Jack Thompson vs Amazon? 300
Zorglub writes "Feeling his book page at Amazon has been harassed by bad reviews, nasty tags, and a user-submitted vomit pic, anti-game lawyer Jack Thompson threatens to sue Amazon if the offending material isn't removed."
Eh, Slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have the right to not be offended (Score:5, Insightful)
Message board is scary (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Jerk writes book.
2. People who hate the jerk play underhanded amazon tricks to sabotage book on Amazon.com
3. Jerk complains to amazon that such tricks are clearly against amazon's rules and asks amazon to remove the offending material, which amazon does poorly or incompletently.
I expected the mesasgeboards there to be filled with "I disagree with what Jerk says, but I respect his right to say it in a fair way", instead it is full of Vigilante Logic such as pointing to Jerk's supposed jerk activities in a vein of "two wrongs make a right" logic criticizing the guy for asking for amazon to play by its own rules.
Sad.
Re:Amazon safe (Score:4, Insightful)
Not doing themselves any favors... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you kick somebodies leg... (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, people as outspoken (disrespectfull) as Jack should not be surpriced to be called upon. He really think he can get away with saying thing that hurt people without retaliation?
Wake up to the world Jack!!
Re:Message board is scary (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with what Jerk says, I don't respect what he says or how he says it. But I do respect his right to say it.
Having said that, I respect the people who review his content to have the right to say what they want to, in reviewing the content.
criticizing the guy for asking for amazon to play by its own rules.
I don't know what rules these are, or how well they're enforced (for example, is it okay to write a "review" when your the author with the express purpose of flaming everyone else? I don't know, but Anne Rice did it). I expect Amazon's rules to be enforced as well in this case, as they do without the threat of a lawuit. But I think you'd find not everyone here is aware of Amazon's review rules or how well they're enforced. Besides which, a lot of the tags associated with his book are fair.
Re:You don't have the right to not be offended (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Child's play (Score:1, Insightful)
It's almost like saying that Intelligent Design is science because it offers an explanation (Jack offers video games and media as an explanation for todays "violent" culture, while culture has actually been more violent in the past).
ID is no more science than any religion. Some of us know that. Some of us also know that life pre-20th century wasn't exactly easy. Life was violent. Mid-20th century made life for people like him much easier.
Life is about perspective, and Americans (myself included) don't have the experience to understand hardships and violence the way people did pre-20th century or even most of the world today.
So, if Mr Thompson is reading this, you might want to give thought to the possibility that we aren't living in a culture of violence, but that we are a violent culture despite your best intentions.
Re:he must be kidding! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Message board is scary (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how filing a review of a book that contains what is self-evidently an unfounded argument that claims that the argument of the book is unfounded is underhanded. It's what the review system is there for, right?
Re:Message board is scary (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with many things, but I only get upset by one-sided debates and conclusions made without reason. So as long as it's said "in a fair way" I respect their opinions. I may debate their opinions which is enjoyable for both parties if thought has gone into the respective conclusions for both sides (who doesn't want to get another person on 'their side'); but debate does not indicate disrespect of their right to have an opinion.
Re:You don't have the right to not be offended (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:he must be kidding! (Score:0, Insightful)
Then maybe they should remove the book entirely (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Do nothing and get sued.
2) Remove the offending comments and get a reputation for censorship.
3) Remove the book entirely from the Amazon website and don't sell it anymore.
I guess 3) would be the least painful version, and it would also show Thompson that he cannot do business with Amazon AND tell them how to run their website. Good riddance.
Re:amazon took a bad review down for us (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not doing themselves any favors... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the most common fallacies (I believe anyways) is that when superficially presented with two conflicting arguments, many people believe that the 'truth is in the middle'. Trouble is that when one is an insane rant (think 40% of Fox News), a logical conclusion if often rejected, however, it's really hard for any fair minded person to go to the opposite opinion, often it doesn't make any sense. So the best counter to an insane argument is satire (think the Daily Show).
Re:You don't have the right to not be offended (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't have the right to not be offended (Score:3, Insightful)
Trash talk on Amazon simply proves Thompson's point: that the gamer hasn't the maturity to cross the street alone.
There are damn few public forums where gamers have a chance to break through to a larger audience. Amazon isn't obliged to provide you that platform.
Re:Amazon page and tags (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pictures attached to the book (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I feel sorry for the Amazon staffer in charge of reviewing submissions. After hitting Slashdot I don't even want to guess how many times Goatse got submitted, not to mention who knows what else.
Poor Jack... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, in a classic Thompson mistake, he chose to run his publicity stunt in a way that invited people to respond. The response was overwhelming, and those who opposed Jack's particular flavor of moral outrage were able to make his stunt fall flat while being gracious and generous themselves. In the meantime, the legal actions which might have helped sales of the book were being challenged. The intended political pot stirring barely reached beyond the smaller audience of gamers themselves, for whom the message was a non-starter.
In the end, the book only served to damage Thompson more, because it was beamed toward a highly sympathetic audience. Had he managed to create that audience, the book would have done well. (Imagine if he had stayed on the Alabama case and made it into the OJ Simpson Trial of video games.) As it stands, without wealth of pre-existing sympathy for his ideas, people are looking to the book for some justification of Jack Thompson's crusade - as is reasonable to expect from a 200 page book. They aren't finding that justification, because the book was never intended to have substance of its own. It is a symbolic book. People reading it undecided can only see that Jack is a very angry, egotistical, and unreasonable person.
So let this be a lesson to those who would ride the crest of public outrage to sell themselves - when you wipe out, you wipe out hard.
Re:Amazon handle fake reviews badly (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd propose that instead of doing this, people would actually read the book in question and then leave their rating. People should not leave reviews for books that they haven't read, not even as a form of vigilante justice.