[Tanukitsune]

YEAH!

[RLacey]

Is this a victory for common sense and decency?

[Karmillo]

Could this be the end of Jack Thompson?

Why do people care about this guy anymore again?

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by SamNMax

Why do people care about this guy anymore again?

Cause he's there? well...not for long atlease

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by SamNMax

Why do people care about this guy anymore again?

He's a symbol for a view point shared by many. What makes him special is he is a dumbass, he doesn't make much logical sense. When picking someone to make an example of a viewpoint, pick the dumbass. He is weakening the position of censorship with every word. Groups that are for censorship are backing away from this guy who they once supported because he is saying crazy shit that they couldn't possibly back.

He isn't in government, he doesn't make any rules, he isn't even important. He is a lawyer, that scares me that he could be one. The media seems to value his opinion, that scares me more.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Judge Moore has taken the motion to revoke Thompson's license under advisement, and is also considering a motion to have the entire suit dismissed on the grounds that the First Amendment applies to videogames. The defendants' laywers also claim that Devin Moore's actions could not have been foreseen.

I hope they go all the way with this.

Why do people care about this guy anymore again?

Maxsie, use your brain. Thompson is HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL, MEDIA MATERIAL, IN THE PUBLIC EYE. He may not be a governor or congressman like Ahhh-nold Schwarzenegger or Joseph Lieberman and can steer legislations against video games, but he is still a powerful bigmouth. I'm seriously hoping he's stripped of his license and exposed for what he truly is.

Originally Posted by Aj_

He's a symbol for a view point shared by many. What makes him special is he is a dumbass, he doesn't make much logical sense. When picking someone to make an example of a viewpoint, pick the dumbass. He is weakening the position of censorship with every word. Groups that are for censorship are backing away from this guy who they once supported because he is saying crazy shit that they couldn't possibly back.

He isn't in government, he doesn't make any rules, he isn't even important. He is a lawyer, that scares me that he could be one. The media seems to value his opinion, that scares me more.

Excactly. He's done for. There's no way he can win now. There was no way he could have won to begin with.

Maxsie, use your brain. Thompson is HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL, MEDIA MATERIAL, IN THE PUBLIC EYE. He may not be a governor or congressman like Ahhh-nold Schwarzenegger or Joseph Lieberman and can steer legislations against video games, but he is still a powerful bigmouth. I'm seriously hoping he's stripped of his license and exposed for what he truly is.

Yeah, but he's done for. There's no way he can win now. There was no way he could have won to begin with.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Don't count on that just yet. Remember, he's a crazy a-hole but he also has a lot of supporters behind him. Just because he's on the verge of losing his license to practice doesn't mean he's history. If he's truly driven he'll find some other way.

EDIT: However, stripping him of that license is a HUGE, EFFECTIVE WAY of publicly humiliating him and belittling his credibility.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by SamNMax

Yeah, but he's done for. There's no way he can win now. There was no way he could have won to begin with.

He's won battles like this in the past, except back then (late 80s) he was fighting rappers. Jack Thompson uses a shotgun approach... yeah, most of it will miss, but hopefully some will hit. He doesn't care much about any individual case, he cares about the larger picture.

You're right, he can't win now, but that's because people have been paying attention to him and pointing out his idiocy. Had he been allowed to carry on in relative silence, who knows what he would have pulled off? Given enough time and resources, you can always find someone sympathetic to your cause.

Uh-huh. And that's why I asked why people still care about this guy.

[Jackal]

I'm not so sure that many people care about him or his cause at all.

What the media and a whole lot of people care about is public spectacle. Thompson provides that. The crazier he is, the better. Makes for great copy. If he hangs himself with his own insanity, even better for everyone. Then people will forget about him, and move on to the next circus act.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by SamNMax

Uh-huh. And that's why I asked why people still care about this guy.

Because he's still getting on the news and still has pending lawsuits. Though we know he's a basket case, the people who watch Anderson Cooper have no idea who he is and still take his warnings of EVIL MURDER SIMULATORS seriously. As long as he's getting bad publicity on small blogs and some geek websites while getting good publicity on prime time national TV, he's still a force to be reckoned with.

That, and it's fun to watch a self-righteous jackass slowly go down in flames, even though he ain't quite there yet.

[Erwin_Br]

Years ago Thompson might have had a chance, but the games industry is too big now. Even bigger than the movie industry. I don't think he'll win.

--Erwin

[insane_cobra]

His insane babbling sure did make an impact on some important people - let's not forget those ridiculous bills that got passed recently - so I don't think he's all that harmless.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

His insane babbling sure did make an impact on some important people - let's not forget those ridiculous bills that got passed recently - so I don't think he's all that harmless.

You mean that violent games can't be sold to anyone younger than 18 years? That wouldn't be much of an impact on me

As long as they aren't banning games (As they do in Greece, Australia, etc...), or replacing certain things (green blood and robots instead of humans in Germany's Carmageddon, for example) you can't complain

They didn't even need a Jack Thompson in Germany, Greece, Australia, and some other countries, to get certain games off of the shelves.

--Erwin

[Jackal]

Thompson is hardly the only one campaigning for this cause. There are entire organizations that are far more rational and disciplined and effective. You give him WAY too much credit to think he's the one responsible for creating an impact. Even Wal-Mart's internal policy has probably done far more. Again, Thompson's just the freakshow that makes the news because it makes great headlines.

Originally Posted by sethsez

Jack Thompson uses a shotgun approach... yeah, most of it will miss, but hopefully some will hit.

And some of it probably SHOULD hit. Like practically any extremist, there's some merit at the root of what he fights for. He just takes it so far as to make a mockery of it. Violence in video games (or movies) is a serious subject, and should be treated seriously. He'd probably like to ban all violent games, which is obviously ridiculous, but we do need (or did, when this began) more uniform ratings, retail enforcement, education for parents, etc. If THOSE things "hit", then we're better off. Unfortunately, Thompson is so overboard that he ends up doing more to hinder that than help it.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by Jackal

And some of it probably SHOULD hit. Like practically any extremist, there's some merit at the root of what he fights for. He just takes it so far as to make a mockery of it. Violence in video games (or movies) is a serious subject, and should be treated seriously. He'd probably like to ban all violent games, which is obviously ridiculous, but we do need (or did, when this began) more uniform ratings, retail enforcement, education for parents, etc. If THOSE things "hit", then we're better off. Unfortunately, Thompson is so overboard that he ends up doing more to hinder that than help it.

But see, here's the thing...

We have uniform ratings. The offensive content is listed on the box, right next to the rating. Chains like Gamestop and EB refuse to sell M rated games to minors, and don't even carry AO rated games.

I... honestly don't see the problem here. What more do people expect without banning things? Out of all the content rating systems we have, video games have by far the most descriptive, with a letter rating, an age rating, and a description of the game's potentially offensive content. This is more than movies have, more than music has, more than books have, more than TV has, more than radio has, etc. Additionally, large game store chains frequently won't carry any game that hasn't been rated, while I can walk into a Best Buy and pick up an unrated DVD (hell, the lack of a rating is frequently a selling point) along with my offensive album that still doesn't have a parental warning sticker on it.

Frankly, compared to any other medium videogames have the best, most informative rating system. I'm personally of the opinion that "we need a better rating system" is often just a front for people who really have a bone to pick with violent games and don't want to admit it outright.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by sethsez

I... honestly don't see the problem here. What more do people expect without banning things?

I'm not really saying there's a problem, only that there's a second, non-extreme side to the matter. I listed two things already. First of all, game ratings are not enforceable. If a store wants to sell AO games to a six year old, they can. Unless something has changed recently, the system is entirely voluntary. Maybe that's the way it SHOULD be. I'm not saying otherwise. Just that that's the sort of discussion that should be taking place.

And the other one is not about law but about responsibility. Once me move past what should be allowed by law, maybe we can actually start some dialogue about who shares in the responsibility to make sure games aren't having negative consequences. Parent education - do parents really know what's in the games their kids are playing? Is it reasonable in this day and age for a parent to pre-screen everything their kids do? Even single parents? Obviously parents are the MOST responsible factor in their kids' welfare, but it's entirely unhelpful to just slough the whole issue off as "their problem". What about developer responsibility? Do they have any? Or does some ambiguous freedom of speech issue give them free rein to push acceptable boundaries farther and farther?

We may never get to the second step of discussing solutions instead of pointing fingers for causing the problem. But we're not getting any closer so long as people keep looking for the solution in law.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by Jackal

game ratings are not enforceable. If a store wants to sell AO games to a six year old, they can. Unless something has changed recently, the system is entirely voluntary.

If a game counts as pornography, it's not legal to sell to a minor. If it doesn't, then it's bound by the same laws as every other rating system.

Personally, I don't trust the government to be in charge of ratings (I don't like the government being in the habit of dictating what we can and can't see any more than they already are), and giving the ESRB legal authority is giving an independant organization far too much power.

And the other one is not about law but about responsibility. Once me move past what should be allowed by law, maybe we can actually start some dialogue about who shares in the responsibility to make sure games aren't having negative consequences. Parent education - do parents really know what's in the games their kids are playing? Is it reasonable in this day and age for a parent to pre-screen everything their kids do? Even single parents? Obviously parents are the MOST responsible factor in their kids' welfare, but it's entirely unhelpful to just slough the whole issue off as "their problem".

Reading the ratings and applying some common sense would be a start. I have no pity for a parent, single or not, who buys his 10 year old son a GTA game. The game is rated M, there's a laundry list of offensive content written in the rating box, and the game is named after a criminal activity. If a parent can't figure out that this isn't appropriate for their child, it's either due to stupidity or apathy, because it takes next to no effort to find out what makes this game bad.

They don't have to play the game before their child does. They don't have to go online and read reviews. They just have to take five seconds and read the rating, and the reasons for it. There's absolutely, positively no excuse for not doing this.

What about developer responsibility? Do they have any? Or does some ambiguous freedom of speech issue give them free rein to push acceptable boundaries farther and farther?

Well, of course anybody is responsible for how they exercise their freedom of speech, and they take responsibility for it if need be. However, the definition of what's acceptable and what isn't is always changing, and if a game sells millions of copies, it's pretty clear that a sizable chunk of the population doesn't find the content objectionable. However, freedom of speech exists to protect speech that's unpopular. If it didn't do that, there'd be no reason to have that right in the first place. Legally, nothing should be done to companies that put out objectionable games. The consumers will comment with their wallets, just like they do with every other medium.

Honestly, there are books out there which are far, far, far more offensive than anything ever done in a game, and these have no content warnings beyond a plot summary on the back cover.

We may never get to the second step of discussing solutions instead of pointing fingers for causing the problem. But we're not getting any closer so long as people keep looking for the solution in law.

I'm of the opinion that the problem begins and ends with apathetic parents who don't pay attention to the ratings. If you can't be bothered to read seven words on the back of the box before buying your kid a game called "Grand Theft Auto" then in my opinion, you've given up your right to complain.