Way too negative: Jack Thompson

@Jeysie -

I have a couple of issues with the "if not for Thompson, maybe we'd have to deal with real censorship" line of thought (which has been around since he first became actively interested in campaigning against video games).

For one, the United States isn't Australia in that the First Amendment pretty much guarantees that the U.S. government will never go quite that far - and even if they tried, judges would smack it down in courts (as they repeatedly have in the past).

For another, the Moral Guardian that has succeeded more than any other in terms of throwing up roadblocks to video games in the U.S., Sen. Joe Lieberman, both managed to become more prominent and successful after his attempts (almost like the anti-Thompson) and avoid getting a trope page.

But perhaps most importantly... Thompson was disbarred almost three years ago. If video games were under a threat for censorship in the United States from a source other than Jack Thompson, his disbarrment would not have impeded those others from acting in any way. And yet, pretty much every effort to censor games in the U.S. died with Jack Thompson's legal career.

Other than Thompson, every focused effort to censor the video games industry in America either died quietly in courts or ended when the industry put the ESRB in place. He was kind of like the video gaming boogeyman, but in the end, he did nothing. Sean Murray I has it right - he's no more worthy of troping than Phelps and others of his ilk.

The question shouldn't be, "Is he relevant to Video Games?"

The question we should be asking ourselves is, "Is he relevant to TV Tropes' intended purposes (defining and recognizing tropes in works and media and cataloging the works and media that use the tropes we define)?"

I don't think he is. He isn't a trope; he doesn't use tropes; he doesn't create works that use tropes; he's just a guy people are looking to hate on.

edited 13th Jun '11 2:56:44 PM by SeanMurrayI

This guy doesn't need a page, he isn't relevant to tropes at all besides being the first thing to come to mind when you ask a gamer to think "Moral Guardian".

Cut, slash, and burn.

edited 13th Jun '11 4:05:38 PM by MousaThe14

The page is now on the cutlist.

Meh.... I don't see why he shouldn't have a page- He's appeared in a few different works as a character (or No Lawyers Were Harmed version of himself), and, while he didn't create any works, is responsible for the creation of... what was it, Im OKA Murder Simulator?

Best thing to do would probably be to sandbox a decently neutral version of his page and lock it or something, but it doesn't need to be cut.

Agreed. Make a neutral version of the page and lock it to be safe.

And, of course, if people want to make similar pages for other Moral Guardians (such as BADD or the perpetrators of the Hay's code), they can, though those should be neutral and locked as well.

If he's been used as a punchline in works, then I think that a good compromise would be to make a concise, clear page explaining who he is and why he serves as a punchline or Acceptable Target. Then lock it.

^^ But why? What do they have to do with tropes or cataloging tropes in works they appear in?

We don't give Fred Phelps a neutral page, despite his many documented contributions to reality and media.

edited 13th Jun '11 7:20:36 PM by SeanMurrayI

Seconding (thirding? fourthing?) a cut. He's neither a trope, nor a work, nor a creator.

But we used to until it got out of hand and had to be cut. He was just too much flame bait.

edited 13th Jun '11 7:32:05 PM by shimaspawn

He's basically a Public Domain Character (I have no idea on the legality of that), as are the others. He deserves a page similar to how Dracula deserves a page.

EDIT: Ninja'ed

edited 13th Jun '11 7:35:12 PM by Discar

I think his page should be kept, for reasons stated before.

^^ That's not what Public Domain Character means. And Fred Phelps isn't a character, anyway. He's a person (granted, that is very hard to believe).

More specifically, he's just another crazy, attention-seeking slimeball that somehow manages to get more exposure in media than he deserves. Like Orly Taitz. Or Newt Gingrich. Or any other such person. None of these people deserve our attention. They don't need pages, no matter how neutral you can describe whatever it is anyone would want to say about them.

edited 13th Jun '11 8:19:41 PM by SeanMurrayI

He might count as a Historical Domain Character, and I think we have pages for some of those (e.g. Hitler). However, I'm not sure if that can (or should) include living people. There's a danger of every publicity-seeker or celeb who ever got referred to in some kind of work getting their own page if we follow that logic - as I said earlier, this stuff is best left to Wikipedia.

EDIT - Looks as if the cut-listing has been declined. Either we have to make the case for cutting more persuasively, or try and do something to make the page more neutral.

edited 14th Jun '11 9:26:34 AM by captainbrass2

Page has been neutered and locked.