G4, Jack Thompson yell at each other
by Kyle Orland 
{ Aug 10th 2006 at 8:40PM }
Tonight's episode of Attack of the Show included a roundtable discussion with attorney/activist Jack Thompson, GameDaily CEO Mark Friedler and X-Play host Adam Sessler. Of course, like any debate that includes gaming advocates and Jack Thompson, it included more bluster and yelling than actual thoughtful information. See a video of the interview below, or keep reading for an extremely condensed, schoolyard-style summary of what was said.
[UPDATE 1: Better quality video. Thanks, ElChibo]
Adam: Bully is coming soon! Violence is an important topic! The Loop! Jack, Mark and Adam, welcome!
Jack, why do you hate Bully so much [you idiot]?
Jack: I represented the Paducah parents. I predicted Columbine! Bullying experts think the game will cause bullying. The APA says violent games cause real violence. Your viewers are idiots!
Kevin: Adam, aren't there other studies that support our side? And is Bully gonna cause violent crime?
Adam: NO! Jack's argument is preosterous, disturbing, dishonest and pernicious! Kids are getting bad education and medical care and can't get a job! That's the real problem, not video games.
Jack: So kids should play more games to get better grades?
Adam: Better grades? We're talking violence! Violence existed before Pong!
Kevin: Mark, have games caused a great disturbance in the force?
Mark: Read GameDaily... we have a cool newsletter that says Jack is stupid and wrong! I haven't seen Bully, but I think it's kind of funny, isn't it? We don't condone gratuitous violence, but it happens. The real problem is hip hop lyrics and violence in cartoons! They're not good, but it's a free market.
Kevin: We need to talk more about Bully! Jack, have you actually seen the game [you pathetic lowlife]?
Jack: No, Rockstar has only shown it to sniveling sycophant journalists. I found screenshots of swirlies, punches, slingshots, and cricket bat beatings!
Adam: Actually, Rockstar says you can't hurt teachers. Why not wait for the game?
Jack: Take Two lied about Hot Coffee! And they didn't immediately correct descriptions of teacher beatings! I sued retailers and got a school district to condemn the game -- that's why they changed it! Give me the game! I want to play it and tell you how bad it really is!
Adam: Just wait for the game to come out!
Jack: But then it'll be out!
Adam: So? Is it a virus that will lead to rampant violence immediately? Don't you agree that that's totally insane?
Jack: ... huh?
Adam: *Repeats his last statement*
Jack: Do some research! The APA says this stuff, not me!
Kevin: Mark, you're a parent...
Jack: I'm a parent too!
Kevin: OK Jack... Mark have your children ever seen a swirlie?
Mark: My boys are violent and they never play games. Violence sucks, but it's a free country. It's up to the parents. Jack can keep his kids from it.
Jack: That's not the issue!
Mark: Yes it is!
Jack: No it's not! Britain has laws against this kind of stuff!
Adam: No they don't!
Kevin: We can debate this all day, but parents have to be responsible... yada yada.
Jack: Kevin, Kevin!
Kevin: *Ignores Jack* Thanks to our guests. It's a hot topic, we'll get back to it later.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Neil @ Aug 10th 2006 8:47PM
Jack Thompson is in love.
ElChibo @ Aug 10th 2006 8:47PM
Much higher quality version of the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yREGBKZggwA&eurl=
and the digg topic here: http://digg.com/gaming_news/Jack_Thompson_Interviewed_On_Attack_Of_The_Show
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Aug 10th 2006 8:48PM
Games > Thompson
Jack got royally owned.
Guess Who @ Aug 10th 2006 8:50PM
Adam Sessler is my god.
James Sorensen @ Aug 10th 2006 8:54PM
bah bah bah bah bah.. stutter it out adam sessler...
just remember this is the attorney's career. he isnt gonna do anything, how common sense it is, to hurt that...
Cap @ Aug 10th 2006 8:55PM
So, while I completely disagree with Jack Thompson's point of view, I have to say he was the second-calmest person in the loop. Adam was a yammering idiot, who couldn't find a point in a box of thumbtacks. Seriously, Thompson is constantly depicted as a raving, screaming lunatic... but he isn't raving nor screaming. Perhaps a bit looney, but it makes absolutely no sense to me that they would put asswit like Adam Sesler on a round-robin discussion.
/misses TechTV, who wouldn't have botched such a pure chance to destroy Thompson
Comtar @ Aug 10th 2006 8:57PM
Just reading some of this made my brain hurt... I don't hear any logic coming from both sides of this, I wish I was questioning him. Maybe he can explain to me why some of the most violent materials in the media shown on television to children was early Warner Bros, yet our parents seemed to have turned out okay... maybe it's cause our parents' parents gave a crap.
T-Bag @ Aug 10th 2006 8:57PM
Here's a solution for both problems. Let the game be released but kill children that bully on sight.
Oh and...
Bravo Sessler, you have raped thine foe.
Trent @ Aug 10th 2006 8:59PM
so, did they have the things written in the mainstream media about this game factored in..
deft @ Aug 10th 2006 9:01PM
7 minutes...
JUST 7 MINUTES?!!
This should've been at least an hour debate.
Adam, though he defended well, he sounded like an idiot... Jack acting as an idiot douchebag as always, and the only coherent guy there was the GameDaily guy.
Seriously, G4 needs to this type of things right...
I remember a debate about mp3s and copyright infrigment on old TechTV with Leo Laporte as the mediator, and it lasted more than an hour IIRC, and G4 couldn't do at least a decent job with this debate... -_-...
Grim @ Aug 10th 2006 9:03PM
For some reason or another my parents were watching this on G4 with me and they thought Thompson was both wrong and crazy.
ogvor @ Aug 10th 2006 9:03PM
It's reallly too bad that the first people to represent the game industry to Jack Thompson in a debate are these people. I would really like to see someone like Will Wright debate him, now THAT would be embarrassing to Jack's career.
DayDayRules @ Aug 10th 2006 9:04PM
wow...here i was, just waiting for someone to just lay into jack, just to ask that 1 question that he cant answer, the 1 question that would make him look like a total fool....unfortuately, i was dissapointed. what a PERFECT oppertunity...just gone to waste...
Jack Thompson @ Aug 10th 2006 9:05PM
The Bully site is updated with new screens and info btw.
ElChibo @ Aug 10th 2006 9:11PM
Haha is that really Jack Thompson?? I feel pretty sad for him if it is... And still not one screenshot of the character using acts of violence on teachers like you said there was on the loop.
Michael @ Aug 10th 2006 9:12PM
In all honesty the USA should have what we have in the UK, it's just the same certificates for film, works well.
silent bob @ Aug 10th 2006 9:16PM
No one really made a good point until the guy from game daily spoke for the last time, and jack kind of lost it there. i'm very disappointed that g4 chose sessler to do this. i mean really, pick someone who's got a little respect in the gaming community to represent us. they really did botch an excellent chance.
BIGGEN @ Aug 10th 2006 9:17PM
you all are forgetting something very important. olivia munn is the hottest little tater tot on tv. but yeah, it's up to the parents to keep out of their child's hands. ESPECIALLY if the parent knows the child isn't psychologically stable.
Abe Froman @ Aug 10th 2006 9:18PM
Congratulations, AOTS. This was journalism learned from the O'Reilly Factor school of bias. Instead of being fair, there were basically three guys "bullying" Thompson. And even with that lineup, I don't think anyone switched sides of the fence.
The only one that brought any data or hard facts, although fairly loosly, was Thompson.
This debate deserves more time, but it needs be handled much better. Kper's mediation was terrible, Sessler (though I like the guy's POV usually) really had no valid counterpoints, and guy #3 was useless. It's pretty hard to make Jack Thompson look sane, but I think AOTS might have actually done it.
Save the "hard-hitting journalism" to those qualified to handle it.
ElChibo @ Aug 10th 2006 9:19PM
What are you talking about? Sessler did a phenomenal job. Sessler may come off as an idiot or annoying on his own show sometimes, but when you see him talk about gaming news on AOTS it's evident that he really does know games and presented himself perfectly in this debate, and really took JT down!
T-Bag @ Aug 10th 2006 9:21PM
Rofl
Everyone's bashing Adam because he's a real gamer. Hey Joystick nerds, go program yourselves a life. lmao
Comradetrotskii @ Aug 10th 2006 9:28PM
Jack Thompson is almost correct that In Britain we have laws preventing adult themed games being sold to children. Some 'Adult themed' video games are treated in exactly the same way as movies and are sent to the BBFC (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/)for classification, eg 15 or 18 (years old to buy). It is illegal for anyone under this age to purchase them. This is not however a requirement. We also have the PEGI system (http://www.pegi.info/pegi/index.do) which I don't believe is legally enforceable but is used by pretty much every publisher.
Can someone clarify for me how the US system is any different, are there no legal enforcements or age restrictions on any products?
p-diddy @ Aug 10th 2006 9:29PM
>> In all honesty the USA should have what we have in
>> the UK, it's just the same certificates for film,
>> works well.
Some people called the pilgrims didn't agree, but thanks for your british-centric view of the universe. :-p
I understand Adam's frustration and resulting stammering, but rather than "there are studies that show..." it would have been much more effective to say "The American Group of Psychologists, the United Psychiatric Board, the .... all have studies in opposition of this" You can say John Kerry is boring, but he was completely fact-oriented and always made Bush look like a fool when they debated because Bush spoke in generalizations. Of course, facts don't matter to the midwest, but I digress.
And Thompson's a fool. The first amendment and lax parenting is exactly what this is about.
-p-
GSI @ Aug 10th 2006 9:31PM
@ Abe Froman:
W-T-F? Are you dillusional? You actually believe that everything Jack Thompson says is true? Dude YOU need to check your facts b/c this guy ADMITED he has never seen nor played the game.
He even admited himself that parents raising their kids the right way and not limiting what they play is not an issue...yet thats what the whole thing is about... IRRISPONSIBLE parents!
ChubbyFunster @ Aug 10th 2006 9:35PM
How can anyone think that videogames do not lead to real world violence? True, the vast majority of people who play games will not be lead to commit violent acts but that's because they have common sense and proper functioning inhibitory thoughts that hurting others in a gross physical way is wrong. But there are people who are born with a deficit of such thought and will allow themselves to hurt others. Also, everyone has a different brain that allows them to learn more effectively depending on the medium. For example, some learn through images better than auditory stimlation better than reading comprehension. For those that learn through imagery, they will have an easier time reproducing what they see in real world situations. Therefore, if you combine the subpopulation that learns better via imagery with the subpopulation of people that don't have the same inhibitory common sense that most of us are born with - then you have a certain population that will be more prone to violence after playing violent videogames. Furthermore, the fact that "Bully" takes place at a school leaves much less to the imagination of how a student can commit obnoxious acts. It basically opens a door, albeit a small door, to more violence in the setting of schools because the ideas are right in front of them.
Brian @ Aug 10th 2006 9:35PM
By the way, the APA does NOT say that videogames cause violence. There is a link between aggressive videogames and TEMPORARY (like an hour or so) increases in aggression, but there's little evidence that this is more serious than playing football or any other aggressive activity.
The real issue is whether it causes long-term increases in aggression. There are just a few studies that have looked at this, and they have NOT shown an increase in overall aggression. Jack Thompson is wrong, and Clinton is wrong. Videogames, as far as is known in the scientific community, DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE.
Dracula Jones @ Aug 10th 2006 9:35PM
Mark Friedler does a great job of making an irrefutable point: Regulating games is the parents' responsibility and not Jack Thompson's or the government's. Jack really has no response other than to try to sidestep it.
Sessler, on the other hand, is a good on-air personality. He's obviously a real gamer and sometimes I do enjoy watching Xplay. But he really had no place in that discussion.
I agree with the other posters, though. This could and should have been a much larger show. No one, not even Jack, had enough time to properly debate, and the gaming community is left waiting for this epic battle between good and evil to be truly fought, for all to see.
MO @ Aug 10th 2006 9:36PM
I had never seen Jack in action or heard his voice, yet I always thought he was an idiot. Well, here is visual proof.
Tack Jhompson @ Aug 10th 2006 9:36PM
Hi,I'm an insane douchebag who wants to
force my point of view
on everyone else. If you don't like it, too bad. While I'm on my
crusade to become famous and make money, my children are at home
without a father figure. Little do I realize my absence is screwing
up my children far more than a video game ever will. During my
protest of GTA17 my son will drive a car through the audience ending
my tirade and killing many innocent bystanders.Thanks for
listening.Your friend,Tack Jhompson
Draco @ Aug 10th 2006 9:39PM
is it just me or did Sessler's first response sound alot like the response from the guy from Itchy and Scratchy when Marge was trying to get it banned.
~" there was violence before violent cartoons, there was this thing called the crusades"
~" there was violence before even pong"
Michael Tucker @ Aug 10th 2006 9:41PM
Wow, Jack Thompson was a rather agreeable person in this debate. No matter how immature he may tend to act on the internet, he actually participated like a civilized and intelligent person in this video.
Adam Sessler, wow, he acted like most of us would like to act towards Jack Thompson. Unfortunately, he came out as pretty immature about it. Cutting him off excessively and practically yelling was really unnecessary.
Even though I disagree with Jack's stance, there were no winners in this debate. It'd be nice if the one guy who actually did make valid points was allowed to talk more often.
Will @ Aug 10th 2006 9:41PM
I wasn't really impressed with anyone involved in that "debate". The only one that really brought something to the table was Thompson's reference to an August, 2005 APA study about video game violence. Well, I decided to look it up. And when I read the APA's own summary of the study, it pretty much highlighted why it, and many similar studies, are useless in this debate. The full APA press release is available at the following URL:
http://www.apa.org/releases/violentvideoC05.html
Here's a few choice excerpts about the meaty sections of the report.
"One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing."
Ok, what does that prove? That kids feel more aggressive after playing violent video games? I'm not even sure that this means that kids actually are more aggressive following the play of violent video games. It just suggests that they feel more aggressive. Is there any proof they are indeed more aggressive, or, more importantly, that they are more prone to acting violently as a result of this increased aggression?
"In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks."
This is where the main problem rears its ugly head. As any half-ass social scientist should know, correlation does not equal causation. It would seem to reason that a kid predisposed to committing violent actions would naturally be more attracted to playing violent video games. They took the admitted correlation of the two and tried to conclude that one caused the other. That is flawed, plain and simple. Unless they prove that playing violent video games is what caused these increased hostilities and physical altercations, this does us no good.
"But those girls who did play violent video games, according to the review, were more likely to prefer playing with an aggressive toy and were more aggressive when playing."
Again, they took a correlation and attempted to prove a causation. Was it the violent video games that caused the kids to behave more aggressively? This doesn't even attempt to answer that.
It should come as no surprise that kids that are more naturally violent or aggressive would find themselves drawn to activities that they could use to act upon those traits. I'm sure even the most avid gamer would admit that some violent, aggressive people play violent video games. We all know that correlation exists.
But does playing violent video games *cause* that violent, aggressive behavior, or are these kids merely using it as some form of outlet for those thoughts? This study, a study trumpeted by Jack Thompson himself, doesn't even attempt to prove a causation. It merely observes pretty logical correlations and misrepresents those as something they're not.
jakob @ Aug 10th 2006 9:43PM
They shouldnt have cut jack off, they should have let him say what he wanted to say, not that hes right, but so he can say more and look like an idiot just for a little longer.
Jack did not predict columbine. im sure if anybody were to predict, it would have been God himself.
someone should make a ytmnd.com about adam stuttering so much, before i do.
BklynKid @ Aug 10th 2006 9:46PM
LMAO, Adam Sessler was holding it down for us gamers!
Bored @ Aug 10th 2006 9:47PM
Some people seem to forget that what Jack Thompson is doing is digging for future employers. He is a typical leech attorney looking for his next score/case. This is how he makes money. The more publicity he gets, the more parents of kids that have been victims of violence will find this guy and keep him employed. Want him gone? Don't give him a platform and make sure the guy voicing your concerns doesn't look like a blithering idiot like Adam Sessler.
silent bob @ Aug 10th 2006 9:51PM
@T-bag
Why would you waste your time posting that? Also, if you're so anti-joystiq, why would you be on the site in your first place? Go play some more halo 2 with all the other kiddies.
Robert Egolf @ Aug 10th 2006 9:51PM
I think we all owe it to adam sessler for defending our opinions as gamers. People give Adam Sessler a bad name for being goofy but he may be one person defending Grand Theft Auto 4 because we know GTA4 will be targeted. If you want games like GTA, Halo, Doom, Mortal Kombat, Metal Gear, and Half-Life. People believe Adam Sessler is stupid. This is not the case he is probably more intelligent than most of you who read this blog. In all, we all owe Adam Sessler some credit for protecting your 1st Amendment Rights.
N3k74r @ Aug 10th 2006 9:53PM
There's already violence in schools.
Dave @ Aug 10th 2006 9:56PM
The only thing I know about Paduka, Kentucky is that, if you live there, you feel like killing people.
nsolo1717 @ Aug 10th 2006 10:06PM
well said Will, bravo.......for the follow up interview with Jack ..... i nominate you =)
Chris X @ Aug 10th 2006 10:11PM
That debate had much more potential. It was just starting to heat up, and then it just went to shit. In any case, Adam and Mark made good points (especially the parental discretion thing), and Thompson looked like a jackass, as usual.
"I have kids too! :("
ElChibo @ Aug 10th 2006 10:14PM
Where do you think the ideas for Bully came from?... ACTUAL SCHOOLS! How can people copy something that's already there!
I just thought that now and had to put it out there lol
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Aug 10th 2006 10:17PM
That "debate" was a complete waste of my time. I can never have those 7 minutes back. But I already knew it would be before I started watching. I guess I was just being a no-good, lazy gamer with no life. Life sucks.
Jackie boy, you gotta get off that "I'm an important person" trip you're always on when the cameras are rolling. Nobody really important ever does that. Wannabe.
sharkeye @ Aug 10th 2006 10:17PM
What Mark said about the Parents being responsable is exactly what I have been saying since this stupid thing about games causing voilence started IF your a Parent YOU make the choice not Jack Thompson or Anyone else who wants to challenge those who make games. I mean my parents will have a say in what games are good and bad but they trust me not to go out and attempt something that was in that game if it was a voilent game. So overall Adam was right and wrong in some points, Jack had some good views but was basicly saying its his view or no ones view and Mark the CEO was by far the greatest one cause he proved the point and Jack couldn't give a good answer for his perfect question.
Retro @ Aug 10th 2006 10:19PM
Wow, definately way too short. I thought it was going to be interesting from the beginning but they cut it short. Wow, and to think I thought G4 wasn't going to screw this up.
Basic summary: Jack said "Takestar" shouldn't release Bully. Adam disagreed. Mark said violence was already apparent. Jack still doesn't want the game released. Kevin is still as gay as ever.
Mnementh_2230 @ Aug 10th 2006 10:27PM
Haven't caught the segment, don't really want to play it now and disturb the wife, but from the comments I've read and from previous clips of John Bruce on the air, he was in his "public" mode, not the childish, foolish braggart that posts here and elsewhere on the 'net.
Jack, just because you've been on television doesn't mean you're an expert. You lie, you use facts out of context, you exagerate, you make up studies, and you generally act like a five year old when it comes to proving yourself right.
Correlation is not causation, and the studies only show correlation.
violent people are likely attracted to violent games
violence has been around longer than games
games cannot train you to kill - if they could do that, they could train you to be a sports star, and I'm no John Elway despite the football games I've played.
Your arguments as usual are full of crap, John Bruce Thompson. You've only made me laugh in the past, and I hope you continue doing so as you impotently bludgeon yourself against the constitution.
Brian @ Aug 10th 2006 10:29PM
@Will
You're right on the money, plus most of the research that gets cited in these debates is very old, and a lot of it comes from the same group of researchers (the ones who have "proven" that violent movies cause violence).
All correlation-not-causation debate aside, what they really miss is the longitudinal studies: does videogame violence correlate with violence in other domains over an extended period of time?
Do a google scholar search for Dimitri Williams at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. One of his studies was the first to look at this question, and it found no such link. Many other studies have followed it, and the link fails to show up.
Put it another way: If someone cuts you off on the highway, will you be mad for 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Sure. A month later? Probably not. Just because studies show aggression immediately after playing games doesn't mean they become more aggressive people. The research DOES support that conclusion.
Joe @ Aug 10th 2006 10:36PM
That was actually a decent public ownage of our friend Jack.
But, of course, you know something? A website (cough, Joystiq?) should have a live internet debate between Jacko and a set of bloggers: a parent blogger (I'd suggest Cary Woodham), a teenage gamer who primarily plays violent games, a teen who play other types of games, basically get the whole loop of gamer stereotypes and have them chat with Jack. That's a way to own him...
TeddyN @ Aug 10th 2006 10:46PM
LoL, good post joystiq...
I was shocked by just how uninformed Jack Thompson came across as.
I was most taken aback by his outcry of "of course they have an equivalent to the 1st Amendment!" I nearly choked when he said that: Britain has no codified or entrenched constitution. Parliament is the highest sovereign body. That means that as long as it's approved by Parliament, a law can be as tyrannous as it is wanted to be. In the United States it is against the Constitution because freedom of speech is one of America's most valued liberties. Jack dodged the question about freedom of speech though...
Nothing's going to convince a guy like that though, which is the biggest problem. He's like a religious crusader who will never waver in the face of reason.
flyguy @ Aug 10th 2006 10:50PM
Alot of Sessler haters out there....some just for the fact they want TechTV back so bad they'll put down anybody. Fucking nerds is what they sound like.
Whoever agrees at all with what Jack said is an idiot. He was calm, which was a pleasant surprise, but he didn't make any sense at all because his facts are not backed up by real studies like major medical reports.