Jack Thompson accuses Rockstar of an "obscene assault" on his character

[CptStern]

"Thompson's complaint, issued under the heading, "Rockstar Launches Web Site for Obscene Assault on Miami Lawyer Jack Thompson," concerns a series of fictional e-mails depicted on the game's promotional site [GTA:Liberty City], one of which is from "[email protected]". GP leaves it for the reader to puzzle out the acronym of JT's fictional .org domain.

"When you click on the fake e-mail, banner headlined at the tope of the home page, from "JT," the Miami, Florida (Liberty City) anti-violent video game crusader, you will find that JT (Jack Thompson) likes to surf the Internet for pictures depicting deviant sex acts by teenage girls. Additionally, there is at the site an audio ad featuring a man whose name is "Jack" who is found naked by a mother in her son's room. Bisexual pedophile Jack Thompson is the combined message."

Thompson continues:

"Take-Two/Rockstar has created and paid for an actual Internet web site at www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org for the purpose of furthering the notion that its most abiding and most effective critic, Jack Thompson, is himself a sexual pervert. This is the oldest dodge used by the porn industry, first used on Jack Thompson by radio pornographers whom Thompson got fined by the FCC in 1989...Jack Thompson can assure the world that the only thing to which he is "addicted" is eating entertainment industry scofflaws for breakfast - and golf."


source



heheh ...anyone figure out what's the acronym for this site?

www.[B]c[/B]itizensunitednegatingtechnology.org




check out the site for some funny emails

 

[EC]

Citizens
United
Negating
Technology
For
Life
And
People's
Safety

 

[Qonfused]

Rofl!!

 

[CptStern]

hehe

here's 9 reasons to turn off the internet:

THE INTERNET IS A PORN HIGHWAY TO HELL.

9 OUT OF 10 CHILDREN ARE PREYED UPON BY PERVERTS AND SICKOS, INCLUDING TEACHERS.

THE INTERNET TEACHES YOU HOW TO MAKE NUCLEAR BOMBS, OR PROTEST THE GOVERNMENT.

IT'S EASY TO GET INTO DEBT ON THE INTERNET, WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT, FOR EXAMPLE BY ACCIDENTALLY GIVING A PORN SITE YOUR CREDIT CARD DETAILS.

THE ONLY FRIENDS YOU MAKE ONLINE ARE NERDS, LOSERS OR PERVERTS. BECAUSE EXCEPT FOR YOU AND ME, EVERYONE ONLINE IS ONE OF THESE.

THE INTERNET TEACHES KIDS IT'S OKAY TO TAKE HEROIN AND SELL YOUR BODY FOR KICKS, WHEN, IN FACT, IT ISN'T OKAY AT ALL.

WHEN I WENT ON THE INTERNET, I FOUND MYSELF LOOKING AT PICTURES OF NAKED WOMEN AND ACTUALLY ENJOYING IT. THIS IS A *REAL* SHAME.

BEFORE THE INTERNET, WE HAD *NO* PROBLEMS.

THE DEVIL USES THE INTERNET, EVERY DAY.

 

[Axyon]

Hahah, if any games company had the balls to do this, we all knew it would be Rockstar.

 

[Asknoone]

 

[Vegeta897]

Hahahaha, this is classic

 

[Sulkdodds]

Quoted for Shens.

Wait what the ****? They don't actually say he "likes to surf the Internet for pictures depicting deviant sex acts by teenage girls". He did it accidentally. :upstare:

He's actually got nothing.

 

[Harryz]

I literally can't stop laughing. Imagine a world without Rock*?

 

[Shakermaker]

I saw ****.org when browsing thru the Liberty City Stories site and it really made me lol. I like how Rockstar stands it ground this way. Don't back down; fight the guy with your own weapons.

Jack Thompson should be doing something useful, like helping out in Louisiana / Georgia, not launching stupid Don Quichote attacks at game companies in general, and Rockstar in particular.

 

[Chris D]

I love Rockstar

He's complaining, but maybe he should think to himself "Well, if I wasn't such an anally retentive twat then maybe they wouldn't have made this ****flaps.org". I blame Jack Thompson for everything.

 

[Icarusintel]

f*ckin hilarious
i stand by my sig on this issue

 

[CrazyHarij]

Rockstar owns, there's just no doubt about it. They kick ass in every way possible.

As for personal e-penis points, a longtime friend of my brothers is employed by them.

 

[Reaktor4]

i dunno why rockstar are taking the piss out of him, theyre just as bad with all their drugs are evil crap in san andreas.

 

[Reginald]

i dunno why rockstar are taking the piss out of him, theyre just as bad with all their drugs are evil crap in san andreas.

Have you noticed that most of the time they are putting down drugs. The main character is put off by drugs and quite often only the shady/evil characters use them. Hell, the main storyline is trying to stop drug-dealing. It's no worse than Pulp Fiction where heavy drug use is indicated, but both times, it shows fairly offputting scenes.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, but...uh. Drugs are scientifically proven to have ill effects. Besides, the games industry isn't illegal and doesn't kill thousands of people all the time.

 

[rocketman44]

ROFFLES!!!
go rockstar!

 

[Reaktor4]

Yeah, but...uh. Drugs are scientifically proven to have ill effects. Besides, the games industry isn't illegal and doesn't kill thousands of people all the time.

the drug laws kill millions and do a lot more damage to the world besides that. they are the #1 problem with this planet by a country mile.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Oh really? Not war, poverty, disease or human nature?

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

Oh really? Not war, poverty, disease or human nature?

There'd probably be a lot less of all that if drugs were legal..

 

[Reaktor4]

Oh really? Not war, poverty, disease or human nature?

yes really.

 

[bliink]

Only in America!

(no.. really... if it happened here, rockstar would be commiting defamation )

 

[Raziaar]

Haha. that website is awesome! Goooo rockstar!:imu:

I'm still waiting for a GTA game on the next gen consoles. It would be awesome having a 5 times san andreas side world, populated with about 10 times more vehicles and pedestrians on the roads! How awesome would that be!?

 

[Sui]

oh YEAH, of COURSE drug laws cause poverty, war and the basic human nature. If we all just got high everything would be fine.

 

[Sulkdodds]

yes really.

If you say so. Personally I don't see how getting ****ed up on heroin could really help anything.

Edit: Beaten by Suicide.




BUT ANYWAY!

Isn't it quite likely that Rockstar will get done for defamation of character?

 

[Sparta]

I fail to see how. Its implied that they're having a go at Jack Thompson, but they never actually mention his name so i dont think thats actually against the law.

 

[jimbo118]

yeah shaker showed me this the other day, lollerskatz!!!

 

[Link]

Aside from anything else, given they don't mention him by name, to claim he recognized himself in that means he musy have done what they say...
"likes to surf the Internet for pictures depicting deviant sex acts by teenage girls"
"who is found naked by a mother in her son's room"
Ok jack, so you admit you are a raving perve. Now, remind us how you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Kyorisu]

Only in America!

(no.. really... if it happened here, rockstar would be commiting defamation )

How can that website cause thompson damages revelvant to dollar form? Well I suppose he would lose clients.

Oh wait what clients? the guys a whacko.

I fail to see how. Its implied that they're having a go at Jack Thompson, but they never actually mention his name so i dont think thats actually against the law.

Down here (Aus. Diff in other countries) you don't need to actually mention their name. As long as the general public understands what it refers to it's still defamation.

 

[Shodan]

I wonder what little shit plays all these games, then reports what he/she doesn't like to the man himself...

Because if JT played through all these games to see what he finds offensive, that would be a tad ironic wouldn't it?

 

[bliink]

How can that website cause thompson damages revelvant to dollar form? Well I suppose he would lose clients.

doesnt need to be economic damages either..
In australia, defamation is "a false statement about a person that is likely to damage their reputation in the community."

however, for any defamation action to succeed, it must pass these tests:
1) was it defamatory?
2) does it refer to the person? (can be implicit or explicit)
3) was the statement published? (websites count)

 

[Kyorisu]

doesnt need to be economic damages either..
In australia, defamation is "a false statement about a person that is likely to damage their reputation in the community."

however, for any defamation action to succeed, it must pass these tests:
1) was it defamatory?
2) does it refer to the person? (can be implicit or explicit)
3) was the statement published? (websites count)

Yes yes I know all that, It's written in my legal studies book. Anywhoo defamation usually ends up dealing with sums of money or a specific task or act i.e. an apology.

 

[bliink]

Anywhoo Defamation usually ends up dealing with somes of money or a specific task or act i.e. an apology.

yes.. an apology will reduce any malice there may seem to be, but it is never a defence, and its not like an apology would save rockstar in any court

 

[kirovman]

the drug laws kill millions and do a lot more damage to the world besides that. they are the #1 problem with this planet by a country mile.

I agree, I'm feeling up for a pint of heroine myself.

 

[DreamThrall]

a pint? wtf

 

[bliink]

a pint? wtf

he's gotta wash the crack down with something!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Rockstar won't get in trouble for this since it's quite probably classifiable as parody.

 

[bliink]

Rockstar won't get in trouble for this since it's quite probably classifiable as parody.

parody is a term that is more applicable to 'fair use' rather than actual people

but still, they've got the 1st ammendment, so they can get away with it.

 

[CptStern]

jack thompson is only referred to as JT ..he doesnt have a hope in hell of sueing rockstar for defamation ..he couldnt prove that Rockstar meant Jesus Tortelvis or Justine Timberlane or Juan Titocalcatolla ..in other words he'll be dismissed as the paranoid rambling fool that he is

 

[bliink]

jack thompson is only referred to as JT ..he doesnt have a hope in hell of sueing rockstar for defamation ..he couldnt prove that Rockstar meant Jesus Tortelvis or Justine Timberlane or Juan Titocalcatolla ..in other words he'll be dismissed as the paranoid rambling fool that he is

it would succeed in Aus though..

there was a case where a newspaper published a fiction story about an amarous preist, whose ficiticious name "artemus jones" was the same as a barristers who lived in a different town.

the barrister won damages because people reading the article may have thought it referred to him :|

(case was in 1910 though..Hulton v. Jones) but precident is what our legal system works on.

EDIT: so many misspellings.. i'm tired.