Take-Two warns Jack Thompson to back down ... again

by Alexander Sliwinski { Aug 31st 2007 at 12:15PM }

And the Jack came back, the very next day. Yes, the Jack came back, they thought he was a goner, but the Jack came back -- he just couldn't stay away. In April, Jack Thompson entered into an agreement with Take-Two to essentially back down from his constant harassment of them, in exchange they would not continue their legal actions which could get him jailed or disbarred. In late June, the signs were already there that the agreement was starting to fall apart. Now GamePolitics has an exchange between Take-Two and Thompson, which Thompson made public, showing how the original agreement meant nothing.

If you've never witnessed a Thompson email exchange, you should definitely head over to GP and soak in the madness and try to hold back saying aloud, "You must be kidding me?" The exchange is between Thompson and Gena Feist, Take-Two's VP and Associate General Counsel. Thompson says some inflammatory things, Feist responds -- eventually getting to the point where she knows she can't reason with him. Feist writes, "We entered into the settlement agreement because we did not want to engage in unnecessary litigation with you, but I assure you that we will enforce the terms of the agreement if necessary and that any suit will include a claim for our legal fees under paragraph 11." That's legal talk for "sit down and shut up." Maybe with all the BioShock money Take-Two is making they can afford to finally end this legal bout once and for all.

Oh, and in case you have no idea where the image comes from, we've placed the video after the break. We find it appropriate.

Tags: jackthompson, lawsuit, settlement, taketwo

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

rivaldi22 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:19PM

I loved that animated short as a kid.

WedgeTalon @ Aug 31st 2007 7:47PM

Agreed! As soon as I saw the image I thought to myself "Self, as soon as you finish reading this article, you MUST go out and find that animation!" And lo, Joystiq shined upon me in all of its warm, fuzzy goodness and bestowed upon me said video. and the world was once more peaceful and right.

Well, at least until Jack issues his next press release.

Thumpah @ Sep 1st 2007 5:58AM

The Cat Came Back... The Cat's Perspective - http://thefump.com/fump.php?id=84

Word of the street. @ Aug 31st 2007 12:20PM

I believe this is the most appropriate comment...
"Oh God,not this s*hit again..."

Patrick @ Aug 31st 2007 1:51PM

No, this would be better "What the Fu. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh"

Sean @ Aug 31st 2007 4:11PM

Shaq Fu?

comtar @ Aug 31st 2007 11:49PM

Your comment reminds me of how I parody Symphony of the Night.

"Ah Alucard, what brings you here?"

"I've come to destroy this castle."

"Oh not that shit again."

Chris @ Aug 31st 2007 12:21PM

There are worse things than violent games out there, like drugs - why can't he fight drugs or prostitution, he could even fight children skipping school but nooo he has to fight games which entertain people.

zwarren69 @ Aug 31st 2007 3:43PM

Drugs and Prostitution are more areas thats shouldn't be touched on. Its someone else's life let them do whatever they wish with it. Legislation and Prohibition never offer good results, only black markets, violence, gangs, and resistance groups. I am sick of this socialism crap. Don't tell him to go spit his religious influenced bullshit elsewhere. Instead, just don't take it at all.

Ron Paul 2008

um..wow @ Aug 31st 2007 12:22PM

Jack Thompson not listening to his own legal agreement? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya.

Lifted 0ne 4l9 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:24PM

How is Jack Thompson not in a mental asylum yet it baffles me.

Zaphod Beeblebrox @ Aug 31st 2007 2:05PM

Bong tokin alcoholics
420 Mario FTW

BPM @ Aug 31st 2007 2:21PM

Somehow... JUST SOMEHOW... He passed a mental exam as being sane... @_@

Poisoned Al @ Aug 31st 2007 3:25PM

Yeah, by a shrink HE PAID FOR.

Lifted 0ne 4l9 @ Aug 31st 2007 5:19PM

Zaphod it's 420 Luigi :)

Word of the street. @ Aug 31st 2007 12:35PM

Thanks you so much for the video I couldnt found it by myself in youtube.

samfish @ Aug 31st 2007 12:37PM

Dude, I remember that little cartoon! I loved it when I was a kid.

Awesome.

GCNH87 @ Aug 31st 2007 12:40PM

Unless I have it backwards, this video says Jack will win..

Word of the street. @ Aug 31st 2007 12:41PM

Or that Jack Thompson will Die and torment 2K for all the eternity.

Bushy @ Aug 31st 2007 12:41PM

Thompson's emails remind me of a forum troll; stupid, banal, nonsensical, and rutting useless.

I'm actually kind of glad that the main advocate for banning violent video games is some crackpot, unaccountable, loony.

Monthenor @ Aug 31st 2007 12:46PM

Jacko no Onageshi?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0347618/

Tim Shundo @ Aug 31st 2007 12:49PM

It was half way through this story when I realized I misread Jack Thompson as Jack Johnson. I was going through reading this like, "but he seemed like such a peaceful guy!"

... :P

samfish @ Aug 31st 2007 1:12PM

I'm Jack Johnson.

and I'm John Jackson.

hvnlysoldr @ Aug 31st 2007 1:25PM

And I say we're not going far enough on the 72 cent tin tax.

dan stabbingworth @ Aug 31st 2007 1:34PM

And I say your 72 cent tax doesn't go too far enough!

Maybe Jack Thompson will go into T2's house during the night and wreck up the place.

Grant @ Aug 31st 2007 1:05PM

i really don't understand how a lawyer has this much free time on his hands. does he just not practice?

that email exchange was like watching a 3rd grader argue with their teacher, jack literally has no poise or dignity left.

borntokill @ Aug 31st 2007 1:11PM

Jack is actually right though. Any agreements which restricts his speech are defacto unconstitutional and void. Hes agreed not to personally litigate Take-two (which is a nonsense agreement which he can break at any point); but he certainly never agreed to remain silent. Thats a basic right of his.

Call him crazy or an asshole, but Jack is not stupid when it comes to the law.

Liquid @ Aug 31st 2007 1:24PM

Taken from a poster on game politics:

"Whether the “settlement” counts in the same manner, there are plenty of legal documents that exist that legally prevent individuals from making comments or taking certain actions. Documents which could be seen as violation the Freedom of Speech of individuals, yet are legally binding.

Certainly, Confidentiality Agreements and Non-Disclosure Agreements are such documents. And formal Gag Orders are also among them as well."

Not sure of the accuracy of these claims, but what this poster said certainly makes logical sense.

NATO_Duke @ Aug 31st 2007 1:58PM

Just because you paint it with law in your argument doesn't mean you are right.

"Any agreements which restrict his speech are defacto unconstitutional and void" is soooo untrue. Confidentiality agreements for employment or after litigation are valid and upheld under contract law. There are also many forms of speech that are limited and controlled, such as hate speech for instance. The 1st amendment is not so liberal that you can defame people or break your own contracts regarding the same.

Also, "He’s agreed not to personally litigate Take-two (which is a nonsense agreement which he can break at any point)" Yes, he can breach it at any point - its called breach of contract, and it is something that the other party can litigate as soon as it happens. An agreement to no longer litigate for events surrounding prior litigation is valid. If he continues to try to fight with them over the same issues, then he is in breach. Nonsense or not, he signed on using his own free will. Unless he wants to argue that he was legally insane when he signed, and therefore was not competent to acquiesce to contract terms.

Lemmiwinks @ Aug 31st 2007 2:13PM

As I understand it, Freedom of Speech protection in litigation pertains to criminal cases. This would be a civil case in which a document was agreed upon and signed by both parties. Slander, harrassment, NDA violations... they all can be damaging offences with a a doller amount assigned to them in civil court.

They can't take you to jail for your freedom of speech, but there are many instances where you can be taken to the cleaners for things you say.

NATO_Duke @ Aug 31st 2007 2:31PM

Lemmiwinks,

This has nothing to do with the subject, but just as a factoid. Speech can get you thrown in jail.

A threat made to a judge will get you locked up, or speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action, which is also likely to incite or produce action gets you a trip to the hole. The idea is that public policy demands for safety are compelling and need to come first. Its the good old Brandenburg test. (Yay law school!)

borntokill @ Aug 31st 2007 2:39PM

You cannot alienate your right to free speech in a contract; especially not a private contract. That goes without saying that its unconstitutional. If take-two has an issue about slander, that is a different story and still be a mighty tough case to make. But certainly, any contracts in which you forfit your right to speech on a public forum is absolutely worthless. you cant do that

NATO_Duke @ Aug 31st 2007 3:34PM

borntokill - You are wrong. Go to law school, quote some case law, and then hit me with that.

You are simply wrong. Just because you hear that blanket statement made by people doesn't mean you are right. I graduated from law school friend, I have studied this junk a lot, and you can't persuade me that the Supreme Court is wrong because you think it" goes without saying that its unconstitutional."

I don’t mean to be harsh, but you can’t make a definite statement on something you don’t have the case law to backup. The 1st is not as wide open as you think. It’s wide – but not nearly as wide as you wish it was. You can certainly contract free speech away in many respects – If I rent a shop in a mall I can contract away the right to place a sign in the front window, or to advertise with handouts, or to scream “eat at Joe’s” at people walking by.

Hell, forget it, I can’t teach you 1st amendment constitutional law in a blog thread. Believe what you want. The law be damned.

Lemmiwinks @ Aug 31st 2007 4:13PM

Yo Nato,

Thanks for the info. I think I kinda knew that, as it's pretty obvious these days that yelling "bomb" (or "fire," for that matter), can land you in the clink.

Sorry for piggybacking on your thread, borntokill.

duerra @ Aug 31st 2007 4:44PM

@borntokill,
Umm... you are wrong. Dead wrong. You absolutely CAN contract away your right to free speech. Not only that, but people do it all the time. Go tell your web hosting company, for example, that you have a free speech right to host pornographic material on their servers, even if their ToS forbid it. Then take them to court and find out just how easily it is to contract away your right to free speech. That was a very ignorant comment.

Free speech is only guaranteed against criminal charges filed by the government, not against civil lawsuits.

Rob @ Aug 31st 2007 7:36PM

He's not stupid when it comes to law? You mean like his "bulletproof" law he wrote in LA that the judge practically laughed at?

And he is free to go into a contract that limits his speech. He's not forced to accept the deal, he can turn it down and have all the free speech he wants.

Ashraam @ Aug 31st 2007 1:13PM

Personally, I hope Jack keeps pushing them until they decide to take it to court and hammer his ass. He needs to be taken down a few hundred pegs. Maybe if we're really lucky he'll be disbarred.

WiNG @ Aug 31st 2007 1:18PM

Jack, I know for a fact you read these comments.

Jack, you are an immature man-child. You don't do this for moral or ethical reasons. You just like hearing yourself talk and believing you have power over other people. The only people paying attention to you are your deriders and a scant few who have been tricked into thinking you actually care about children. It is only a matter of time before your perversions become apparent to even your supporters, and the whole world is turned upon you.

Having claimed so many religious motivations before, you have only acted to benefit yourself and demean others. You are clearly a master of some dark charisma; why don't you put your legal and humanist skills to use in the service of Christ's will instead of this constant, inane, self-aggrandizing idiocy?

Sincerely,
the Internet

Crono @ Aug 31st 2007 1:55PM

LOL @ "Sincerely, The Internet"

But you are absolutely right. He's deceived more than spoke the truth. He is not acting in a Christ like manner, at all. Jesus didn't force anybody into doing anything, he let people decide to follow Him or not.

Almack64 @ Aug 31st 2007 3:00PM

I agree, I also think what's happening to Jack is an example of what happens when people try to use their God-given gifts and talents simply for their own gain snd such... but that's a topic for another place at another time...

NATO_Duke @ Aug 31st 2007 1:22PM

It's people like Jack that have made Professional Responsibility classes more necessary than ever for people training in the legal field. It is also people like him that have made bar associations treat incoming lawyers like they are the enemy from day one. Thanks, that’s something to be real proud of as we all collectively give you the finger.

Almack64 @ Aug 31st 2007 1:22PM

Wow... I mean wow, you must be kidding me...

oops

Up until now I always thought Jack had some problems but after reading that email exchange I have the opinion that this man has some serious issues.

I'm actually surprised he passed his psychological exam, then again maybe tests don't work when an insane grown man acts like a normal small child.

Crono @ Aug 31st 2007 1:58PM

I seriously think its all a show. His public persona is quite insane, but privately (and legally), Jack Thompson himself is more than capable of passing a psych eval.

Just proves he doesn't actually believe half the stuff he's saying.

chenry @ Aug 31st 2007 1:31PM

sweet baby moses, what the hell is wrong with this guy? He's just a bully with a law degree. He's... he's a frat-boy-lawyer. "You trying to pick a fight? huh? huh?? C'mon, I can take you!"

Zertoss @ Aug 31st 2007 1:32PM

I like how Wacky Jacky misspelled "because" as "becasue." Freudian slip?

BPM @ Aug 31st 2007 2:28PM

How is it a Freudian slip? "Becasue" isn't a word... That's just a typo.

Slaziman @ Aug 31st 2007 3:35PM

prolly has something to do with beca"sue", you know, irony and that stuff?

but i honestly don't know

Zaphod Beeblebrox @ Aug 31st 2007 1:33PM

This guy reminds me of my 2 year old. I mean it Ronan, do it one more time and youre going to your room.
Why does Take 2 coddle this asswipe? Please Take 2, do us all a favor and nail his ass to the wall. Stop treating him like a misbehaving little kid and put him in his place.