May 24, 2007
Yesterday, the combination of Halo 3 and Jack Thompson proved irresistible to gaming sites, many of which picked up on a Game Almighty story detailing the controversial Miami attorney's vague threats regarding the release of Microsoft's upcoming blockbuster.A number of readers sent in tips to GP regarding the story, and we thank you all for that. The truth is, however, that GP had already received Thompson's letter to Microsoft but declined to publish it. The simple reason for that editorial decision is that there's nothing there. The letter is a mere threat on Thompson's part, and not even a well-defined one.
While we certainly don't fault Game Almighty for running the story (Lord knows, we've given Thompson plenty of ink here at GP), we've arrived at a point where we'd rather not publish the game-hatin' attorneys threats and ultimatums, unless they have some extraordinary news value or offer unintended humor, as in the recent Wendy's nonsense.
If Thompson files a legal action against Microsoft, we'll cover it, of course. But that seems highly unlikely. Why?
1.) there's no legal basis. The "public nuisance" tactic Thompson tried with Bully last year failed in court
2.) Take-Two's lawsuit against Thompson earlier this year showed that the attorney will likely back down in face of a potential Microsoft suit
3.) the publication of Halo 3 is an absolute free speech issue
4.) the letter is self-aggrandizing bluster, nothing more
Finally, we can't help but remembering another threat issued to Bill Gates by Jack Thompson. On August 12th, 2005, the Miami attorney warned the Microsoft chairman not to release an Xbox version of Bully, writing:
Dear Mr. Gates:
You have fifty-four (54) days in which to stop the release of Bully on XBox.
Govern yourself accordingly.
That was, um, about 650 days ago. Bully has come and gone. We're still waiting...
GP: We note that a number of sites, including, surprisingly, Slashdot, carried a headline stating that Thompson has sued Microsoft. He has not; he has merely threatened some vague legal action.
Comments
1) I'd like to see him try to touch Microsoft. If he thinks Take-Two and Rockstar are big fish, just wait until he tries Microsoft. Hell, if they wanted to, maybe not through legal channels, but I bet they could just have him disbarred. And I doubt if they sued him, they'd accept any offer of a deal from him.
2) I'm starting to wonder if these vague threats he keeps making are themselves prosecutable. He's making threats of legal action through no proper channels and making it a public spectacle. But at least when he does it, it takes away from his credibility.
And that's my two cents that have been stated over and over again about anything he does and says......
This site is not massacre-chasing Jack Thompson's blog, but to run every single letter and press release he sends out it would become one.
Not news: angry old codger sends vague threats to Microsoft.
News: angry old codger gets sued back to the Stone Age and disbarred.
Exercise those reading skills.
What is this with the argument that playing games in any way shape or form makes you compitent to use a weapon... I've played Halo and I suspect that if someone gave me a sniper rifle, i'd probably end up holding it the wrong way round.
Is it just me or do you become good at firing a gun by... firing guns... but that would be critising gun ownership which it seems even JT isn't mad enough to do!
I don't think anyone is saying it was wrong for one site to run the story and one site not to. It's an editorial decision that needs to be weighed. You did so and decided to run with it. Fair enough.
But I agree with Dennis' point. Between chasing massacres, Jack is really just an organ grinder monkey dancing around and trying to stay in the spotlight. I can't say he's irrelevant because unfortunately people still listen to him.
thank you for not posting every petty email thompson sends you. i appreciate the integrity of this site.
if anyone really wants to hear everything thomposon does, you can just join his myspace (:
Awesome reverse posting mind trick... Off to do it on my site :)
At this point, Jack might qualify as a NATIONAL nuisance, but...
There's nothing wrong with your reporting of Thompson's activities, and certainly no need to apologize for doing so.
I assume Dennis' decision (please correct me if I'm wrong) is based on the following premise: news should be noteworthy. It should be relevant. As much as Jack Thompson likes to make noise, the Halo story will amount to precisely nothing.
It's nothing new. It's just Thompson shouting at the rain. He issues a vague threat (and sends copies to everyone he can think of) to a large "evil" corporation and then.... nothing. In a grandiose fashion, he's announcing to anyone who'll listen, "Here I am! Look what I'm doing!"
All he's doing is letting everyone know he's still around.
I'm not advocating not reporting on Thompson just to spite him, or to cut short his fifteen minutes. What I'm saying is that his impotent threats are not newsworthy.
If he files another abortive lawsuit or contributes to another doomed legislative effort, fine. Report it. It's news. These "I'm still important" emails? Not so much.
Because Bill Gates didn't stop the release of Bully on the Xbox. Take-Two did.
Not to mention that the game was canceled for the Xbox AFTER the 45 day threat had passed and Jack-o still claimed it as a victory himself.
Let's give it up for inconsequential loopholes and an idiot who's too stupid to know when he's lost.
I wasn't too thrilled to read this article, mostly because I'm tired of reading about Jack Thompson's little yips that are just there to annoy the gaming community. I'm really glad that GP won't report those yips (though the Wendy's nonsense was humorous). Let the dog howl, give us something to really gain our attention.
Now, I've had to think long and hard about whether or not to post a lot of the tripe Jack dishes out. On the one hand, I'm not looking to extend his fifteen minutes of "fame" any more than the next guy. On the other hand, regardless of how those of us in the industry may view him, there are still uninformed people who think he may have a point.
In the end, I decided that Jack's worst enemy is himself. As I told Jack during our exchange this week, I question his conviction and believe he's lost sight of his "purpose" while chasing down the spotlight. The man called into question my integrity as a journalist, claiming I had no interest in "fair coverage of an issue" after reporting on the Wendy's fiasco. And yet, with every story, I offered him a chance to respond, and even went so far as to offer him a chance to address the audience he is so critical of with an uncensored opinion piece. He chose to decline every time, turning everything into a personal attack like a bully on a playground.
Here's the thing ... the main reason that, as much as I disagree with him, I still report of Jack's activities: I tend to believe in the audience, and in their right to make informed decisions. See, while I may stand by my thoughts and opinions, I refuse to force them onto others. Unlike Jack, I won't dismiss someone out of hand simply for not conforming to my way of thinking. In fact, sometimes, I learn more from those who DO differ from my way of thinking. People need to to be able to make informed decisions. If that means letting someone like Jack get a word in edgewise, I have to accept that and hope that when people look at all of the information, they see just what type of person they are dealing with. As the old saying goes, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
Having said all of that, there's more
Now, I've had to think long and hard about whether or not to post a lot of the tripe Jack dishes out. On the one hand, I'm not looking to extend his fifteen minutes of "fame" any more than the next guy. On the other hand, regardless of how those of us in the industry may view him, there are still uninformed people who think he may have a point.
In the end, I decided that Jack's worst enemy is himself. As I told Jack during our exchange this week, I question his conviction and believe he's lost sight of his "purpose" while chasing down the spotlight. The man called into question my integrity as a journalist, claiming I had no interest in "fair coverage of an issue" after reporting on the Wendy's fiasco. And yet, with every story, I offered him a chance to respond, and even went so far as to offer him a chance to address the audience he is so critical of with an uncensored opinion piece. He chose to decline every time, turning everything into a personal attack like a bully on a playground.
Here's the thing ... the main reason that, as much as I disagree with him, I still report of Jack's activities: I tend to believe in the audience, and in their right to make informed decisions. See, while I may stand by my thoughts and opinions, I refuse to force them onto others. Unlike Jack, I won't dismiss someone out of hand simply for not conforming to my way of thinking. In fact, sometimes, I learn more from those who DO differ from my way of thinking. People need to to be able to make informed decisions. If that means letting someone like Jack get a word in edgewise, I have to accept that and hope that when people look at all of the information, they see just what type of person they are dealing with. As the old saying goes, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
Having said all of that, there's still more "behind the scenes" adventure that went on prior to and after the article went up on Game Almighty. That's a story for another day (no, really ... it's actually going to be a story on another day). In the meantime, I still have to stand by my decision to let Jack have his say ... and let the readers decide for themselves what to think and what to believe.
Okay, time to step down from my soapbox.
Later all,
David
Perhaps we should throw what he throws at us. Or even half would still make us look like the humane ones.
Sure, it got reported, but only in making a point. Focus on the real story. The story can be boiled down to the following: "Here's what happened. Here's why we didn't report it and won't in the future. Move along."
Criticizing GP for mentioning the Halo story is akin to someone exiting an argument by saying, "I'm not going to talk about SubjectX any more" and you pointing a finger and saying "Ha! You just did! I win!"
My point is still the same though. What's the difference in waiting a day to report it? It's still being reported. No high and mighty viewpoint will work in defense of it.
Never thought I'd say it, but Jack Thompson is boring.
I do look forward to hearing about his FBA woes, however. Because, well, that's damned amusing.
So, please, everyone just ignore him. He is like the bogeyman, if you don't believe in him then he will lose his power, and be forced to go work flipping burgers at McDonald's, provided he hasn't sued them, in order to pay his massive court fees.
Na going after video is passe. LOL
(Props to Killer Instinct)
"Anyone have proof of Jack taking on Best Buy and winning? I don’t seem to remember that one."
You can just look on Jack's wiki entry. Jack did sue Best buy for selling an M rated games... but two things to note is, one, Jack sued them on the grounds of selling sexual materials to minors (GTA), not violence... two, from what it sounds like, the case never went to court and Best buy simiply agreed to do a better job at self-enforcement (and best buy already had an enforcement policy)... So ya, all Jack managed to do was get Best buy to make a non-legally binding agreement to to do a better job at what they were already doing.
Its just another case of Jack exagerating his "Victories"... y'know, Jack either gets something insignificant done and blows it out of proportion (Helping in Hillary's responce to Hot Cofee), or he gets something Big done, but then something happens that makes his victory completly moot (Louisiana anti-game law getting passed, but then dying in court)
It's the same with computer games, just because someone goes nuts 'in the style of' a computer game, that in no way suggests that the Computer Game was the cause.
Lmao. It's true the Halo series has a very large following. (Which I'm part of) If you go to the Bungie.net forums you can see a few letters to Jack Thompson from Halo fans.
Which leads me to my point. I think the only reason he's targeting Halo now is because of its Massive Fanbase.(and because he cant throw random claims at Grand Theft Auto anymore) Thus more people will pick up on it and he'll stay noticed for longer. He's very entertaining though. Still I wish the gaming community would just ignore him...
Jokes aside, did Thompson really think his empty threat would work or is he just trying to rile us up?
Jack still has peers? I mean besides the ghost of Dave Thomas.
Jabrwock:
Did the b*****d ever get put to death finally?
PHOENIXZERO:
Since apparently it's against the law to prove him wrong.
Lost Question:
Trust me, he's *that* stupid.
halo in my opinion was overrated by the ESRB. it could have gotten away with a T rating because of the low gore, plus the fact that you are not killing people in the game, instead you are killing aliens and stuff.
It was somewhere along the lines of "you have x number of days to stop the release of San Andreas" and the classic "do it or else" at the end.
However, I'm sure there will be a lot of Xbox Live fanboys raving and drooling about this through the wonders of voice chat in due time.
Andrew Eisen
Hardly.
Bully for the Xbox was cancelled (again, almost a year after Thompson’s threat) not by MS or Bill Gates himself but by the publisher. Why? Pressure from Thompson or anyone else? Nope. The Xbox 360 had been out for nearly a year. Xbox was pretty much dead. That’s why the publisher decided to pull the plug on the Xbox sku.
Andrew Eisen
Ha, i was always waiting for someone to edit that PBF comic and put Jack in there... except instead of Microsoft, i was thinking Constitution/1st amendment
1) Didn't Bill Gates retire?
2) Halo is ultraviolent? I haven't played 2 or 3, but the first game was rather tame as far as FPS's go. IIRC, low amounts of blood, no gibs.
http://spong.com/article/12693/Jack_Thompson_Halo_3_We_Check_Facts?cb=658