Thompson Sues Kotaku Parent Company
Thompson Sues Kotaku Parent Company
April 25, 2007
Controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson has named Gawker Media, parent company of the popular game blog Kotaku, in a lawsuit before a federal court in Florida.Thompson's ire was apparently raised by Kotaku reader comments which the attorney maintains are threatening. He also alleges in the complaint that Kotaku and Gawker declined to remove the posts in question. Those messages were posted in response to Kotaku's coverage of Thompson's claims that video games prompted last week's Virginia Tech massacre.
The Gawker suit is actually an amendment to an action Thompson filed on March 13th against the Florida bar. On April 11th he amended it to include the members of the Florida Supreme Court. And now Gawker joins the list of defendants.
This morning a Gawker attorney e-mailed Thompson, citing the case of Zeran vs. AOL and writing:
It is clear from the context of these comments that they are hyperbole, and not an incitement to violence, imminent or otherwise.
Earlier in the week Thompson reported Kotaku to the Denver Field Office of the FBI as well as the Denver Police Department. This morning he contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, where Gawker is headquartered. It is unknown what type of response, if any, he received from those agencies. He also complained about the matter to Levi Strauss, Inc., a Kotaku advertiser.
Kotaku editor Brian Crecente declined to comment on the lawsuit. The judge in the case, Paul C. Huck, threw out an earlier Thompson suit against the Florida Bar in December, citing at the time what he referred to as Thompson's "wild accusations of a vast conspiracy."
Read the complaint here. Related Kotaku coverage of the FBI report here. Kotaku discusses the lawsuit in a brief posting here.
UPDATE: The Law of the Game legal blog has an analysis of Thompson's complaint. Attorney Mark Methenitis concludes:
While many of [Thompson's] claims are relatively novel, they also seem to be relatively poorly constructed as a way to include a blog he particularly dislikes.
Comments
Also Cho's roommate has said that he did not play video games (The Daily Show's take was excellent on the blame game).
And really, that post was just an expression, nothing more. Saying that you wish someone would get shot, isn't the same thing as wanting someone to die. It is nothing more but an expression when you dislike someone or someone's opinion. But Jack Thompson doesn't care and thinks that he is more important that any individual on this planet.
I am awaiting the news when this gets laughed out of court.
Jack Thompson sues Kotaku for countering everything he says.
Holy crap man, I hope this doesn't actually become a real court case. At least we have the numbers on our side. Chances are it won't.
I'm not for it but we can sue for anything.
I asked my sponsor to our radio Vince Desi what he thought of JT being all over the TV.
http://guradio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=382
You needn't worry about every single blog and forum because there is absolutely no way he can win. In fact, I predict it will almost certainly be dismissed before it gets to court.
"This is ridiculous. This guy really needs to be stopped trying to sue everyone who is against him. Kotaku hasn’t done anything wrong. And this most likely is about that one post on there. They can’t possibly be held accountable for what a poster says."
No, they can't. The power of Section 230 of the Communications decency act is immense.
In before the comment-splosion. I predict this thread will reach Epic proportions. I'm talking Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise epic.
Anyway, I also predict hilarity will ensue.
What a fucking tool.
Saying it'd be nice if harm came to someone isn't very nice and perhaps not too clever on the part of the poster, but it's legal. The illustration I always heard to demonstrate this: It is legal in the US (not nice, but legal) to stand up in a bar and yell, "I think all Muslims should die!" It is not legal to stand up in a bar and yell, "Hey, fellas, I hear there's a lot of Muslims in the place down the street, let's go rough them up!"
Course, he could just be trying to choke the pro-game side with lawsuits and hope that either the legal costs and constant legal exertion turn into wins somehow. But that's a dangerous game, as he could get stuck with legal fees if he loses. There's also Rule 11, which penalizes someone for "harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation" (wikipedia). At the rate JT's been going, he might be dangerously close to stepping over the Rule 11 line.
@AbzumZer0 I am not really worried myself, to be honest. I have posted in the on livejournal when the massacre chaser was threatening all of us to give away our private information. I wasn't worried then and I am not worried now. It was just an "if" in my post, I know he can never possibly win this. So I do wonder that if he pulls through with the case, why he is doing it? I doubt this will even help him in any way against the "evil games and gamers".
of course he hasn't been know to grasp freedom of speech very well.
i, for one, am sick of being labeled as some sort of about-to-snap pre-murderer just because of my hobby.
I just spent the last 15 minutes reading your complaint. And I find it to be utter nonsense.
Since lawyers generally charge around 200 bucks an hour, you know owe me payment for reading this tripe.
You total is 50 dollars.
I guess I'm going to have to sue you for it.
Anyways, is there a way to block JT from actually suing more people? I was thinking that if one us helps kill more of his major crutches, meaning his targets for lawsuits, then his ability to get his face out there could take a hit. Would there be such a way?
Well, there's already legal precedent against Jacky Boy, so he's already lost.
Jacky Boy still doesn't know how to practice what he preaches.
This has been said many times before but I'll say it again. Suing someone for libel or slander is very hard to do. You have to prove that the person intently lies to harm, deceive, etc. Problem with Jack Thompson is, he truly believes what he is saying.
On another note, I just found out that the laws work differently here than in the rest of the United States and Canada and that a belief in the truth is not enough to be absolved or found innocent of defamation charges. Now if we can just find a way to lure Thompson here.
"Problem with Jack Thompson is, he truly believes what he is saying."
John Hinkley believed shooting the president would make a movie star love him.
"Jack Thompson Vs. World"
Anyone else thinking of Boyd Cooper from Psychonauts?
~Otaku-Man
Sue everyone, everywhere, all the time. The software will automatically spam the universe with a canned "press release" about your brand new lawsuit, and it will copy the FBI, CIA, KGB, Whitehouse, Jimmy Hoffa, and Anna Nicole Smith on all the correspondence.
Contact suetomatic@jackthompson.org for pricing!
"Since then, the New York Times has reported this past Sunday that upon driving their son to Virginia Tech, the parents of Cho hoped that in going to college he would leave behind his immersion in video games. The chances of that, with no parental supervision, were slim and none, and Slim just left town."
Not unless he mentions someone by name.
Individuals can sue. Non-affiliated groups of people with a shared cultural trend cannot.
First, it's his usual rambling style. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like you'd want to make your points and make them somewhat punchy, instead of reading ten pages of your past legal endeavors before mentioning the point of the lawsuit. Plus the usual inflammatory rhetoric - lots of opinions where facts would suffice.
The basis for some of his claims is that he does what he does out of a religious conviction and that the parties named are depriving him of his freedom of religion. A bit of a stretch, if you ask me. Course, I might be misinterpreting it - but legal documents shouldn't be leaving so much to interpretation if that's the case. If other people don't get what your problem is after reading your claim, then the fault does not necessarily lie with them.
The complaint against Kotaku's parent company says that in allowing posts that mention violence against him they're part of a campaign of extortion and threats against Thompson. He almost has a point in that Kotaku says somewhere on the site it'll remove threatening or harassing posts - but I don't think that's a contractual agreement, as he asserts, but a warning to not make such posts. Plus, there's a difference between promoting an act of violence and simply saying you'd be okay with one. Unless you're the President, possibly - the President might be an exception, but JT is not the Prez, so it's moot anyway. Plus, he's a public figure, and public figures generally aren't as protected from color commentary as non-public ones. So, yeah, the whole thing seems like a bit of a stretch, the occasional good points are lost in a sea of unnecessary fluff, and the part against Kotaku seems especially weak.
What I find funny is he uses words like "liberals" like its an insult. yet aren't liberals the ones who are usually backing up his terrible legislation? way to go nimrod.
If (and I do say if, Jack has a notorious reputation of weasleing his way out of these situations) everything stacked against Thompson were to fall on him at one (The Bar complaints, the lawsuits, etc.) The absolute magnitude of all of it would crush him out of the public square entirely.
Go Florida Bar! Crush the Massacre chaser. :D
(( I've got a TON of sugar in me. Sorry if I'm being too.... enthusiastic.))
Instead of... a bunch of hyperbole, invective, and paranoid rantings?
Is calling people Stalinists a proper legal term?
I've read some of Jack Thompson other filings before but this one is certainly the most insane so far. He truly believes there's some left-wing, anti-religion conspiracy against him.
Did you people see the part where he compares himself to Jesus Christ? That's at least one thing Cho and Jack Thompson have in common.
"No, they can’t. The power of Section 230 of the Communications decency act is immense."
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service(kotaku) shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.(Commentors, but not Kotaku's writers)"
So looking it up, bascially it says that in this case, Kotaku can not be held responcible for what is said by the commentors; correct?
I skimmed over the whole document, some parts made me laugh, some parts made me want to off myself-- this man makes me embarrased to be a human being. Claiming that he's the only "sane" lawyer in Florida is one of the points that made me laugh. Just about all of the rest of it made me physically ill.
Also, I notice how despite this being a legal document, he still finds room for namecalling, baseless insults, and outright lies.
Jack - give it up. You're going down this time. At least take it like a man.
I literally have a headache from (attempting) to read Mr. JB Thompson's complaint.
Only a matter of time before any authority will ignore him completely.
~Sol~
I recommend the gaming populous in America, as a whole, get together and file a class-action suit against him as an individual, on the basis of defamation of character, slander, harassment and libel. He's not just going after companies, he's going after the entire gaming population of America, and the world! He's actively trying to make the world think gamers are cold-blooded killers, eager to shoot each other in the face, who don't know anything about everything, and has gone on record to call gamers as a whole, some rather disgusting slurs, with sexual overtones at times.
Wouldn't it be possible to file a lawsuit on that basis?
"Specifically, an Internet web site at www.kotaku.com, within mere minutes
of Thompson’s appearance on the Fox News Channel, posted a call to action by its
“editor” Brian Crecente, who is a video game industry apologists as to its excesses, its
illegalities, and its Stalinist tactics."
Wow Stalinist tactics, never would of guessed
I'm still amazed his Fla. Bar page says he's in good standing with the Bar...
once again climb onto The Bar’s psychoanalysis couch so that he could be evaluated by
the Florida Lawyer’s Assistance Program! There they went again down that bunny trail
of harassment, having learned nothing because it wanted to learn nothing."
Is that proper legal talk?
entertainment consumption"
B-U-L-L
organized a campaign to stalk actor George Clooney, for example, learning nothing from
the stalking of Princess Diana."
What the....?
Probably this, regarding Clooney:
http://gawker.com/news/george-clooney/so-does-this-mean-george-clooney-w...
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
But why is Jacky suddenly using such unprofessional language. Lots of exclamation points and wird bits in this legal document.
Jack himself has stated his son is emberrassed that JT is his father, and his son tries not to mention that's he's JT's son. Jack doesn't seem bothered by it though.
@Gil
He's always been somewhat unprofessional and incoherent, but it does seem a little more prevalent lately.
He made it to "good standing with the Florida bar" before he said something utterly ridiculous.
Ya, nice to know he put the ENTIRE quote in there.
Does anyone know if JT is still facing possible disbarment from the Folrida Bar, or was that settled in the T2 settlement?
"It appears, but it is not absolutely certain, that this kid got
Thompson’s e-mail address from Kotaku.com. What a surprise."
or maybe, just maybe jack, he got your email from one of the many places that you have it posted as a mater of public record, such as at the bottom of each and every one of these complaints
I just read the complaint, and I was wondering, is it really necessary for him to state that he is "at least 18 years of age" after stating he is a U.S. citizen? Or do you think he feels compelled to add that because so many people would consider such an outlandish and rediculous claim immature and childish?
I think Jacko needs to get whatever *competent* lawyer rewrote his T2 countersuit to go over this. I'm just surprised he's not filing it in Floridqa again. It just... boggles the mind that this guy can turn in crap like this, honestly think people will take him seriously, and *still* call himself a lawyer.
Oh, well. The more he defecates all over his own credibility, the sooner he'll fall out of the public eye.
As I understand it, the T2 settlement dropped the Contempt of Court charges, but the Florida Bar situation is a completely different animal. It's still ongoing, which is probably why he's tacking this 'WAH THE MEAN KIDS SAID BAD THINGS ABOUT ME' idiocy onto the suit against the Bar.
From: http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/MEStatus?OpenForm
“Members of The Florida Bar in good standing shall mean only those persons licensed to practice law in Florida who have paid annual membership fees or dues for the current year and who are not retired, resigned, delinquent, inactive, or suspended members.”
Andrew Eisen
I honestly think that within five years he will have attempted an act of violence against someone affiliated with video games. I'm certainly not hoping for it, but Jack has been acting even more unhinged than usual lately. I think it's entirely possible that he'll become physically dangerous some time soon.
His legal ramblings have been getting, well.. stranger and stranger the last few years. Not that i'm a fan of the man or anything, but, it's starting to look disturbingly like dementia.
He's of an age where ahltzimers starts to take hold, if he has it. Symptoms are the only way to tell, besides an autopsy.
Ignoring my distaste of the man, that's not something I'd wish on anyone.
He's really losing his grip, he's turned into that caracature of a Sue-happy American. I'm genuinely beginning to wonder if he is truly ignorant to just how ridiculous he is, I used to think he did it as some kind of act, that he was some kind of showman, but watching him flail around like this after being shot down by mainstream news, well... It's a bit embarassing.
“Jack Thompson Vs. World”
Anyone else thinking of Boyd Cooper from Psychonauts?
~Otaku-Man
I own Psychonauts but I got stuck at the fish boss? Is that the infamous Milk Man level?
Damn you Cho for bringing him back! >_
*sigh* Jackie is censorship personified. Its like he had a soul exchange with Joseph McCarthy but got distracted by 2 Live Crew while getting it.
Seriously, I WANT to be through with venting about this guy! But everytime gamers and I get used to his absence, something comes up and he jumps on his horn and blurts out the most idiotic things that even people with half a brain slap thier foreheads!
But at least it gives GP something to talk about. And its also a big relief the mainstream media is catching on and somewhat taking our side on the matter.
Thank you, I'll see you next time he does something through-the-roof-stupid. Cheers.
"(is plaintiff allowed to say that?)"
What made you ask that?
"unco5nstitutional" ?????
is "politicking" a word
apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with you obviously miised the debate
From the literary genius who brought you Floridqa!
Unlikely. He apparently can't be bothered to even buy a word processing program with a spell checker and run that. Why would he go to the effort of using a bunch of forumers as spell checkers if he can't even be bothered to have some software do it for him? Not to mention it's a little late for spell checking after you've already filed something with the court.
And I'd love to send him something about the work I'm doing right now (I'm a psych/soc dual major). We're using video games as a medium to teach social skills to kids with ADHD, autism, etc. and it has been having amazing and fast results. If I did though, and I'm completely serious, I wouldn't be surprised if he sent me some kind of cease and desist order and then tried to get our program shut down.
I DARE YA!
yup i think i read that right he is suing the courts
Now this...
It's a good thing he hasn't seen his entry over at urbandicionary.com.
Perhaps he missed this part:
In American jurisprudence, a lawsuit is said to be "frivolous" if it is filed when the suit is filed even though it lacks merit.
Sometimes an attorney may be motivated by greed or malice --or ignorance--in bringing a frivolous case. Federal law prohibits attorneys from bringing frivolous cases, and the judge can impose a penalty (monetary damages) on the attorney.
I would love for JT to sue me. I would take him for half of everything he owns and leave the other half to anyone foolish enough to be married to him.
I feel like they're a joke for letting one of their own run around like this and make a mockery of all the other great people working for the Florida Bar.
Seriously, what is going on? JBT has been degrading the integrity of the Florida Bar for a long time now, with one near-slap-on-the-wrist and little to no other administrative intervention to keep him in check.
I keep hearing that the Bar is looking into it. For God's sake, make a move already-- they've got a member parading around on national television, making the Bar seem like they're okay with turning courtrooms into circuses and hire anyone who passed "U.S. Government" in high school.
With JBT being one of the most publicized members of the Florida Bar, I can't see how they would allow him to go on like this for so long with the way he handles himself-- He is not only representing himself, but he is also representing the Bar as well, and I would not want to have someone out there on the airwaves representing me in the manner that JBT represents the Florida Bar.
There are many, many people out there studying law who want to make a legit living doing what Jack does, and they're working their asses off for it. It pisses me off more than anything else that Jack does to know that there are so many deserving people trying to make a career in law, and Jack is out there being dead weight, mocking those who have actually dedicated their lives to studying law trying to make a decent living doing what they love so their families can live in a nice house and not have to worry about money.
The Bar needs to drop Jack and let a new, qualified person have a chance in the field. One person is trivial to anyone else, but to that one person who studied all those years to work in law, it's all the difference.
You're right, I forgot about that. To remove any confusion, when I say representing, I was meaning how he is doing this trash while being a member of the bar. He may be suing them, but he also works for them and goes on national television on his, and their behalf, making messes.
If I'm wrong again, correct me.
Now that you reminded me of him suing them, it makes it all more confusing to me. Why does the Bar let it fly? I don't understand why they keep him around when he is pulling this act.
Is it an issue of letting him go, only to have him fire back because he was "unfairly disbarred"?