outlined by the court reporter and witnesses. - 59.167.30.29 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack's background: Been in jail

At the end of the following article: http://www.destructoid.com/jack-part-deux-post-hearing-update

It is stated in a conversation between dtoid.com's Niero and Jack Thompson about how he felt in the courtroom, the following:

Niero: “So what was going through your head when those four officers were summoned into the courtroom for you?”
Jack: “I thought about when I was in college … I’ve been to jail before briefly …”

Over a parking infraction on campus. Hardly worth a mention... Jabrwock 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden courtroom video

This video was posted on the main article, removed, re-added by myself, then removed again; though some might argue that it is biased simply because of the person recording the video (or even the site that the video is linked from), it provides a look at Jack Thompson when he believes that the general public cannot see him, and thus it cannot really be spun by any media organization unless it is edited. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the video is useful. There are so many totally outrageous statements by Thompson in the article it becomes hard to believe that they are not being taken out of context or edited to make him look bad. The video is documentary proof of his bizarre behavior. If there is a better/ more NPOV way to present the video, that would be cool. I'd also like to hear the arguments against posting it. I'll refrain from adding it as long as the talk page is active and there is no consensus.Vegasjon 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think the gaming site thing dq's it again to others. I would support it, but let's see... SirFozzie 20:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I find that the fact it came from a gaming site is irrelevant, especially since the video was made by someone who would have a bias against Thompson. However, one can hardly argue that the video itself is biased when it is a direct recording of Thompson's own actions and words; the viewers can see for themselves what Thompson says and does, and it's fairly difficult to twist any of that around, short of editing the video. I agree with Vegasjon that something like this is useful in that it shows Thompson's statements aren't taken out of context, and it would be a great counter-balance to the lack of negative press that Thompson receives from the mainstream media. --PeanutCheeseBar 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't view the video right now, but perhaps trim the non-NPOV parts off/host it somewhere NPOV/etc? If it's him saying stuff, then it's very useful, but if people are worried about NPOV, then just remove the non-NPOV stuff. -Ryanbomber 16:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ack! NO! Wikipedia editors editing external sources to bring them into conformance with our own views of NPOV? Terrible idea. External sources are allowed to be POV. Further, any Wikipedia editor editing external sources on these grounds raises serious questions about editorial integrity and independence. Bad idea all around. Either we include it as a source/external link/etc. or we don't. --ElKevbo 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, that wasn't thought out to well. The wording makes me sound like I want to butcher the thing. I'm just saying that if the intro is ultra-biased, we cut it out (and source the original, obviously.) It would probabally be more graceful if, instead of tinkering with the video, we just quote him from it. I think it would be best to just quote the video in it's entirety, but I guess people like being ultra-draconic about NPOV, so we can't have nice things like that. Go wiki. -Ryanbomber 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why someone would modify their website or its content to be more Wiki-friendly; Wikipedia isn't the best role model, considering all the double-standards that it embraces. That aside, it doesn't matter where the video is sourced from, since most websites are POV in some way; given this, I don't see where it should be an issue to post this video. I'm certainly not seeing any reasonable "against" argument. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I finally got around to watching the video, and I think we shouldn't "really" link it, mostly because the audio is such terrible quality. It'd be easier to just quote from it and cite it - I don't think we should showcase the thing. -Ryanbomber 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
How? People will want to know the source of the video to verify the quotes, even if the quality of it is terrible. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Above is proof I shouldn't edit the wiki when I'm half asleep. I think I meant to say "don't give it an entire section to itself, but quote it and cite the quotes using the link." Maybe it'll work better on wikiquote. -Ryanbomber 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Over a month has passed since this was originally posted, an I haven't seen much objection or grounds for not posting the video. If I don't see any reasonable objections in the next few days, I'll repost the video. PeanutCheeseBar 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think it's appropriate to include as an External link. I don't think we should link to the video merely because it exists. If its notability were established then that would be different. Even in that case I would encourage you to use the video or discussion of it as a reference and not as an External link. --ElKevbo 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
How is not appropriate and not notable? Allegations of bias for or against the man concerning this article are thrown around frequently, and short of this video, there really is no other "live" proof that he is as off-the-wall as people have described him. It's certainly notable due to the fact that there is no other footage like this around, and also due to the fact that he is not aware he is being filmed, so he isn't acting unnaturally or hamming it up for the camera. I'm sorry, but failure to include this would not only be a blow to the article itself, but to Wikipedia's credibility. PeanutCheeseBar 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JT accuses Bully of "gay sex"

Letter he sent to retailers I hope some major media prints this. It's rediculous. He tries to argue that a homosexual kissing falls under various statutes in Florida, all of which deal with pornography, and so he can legally ban Bully from being sold to minors. Jabrwock 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reckon it's worth adding to the hilarious Bully section of the article? Sockatume 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
God.. If he's able to pull that off, some uncle's going to get sued for statutory rape for kissing his nephew on the cheek.--Vercalos 03:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Wait Gay sex between 15 year olds - dosent that mean he's accusing bully of containing child pornography?
If he does that, he'll lose what little credibility he has left.--Vercalos 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
He has credibility???64.12.116.73 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. --Averross 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated the section dealing with Litigation

And broke it down into four sections,

Early Litigation (vs Quake et all)
Thompson V Grand Theft Auto (Maybe should have its own article?)
Thompson V Bully (Maybe should have its own article?)
Miscellaneous Litigation (the Cease and Desist order to Midway, etcetera)

What do you guys think? SirFozzie 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it, it's easier to read now. That section was too long before, it wasn't clear how it broke down. Jabrwock 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of changing is maybe Jack Thompson vs Rockstar/Take-Two article and linking it to cut down on this article. I think Jack's Personal Crusade against Rockstar is note worthy enough to make a note of, but can it be done in a NPOV article? This way we could just say in the Thompson article that Thompson has been in court against Take-Two and then point them to the appropriate article. --Tollwutig 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So has anyone read the Rolling Stone article yet?

If so, is there anything that should be added to the article? --Maxamegalon2000 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't got it yet, but will keep an eye out for it now that I know Whacko Jacko's in it ;) SirFozzie 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it quotes him as being a Zappa fan (I guess he just wants to sue the pants off anyone who would provide Zappa to children...). He also apparently still makes a living off medical malpractice suits. Jabrwock 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So he's an ambulance chaser..--Vercalos 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article at B&N. Sad news is that there really isn't anything new except what's already been on GP and on Wikipedia. Same old 2 Live Crew story and about his lawsuits, plus a quote from Doug. The one thing that caught my eye were the last 4-5 paragraphs about his son. Someone at GP already sumed it up. But as a whole I'm not sure if there's anything worth adding to WP.KungFu-tse 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think if we're careful we can mention how he makes a living, though we obviously can't call him an "ambulance chaser" unless the article uses the phrase. I think we can add a sentence somewhere. And maybe just mention that he has a son? --Maxamegalon2000 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be acceptable to mention that he makes his living as a medical malpractice lawyer. 139.142.43.31 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Include another subhead for activism against shock jocks?

Currently there's brief mention of his involvement with Howard Stern being taken off air in the 'Other Activities' secition. This might be slightly expanded upon (such as exact involvement, others involved, and details such as specific racist comments aired on the HS show that JT reported to the FCC), as well as mention of previous action taken against other shock jocks many years prior to that. That's some interesting background info. Efrafra 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Include more quotes/info to provide greater balance?

Please don't think I'm trying to root for JT in suggesting this. It just seems that the most interest taken in this article is by those who think he's evil/loony and thus has a lot of emotional investment. As Vercalos rightly implied, the Holocaust could invoke violent feelings in people, but the purpose of Wikipedia is supposed to be informative rather than affected by opinion, emotion, or agenda (even in "Controversy" sections).

Since this is a biographical entry, I wonder why there seem to actually be more [negative] quotes made about JT by others than specific details about the various litigations-- the latter of which would make sense to detail more in the light of how they affected courts and the connection with other cases. Not to say this is not a well-written article. While I did see a few quotes from JT himself, there isn't a lot of representation of 'the other side' of the story. Censorship makes everyone get fired up and while I'm definitely not in favor of censoring everything (and thus, the topic makes me antsy) I think that sometimes we get fired up before actually considering the details of a given litigation or the object of the complaint objectively-- perhaps we care more about blocking censorship than considering/examining the individual cases. I'm always amazed when I realize that I've made a hard judgement on something without actually knowing about it. In the same way that JT wasn't smart to denounce the [albeit WEIRD] Left Behind game without actually checking it out first hand, I wonder why I was so quick to think he should've left 2 Live Crew alone until actually stopping to actually objectively consider the lyrics my 11 year old male classmates were yelling at the girls. Just saying--there's more to the value of having this entry than for the reference of seriously annoyed gamers, although that's the most recent issue. JT may be over the top, but a more balanced entry will be of more use to the public. Efrafra 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if the article's unbalanced it is unbalanced FOR Thompson, not against. SirFozzie 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? I'd say it generally makes him look like a fool in the subtlest way possible.. I don't think we have any sources on him doing a single decent thing(other than his video game litigation, which he obviously thinks is right). In all honesty, I find it hard to believe that he's entirely without any redeeming qualities, so I have to wonder if he's ever helped someone without hurting others(IE charity, etc).--Vercalos 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
As much as I want to be optimistic about humanity, I have yet to see any sort of redeeming quality or act about Thompson. As for charity, he's not good at it. Feel free to find something and contradict me, though. -Ryanbomber 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, everything he has done to make himself notable enough to end up on Wikipedia has the side effect of making him sound like a raving lunatic.Adam613 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if it's true that the article may appear subtly biased, there has been a best effort to try to make the article neutral. This is similar to the John C. Turmel article - you can still detect some bias in the article, if you know what to look for. Likewise, you can still find some "positive" information, in the same way you can find positive information in this article. The only difference is the quantity of sourceable stuff that can be found (although these two articles are currently held to different standards). --Sigma 7 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The article makes him look like an idiot because he IS an idiot. As neutral as you can be, you shouldn't distort the facts to make something more "neutral." We're just saying what he's done, we're not giving any opinions (except on Talk, I guess,) and it's up to the reader to decide what they want to decide. It's not our fault if everybody decides he's an idiot because he does stupid things. As much as I hate pulling a Godwin, Hitler's the best example of this. He's NOT a nice person. There's no real way to make him look nice, nor is there any reason to. The facts speak for themselves - we shouldn't have to sugar coat them. -Ryanbomber 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the quotes and details from the litigations can't be printed due to their coming from unverifiable sources, but their inclusion would actually make this entry seem MORE biased, because they illustrate even MORE how much a tool JT can be. From temper tantrum emails, to nearly getting himself arrested in court for acting like a 4-year old, to threatening everyone under the sun who says anything bad about him. Believe me, the contents of this article are the "nice" side of JT... Jabrwock 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Why was Jack's photo removed? Even if it was a copyrighted image, given that it was being used to illustrate, y'know, what he looks like, and for no other reason, wouldn't that fair CLEARLY under fair use? Fieari 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the fair use criteria prohibits non free images "just to show what a person looks like", because, you know, someone doesn't want people to be seen. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Who knows WHY you can't have photos of living people to show what they look like... Granted, I just skimmed the article, so if there's some way to get a photo of him up, it'd help until he whined enough to get it taken back down. -Ryanbomber 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GTA advertising a "criminal conspiracy"?

T, under pressure from cops, eyes way to kill vile ad Boston Herald, Nov 21, 2006

Jack Thompson, a Florida-based lawyer who battles violent video games across the country, said the MBTA is prohibited from promoting violent and sexually exploitative material. “It is utter nonsense for the MBTA to suggest the First Amendment somehow prohibits it from not participating in a criminal conspiracy,” Thompson wrote to Grabauskas yesterday. “What’s next? Bus ads for crack cocaine?” Jabrwock 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pbth. If this guy really believed that he would have been on the movie front from the minute "Pulp Fiction" was released. 203.131.167.26 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! JT's a genius! I'm calling the bus company as soon as I get home from school! --Averross 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Forget Uncyclopedia, this stuff is hilarious. 129.21.109.90 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Blocks

I'm not entirely sure this could be used a source, so I'm not adding it myself. The April 7 entry mentions Jack Thompson stating his opinion on the lawsuit involving five girls who hung mario blocks around town. In my opinion, somebody more knowing should add this particular incident to the article. 69.130.136.214 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say we probably can't cite a personal website that's video game-related for this article for two reasons: It's a personal site, and the site is video game-related. --Maxamegalon2000 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Quanz isn't a personal website, it's the home of Dinosaur Comics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I only meant that as a primary source, the site is not usable as a source here. If it were notable enough to be in the article, it would have been covered by secondary sources. --Maxamegalon2000 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what dumbasses. At least it gives me a new level to make for my Jack Thompson video game.--Averross 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other public commentary

I was just reading through the archive and noticed that some of JBT's more... colorful remarks regarding the Muslim religion had found a decent source (the Sun Sentinel), but were not included in the main article. Now I'll admit to being already pretty biased against Thompson, so please tell me if you think this shouldn't be included, but I thought it might do well in the "Other public commentary" section. Something like, "In an interview on the XXth of XXX, Thompson said the following-". Thoughts? --64.218.89.103 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If sourced properly (and not just shoehorned into the article), I have no problem with it. SirFozzie 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The article in question is "Puritanical Intolerance is Scarier Than Stern Himself" by Michael Mayo, in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in April 2004. Thompson is quoted as saying:
"The Bible doesn't promote killing innocent people. Grand Theft Auto does. Islam does. ... Islam promotes the killing of innocent people. The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels. Not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition."
I think when we talked about this in the last archive, we agreed that it was an acceptable source, even though the article is a commentary, but we never decided where it would go. In the original article, it came up in a discussion about GTA, but the Islam stuff doesn't seem to fit there. Thoughts? I've just added it as a source for another quote I added to the article. --Maxamegalon2000 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I was thinking it might go well in the "Other public commentary" section. Don't know if that part was around during the previous discussion, but since its here now, I think it would fit there. --64.218.89.101 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe add a section "Thompson quotes on Islam" in "Other Public commentary"? SirFozzie 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABC News Nightline: "The Virtue Vigilante"

Anyone catch Nightline last night? The text article as well as the video is up.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2722827&page=1

KungFu-tse 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it, but i don't see how well it would relate to the article (almost everything in the video is already in here, i could be wrong). Still, it does provide us with more evidence of his inability to accept anything that hurts him "Studies have shown a decrease in crimes amongst teens", Jack's blatant reply: "That's not true". Prehaps it could be added somewhere into the article about his views on subjects? Inferny 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJack_Thompson_%28attorney%29_c45d.html"