The Political Game: A brief history of video game legislation
Each week Dennis McCauley will contribute The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
A well-known philosopher – I think maybe it was Doug Lowenstein – once said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
How true.
Since this a brand-new column about the politics of video games, it seems like a good idea to kick things off with a short history lesson on video game legislation in the USA. That way, if I get canned, some geek can collect these columns for the Wikipedia and they'll have a logical starting point (today's column) and a logical ending (a future Joystiq e-mail with the subject line, "You're fired").
So, pay attention. This means you, Jack Thompson.
Although the specter of legislation was initially raised in the mid-90's by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the video game industry was able to hold the Connecticut Democrat at bay by creating the Entertainment Software Rating Board as the keystone of its new voluntary compliance system. The theory was that the ESRB would rate the games. Parents would pay attention to the ratings and not buy their ten-year-old an M-rated game full of carjacking, bloody murder and hooker sex. Stores wouldn't sell the naughty games to kids. Didn't always work out that way, through no fault of the ESRB.
Fast forward to 2000. Just-elected Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson decided that regulating kids' access to the coin-op arcade gore fest House of the Dead would make Indy a safer place. The resulting law restricted those under 18 from playing or even viewing violent games and required the violent game machines to be at least 10 feet from the non-violent ones. Did Peterson think the blood and guts from House of the Dead was going to somehow infect the Sonic machine next to it? Ultimately, Federal Judge Richard Posner saved the day for the coin-ops, ruling that the Indy law "curtails freedom of expression... People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble."
In 2002 the city of St. Louis took the Indianapolis law one step further, prohibiting not only coin-op play, but retail sale or rental of violent games to minors. Different approach, similar fate. The 8th Circuit Court tossed the law for much the same reasons that doomed Indy's. A city attorney expressed bitter disappointment, called the Federal Court ruling "a blow to the parents of St. Louis County and the kids." That was three years ago, and, last time we checked, St. Louis hadn't been overwhelmed by a GTA-like wave of youth violence. As a matter of fact, youth crime levels have been trending downward for years.
The first of many state-level bills surfaced in Washington State in 2003. A Democrat, Mary Lou Dickerson, introduced a bill that made it illegal to sell a game that allowed the player to kill or injure police and firefighters.
Nice sentiment, flawed execution. I distinctly recall Doug Lowenstein speaking about the problems with Dickerson's bill at E3 that year. What if the cop was corrupt and coming to kill your character, Lowenstein asked. Or if he was some of kind of murderous space policeman guarding an evil empire in a sci-fi shoot 'em up? The bill was signed into law by Washington's governor, and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court.
Anyone seeing a pattern here?
Zip ahead to 2005. Fueled by the Hot Coffee scandal, three states pass video game legislation in a single year, including the chewy center of the U.S. video game industry, California. All three laws were directed primarily at retailers, prohibiting them from selling M-rated games to minors. Federal Judge Matthew Kennelly almost immediately ruled Illinois' law unconstitutional. Just last week, Kennelly added insult to injury by ordering the state to pay the video game industry's legal fees, to the tune of a half-million dollars. A Michigan law was similarly disposed of. California's video game statute was blocked from going into effect by a Federal District Court judge in San Jose last December. It's still in limbo as we wait for the Court's final ruling.
If legislators have learned anything from these courtroom losses, they're not showing it. Three more states – Oklahoma, Minnesota and Louisiana - passed video game laws this year. The sponsor of Oklahoma's bill, Republican Fred Morgan, told a local newspaper in 2005 that he wanted to pattern his bill on the Illinois law – three days after the Illinois law was ruled unconstitutional. Minnesota passed the most bizarre law so far, a measure that would have fined underage buyers $25 for trying to purchase M-rated games. The bill's author, Democrat Sandra Pappas, rather famously told GameSpot, "Legislators don't worry too much about what's constitutional."
But judges do, and the Minnesota bill went down in constitutional flames mere weeks after passage.
And then there's Louisiana, where none other than Jack Thompson crafted the state's video game legislation. That bill, still under consideration by a federal judge, rates an entire column by itself, so watch this space. By the way, I've only written about state and local bills that have made it to final passage today. There are dozens of others that died in committee or failed in their respective legislatures for one reason or another. Nor have I touched on congressional legislation. We'll save that for another time as well.
Finally, before you dash off an angry e-mail to tell me that the "doomed to repeat history" quote is actually from George Santayana, don't bother. I've got all of his albums. "Smooth" is like my favorite song.
Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at dennis@GamePolitics.com.
A well-known philosopher – I think maybe it was Doug Lowenstein – once said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."How true.
Since this a brand-new column about the politics of video games, it seems like a good idea to kick things off with a short history lesson on video game legislation in the USA. That way, if I get canned, some geek can collect these columns for the Wikipedia and they'll have a logical starting point (today's column) and a logical ending (a future Joystiq e-mail with the subject line, "You're fired").
So, pay attention. This means you, Jack Thompson.
Although the specter of legislation was initially raised in the mid-90's by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the video game industry was able to hold the Connecticut Democrat at bay by creating the Entertainment Software Rating Board as the keystone of its new voluntary compliance system. The theory was that the ESRB would rate the games. Parents would pay attention to the ratings and not buy their ten-year-old an M-rated game full of carjacking, bloody murder and hooker sex. Stores wouldn't sell the naughty games to kids. Didn't always work out that way, through no fault of the ESRB.
Fast forward to 2000. Just-elected Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson decided that regulating kids' access to the coin-op arcade gore fest House of the Dead would make Indy a safer place. The resulting law restricted those under 18 from playing or even viewing violent games and required the violent game machines to be at least 10 feet from the non-violent ones. Did Peterson think the blood and guts from House of the Dead was going to somehow infect the Sonic machine next to it? Ultimately, Federal Judge Richard Posner saved the day for the coin-ops, ruling that the Indy law "curtails freedom of expression... People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble."
In 2002 the city of St. Louis took the Indianapolis law one step further, prohibiting not only coin-op play, but retail sale or rental of violent games to minors. Different approach, similar fate. The 8th Circuit Court tossed the law for much the same reasons that doomed Indy's. A city attorney expressed bitter disappointment, called the Federal Court ruling "a blow to the parents of St. Louis County and the kids." That was three years ago, and, last time we checked, St. Louis hadn't been overwhelmed by a GTA-like wave of youth violence. As a matter of fact, youth crime levels have been trending downward for years.
The first of many state-level bills surfaced in Washington State in 2003. A Democrat, Mary Lou Dickerson, introduced a bill that made it illegal to sell a game that allowed the player to kill or injure police and firefighters.
Nice sentiment, flawed execution. I distinctly recall Doug Lowenstein speaking about the problems with Dickerson's bill at E3 that year. What if the cop was corrupt and coming to kill your character, Lowenstein asked. Or if he was some of kind of murderous space policeman guarding an evil empire in a sci-fi shoot 'em up? The bill was signed into law by Washington's governor, and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court.
Anyone seeing a pattern here?
Zip ahead to 2005. Fueled by the Hot Coffee scandal, three states pass video game legislation in a single year, including the chewy center of the U.S. video game industry, California. All three laws were directed primarily at retailers, prohibiting them from selling M-rated games to minors. Federal Judge Matthew Kennelly almost immediately ruled Illinois' law unconstitutional. Just last week, Kennelly added insult to injury by ordering the state to pay the video game industry's legal fees, to the tune of a half-million dollars. A Michigan law was similarly disposed of. California's video game statute was blocked from going into effect by a Federal District Court judge in San Jose last December. It's still in limbo as we wait for the Court's final ruling.
If legislators have learned anything from these courtroom losses, they're not showing it. Three more states – Oklahoma, Minnesota and Louisiana - passed video game laws this year. The sponsor of Oklahoma's bill, Republican Fred Morgan, told a local newspaper in 2005 that he wanted to pattern his bill on the Illinois law – three days after the Illinois law was ruled unconstitutional. Minnesota passed the most bizarre law so far, a measure that would have fined underage buyers $25 for trying to purchase M-rated games. The bill's author, Democrat Sandra Pappas, rather famously told GameSpot, "Legislators don't worry too much about what's constitutional."
But judges do, and the Minnesota bill went down in constitutional flames mere weeks after passage.
And then there's Louisiana, where none other than Jack Thompson crafted the state's video game legislation. That bill, still under consideration by a federal judge, rates an entire column by itself, so watch this space. By the way, I've only written about state and local bills that have made it to final passage today. There are dozens of others that died in committee or failed in their respective legislatures for one reason or another. Nor have I touched on congressional legislation. We'll save that for another time as well.
Finally, before you dash off an angry e-mail to tell me that the "doomed to repeat history" quote is actually from George Santayana, don't bother. I've got all of his albums. "Smooth" is like my favorite song.
Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at dennis@GamePolitics.com.





Get a WordPress.com Blog





Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Phoenix42 @ Aug 18th 2006 2:30PM
I prefer the song that he did with Steven Tyler...
bapenguin @ Aug 18th 2006 2:34PM
Ownage...on a whole new level. Good job Dennis.
Player1 @ Aug 18th 2006 2:36PM
I remember as a teenager that there wasn't that much to go out an do for entertainment. Teens would all hang out in parking lots or cruise up and down certain streets. We'd shoplift and drink out of boredom. It's not like teens are bleeding money, so not that many places are designed for them. Probably the times we stayed out of trouble the most was when we played video games.
White Rose Duelist @ Aug 18th 2006 2:41PM
Well done. I look forward to your future columns.
ZENegade @ Aug 18th 2006 2:41PM
Very cool article. I actually did a game politics presentation for a current events project this past May and I got an A on it. Good times.
Lost_Watcher @ Aug 18th 2006 2:44PM
Excellent Read Dennis! :D
Mack Swift @ Aug 18th 2006 3:01PM
"My first amendment rights as a law-abiding adult and citizen of this country should not be infringed upon in any way because a parent cannot or will not monitor their child's activities."
It's ridiculus how bad it's gotten in this country in terms of personal and parental responsibility. It's almost as if parents are just having kids for the sake of the extra money in the tax return. They want nothing to do with their child. I've often argued that kids get the $50 for the game from their parents, and why should the retailer become the child's moral and ethical police?
Strange, strange world we live in now.
Jabrwock @ Aug 18th 2006 3:15PM
It's amazing how re-election (*cough* sorry, "concern for children") plays a big part in most of these bills. That quote about not caring about constitutional issues illustrates that beautifully. Remember kids, these are the same types who voted for the Patriot Act!
Politicians who aren't up for re-election correctly point out how the bills are costly (writing, promoting, defending, paying the ESA legal bills, etc), ineffective (since parents do 80-90% of the buying of mature titles that end up in the hands of kids anyway, not to mention they own 100% of the rooms in which the games are played), and doomed to be struck down by constitutional challenge.
Zach @ Aug 18th 2006 3:34PM
I still don't understand why we don't restrict the sale of M-rated games to minors. Call me old fashion, but these kids have no business playing M-rated games anyway. If a parent thinks that their child SHOULD play Manhunt or State of Emergency, they can go buy the game themself. I really don't see how we're benefiting society by letting 11 year-olds play GTA. They are not mature enough to handle the violence, sex, and language in many M-rated games.
By the way, I'm 18 and I love GTA.
otakucode @ Aug 18th 2006 3:46PM
I hadn't seen that quote from judge Posner before... it deserves repeating since it is a line of unbridled genius and needs to be pounded into the heads of every person who thinks keeping kids away from certain kinds of media is OK (this goes for books, movies, TV, music, videogames, they are all the same):
"curtails freedom of expression... People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble."
Remember, freedom of speech is to protect the speech you DONT like and think people shouldn't be exposed to, not the speech you DO like and are OK with everyone having access to.
Lost_Watcher @ Aug 18th 2006 3:46PM
Well, if you want to restrict them from M Games please do thw following.
1: Make parents more active with their kids/teens.
2: In order to Restrict the sale of M Games to kids/teens you need to not allow them to Purcahse R Movies, Do not allow kids/teens in R movies at the theaters, Do not allow kids/teens to purchase music with "Explicit Lyrics" on them.
3: Actually have Parents make use of the Parental Locks on Consoles (Xbox/Xbox 360/PS3/Wii - These use ESRB Ratings and have discriptors also) and DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Players.
4: Look at what your kids/teens are purchasing.
5: Do some reading on ESRB and their Ratings.
otakucode @ Aug 18th 2006 3:49PM
Zach: What in human biology prevents an 11 year old from being able to deal with violent and sexual imagery? Since you are arguing that 11 year olds aren't prepared for this content, not that their upbringing might lead them to being unprepared, you must have some basis in actual biology. What organ is it that switches on and at what age does it usually come on that processes these images and deals with them effectively, regardless of the parenting of the child?
skraith @ Aug 18th 2006 3:50PM
Zach, the reason we don't restrict the sale of M-rated games to minors, is because its not the States job to raise our children. Parents need to be aware of what their kids are playing, and many times its already the parents buying these games for their children, due to either ignorance or just not caring. I once saw a father buy his 10 year old GTA, even after the clerck explained the rating to him.
Stores can put policies in place, and parens can make their own choices, but there are much better places for our tax dollars to go then on unconstitutional 'protect the children' bills. And it does cost the State needless money, again look at the half million Illinios just got hit with, as Dennis pointed out.
paul jaquays @ Aug 18th 2006 3:54PM
Nice piece Dennis. Good that you're taking the message to a new audience that, as evidenced by zach's comment, really needs to hear WHY we don't have laws restricting access to speech and ideas.
-the_mole- @ Aug 18th 2006 4:08PM
overall, very nice article. but the oklahoma bill is possibly the most restrictive of any gaming bill i have ever seen. it gives "excessively violent" video games the same classification as hardcore pornography and cigarettes, which is to say that no one can buy it for a minor, no one can give it to a minor, and no one can show it to a minor. even if i hated games, and law was constitutional, parents should be able to decide what is right for their kids. not to mention the fact that the law is exremely vague and a majority of retailers believe that they could, in no way, shape or form, reliably decide what is and is not "excessively violent". there are far more issue about each of the laws to discuss them here, so i will simply give it a rest for now. again, excellent article.
finaleve @ Aug 18th 2006 4:08PM
Very good read, both the amazing article and these comments.
I remember in school, we were told "the reason we go through history class every year is so we don't make the same mistakes again when it's our turn to take over the country."
...well actually, its still not 'our turn' yet so we must wait to take our actions.
Lost_Watcher @ Aug 18th 2006 4:17PM
Also don't forget all new consoles 2001+ have an Parently Settings.
ESRB Raitings & Dvds: http://img23.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=31933_RatingsandDvds_122_517lo.jpg
General Parental Settings: http://img19.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=31940_ConsoleControls_122_567lo.jpg
So even if a kid gets ahold of... lets say GTA but the parents have it set to [T] Teen then he or she isnt going to be able to play GTA AT ALL!
the1jeffy @ Aug 18th 2006 4:29PM
Of course you will get canned, Dennis! Because eventually, you will run out of laws. I'd say, oh, about 52, considering the ability of politicians to learn from the past. Unless some states are stubborn and try twice. But either way that will keep you writing for a while.
artemis120 @ Aug 18th 2006 4:32PM
To specifically answer your question, the state cannot regulate who can buy what game based on the ESRB ratings, because to do so would be a violation of due process. The standards of private organizations cannot be the basis of law enforcement. If a company wants to restrict who they wish to sell their product to, that is something else entirely. It is the difference between me deciding not to tell a kid something because I believe they are too young and the government telling me that I cannot tell that same thing to the kid because they have decided that the kid is too young to hear it.
Other methods of deciding what games minors can buy, by law, have their own problems.
Loomis @ Aug 18th 2006 4:34PM
otakucode, the reason we tend to avoid showing sexual imagery or excessive violence to young children is because they are very impressionable, kind of like why there are no more ciggarete commercials. I'm not saying it will turn them into cold-hearted murderers and rapists instantly, but it will defenitaly desensitize them.
Back on topic though, yeah it is definatley sad the degree to which some parents avoid parenting these days.
otakucode @ Aug 18th 2006 4:44PM
Loomis: Those ideas were put forward when there were crusades to keep children away from certain paintings, books, radio, and waltzing. Every single time it is shown to be untrue and unfounded. How many times does it have to be proven over and over before people believe that when a kid sees something in a movie or a videogame, they think "this is how movies and/or videogames worlds are" and NOT "this is how the real world is"?
As each new form of entertainment comes out, we have to fight these battles over and over, and we're losing more and more each time. You don't see ratings on books, do you? Nobody is going to stop a kid from buying Stephen King's "It" in which a group of 12 year olds essentially has an orgy in the sewers, and yet, somehow, the planet still turns.
PayTheMan @ Aug 18th 2006 5:02PM
Taken from GamePolitics:
Georgia State Attorney General Thurbert Baker (left) announced that his office was partnering with the ESRB on a public service announcement (PSA) campaign designed to help parents make better use of ratings when selecting video games for their kids.
This is the direction those vote-hungry-and-up-for-re-election officials need to take.
jccalhoun @ Aug 18th 2006 6:37PM
Of interest may be Jon Festinger's book Video Game Law which covers the various videogame laws that have been passed, but also lawsuits involving videogames from the cases involving Ralph Baer's patents up until Blizzards suit against makers of the bnetd project. It seems to have been published only in Canada, but if nothing else it can be ordered from the publisher. http://www.lexisnexis.ca/bookstore/bookinfo.php?pid=1220
otakucode @ Aug 18th 2006 6:50PM
To anyone thinking about the issue and wanting a good book to read, I would also recommend "Killing Monsters: Why Children NEED Fantasy, Super-Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence" by Gerard Jones and also "Everything Bad Is Good For You" by Steven Johnson. Both are available on Amazon, are inexpensive, and should help you stop immediately caving in to the nonsensical point that there are some videogames that are bad for kids.
Mark @ Aug 18th 2006 7:28PM
i think it boils down to this 'parents want politicians to make these laws so they can go back to ignoring what thier kids do'.
Parents in the USA are so lazy and ignorant its almost pathetic. Dont want your kid to see things you consider inappropiate? dont let them watch or look at it. Dont want your kids hurt? dont let them around places or people that might hurt them. Dont want your kid playing violent video games? dont get them a video game console or at least examine what games they have or wanting to buy.
That would be too simple. Instead we have to go to draconian laws or get so fuzzy with the laws/constitution we start looking like the enemy we had the cold war with.
but if 'its for the protection of our children' i wouldnt doubt half these idiots would elect a hitler wannabe.
David @ Aug 19th 2006 1:35AM
@12(otakucode) & @19(Loomis) - A lot of psychologists/researchers agree that the "biological thing" that prevents children/teenagers from properly processing things like violent video games is the brain itself, specifically the pre-frontal cortex. This region of the brain, to quote Wikipedia, "has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behaviors, personality expression and moderating correct social behavior." How is this relevant? The PFC doesn't finish developing until the early 20's (roughly age 22). Interesting, yes? Personally, I think M games should be set for age 22, not 17, but I also feel the same about voting, drinking, and joining the military. People pretty much aren't fully capable of grasping the consequences of their actions until the PFC is fully developed.
Ben Hobbs @ Aug 19th 2006 3:48AM
David,
Surely the PFC develops BECAUSE of the need to distinuish between what is right and wrong, real or imaginary, moral and immoral. Meking decisions, choices and interpretations of reality are what leads to the development of the PFC.
Take away that cognitive development through the teen years and that's where you have problems, with Adults who are incapable of integrating into a society where sex, potential violence and relationships are everyday occurances.
jack thompson @ Aug 19th 2006 6:13AM
Oh, I am paying attention, Dennis. I've been paying attention since 1989, when I got the first decency fines ever levied by the FCC. I was securing constitutional governmental actions when you were still in middle school.
I know how to do what I do much better than you know how to do what you do, which is to pretend to be a journalist. Now you pay attention, Dennis, because everyone else here is going to pay attention:
Any real journalist would have fully reported at your GamePolitics.com site that you filed a Bar complaint against me, which is still pending, whining to The Florida Bar that I have made things too stressful for you.
You also would have reported that I filed a writ of mandamus action in the Florida Supreme Court to dispose of your ridiculous, self-serving Bar complaint.
You're welcome to file a Bar complaint, Dennis, but what you are not entitled to do is hide that fact from your readers at GP. Any real journalist would have the ethics to DISCLOSE the filing of that complaint, as it calls into question your fairness, your impartiality in what you have "reported" about me since you filed it. Any first-week journalism student can explain the concept of disclosure to you, Dennis.
What you also don't want your readers and anyone else to know, Dennis, is that you were ordered by the St. Paul Pioneer Press to stop misrepresenting, at your site, your relationship with that paper. You only stopped misrepresenting it when I shared your self-proclaimed "columnist" status with that paper's editors. Go ahead, threaten me again, Dennis. I have the emails, and so does that paper.
There's a real problem when an alleged journalist like Dennis McCauley stakes out an absolutist, free speech position that would make the Founders laugh, and then that "journalist" bans me from posting at his site and even bans me from reading his site from my computer.
This is not the First Amendment you are celebrating, Dennis. It is, as you say at your own site today "shameless self promotion," and it is self promotion at the expense of the truth.
Dennis, share here or at your GP site your entire SLAPP Bar complaint you filed against me with The Florida Bar, and then explain to all of us how any real "journalist" can claim to be objective when he hides that filing from the public.
What are you afraid of, Dennis, the truth?
Jack Thompson
TyTiger @ Aug 19th 2006 7:57AM
To Jack:
"What you also don't want your readers and anyone else to know, Dennis, is that you were ordered by the St. Paul Pioneer Press to stop misrepresenting, at your site, your relationship with that paper... ...Go ahead, threaten me again, Dennis. I have the emails, and so does that paper."
Then show us.
"This is not the First Amendment you are celebrating, Dennis. It is, as you say at your own site today "shameless self promotion," and it is self promotion at the expense of the truth."
1. That's called being funny. You are most of the the time, you just don't know it.
2. Says the man who routinely lies through his teeth
3. Everyone at my forum, The TY Revolution (username link) loves you. Why? They think you're the best non-sensical non-Japanese person in the world. They would love you to come and chat with them, they have OH SO MUCH to say about you and your silly, silly ways!
To Dennis:
I'm really liking this column, as I stated on GP. Keep up the good work, you good-ole hockey player you! =D
merc25 @ Aug 19th 2006 8:04AM
Listen well, Jacky boy there no juarnalist that ain't bias. You bring up irrelecent infomation that has nothing to with the column, let me guess your motto is don't like the truth yell more often, louder, and throw in pieces of useless infomation, all in the pitful and disgracful atempt to try and drownout you and your colleges utter failures.
Jacky boy, I wonder about what makes a person want to go to places where he knows no one will hear him out, because of prior untrustworthy acts. Also why would someone want to contiue to pester a place, where he is seen as a big ellaborate joke rathter than a person we should worry about. Jacky boy isn't there a law against harassment?
Oh Jacky boy, can you tell me why other people are writting laws for congress at both state and federal levels, because I don't believe the founding fathers would condone such displays of obscene, insulting, and disrespecting behavior? By doing this aren't saying that elected officails are not competent enough to address the issuses that they are responsible for? Also do think you can come up with a way more insulting to the people that that elected official repesents? Is their any greater way you can show your disrespect for the republican(the sysytem of government not the political party) way and your arrogence at the same time, than writting pieces of legislation when you are not a legislator?
Finally, I get back to the journalist issue you raised, wikipedia says a journalist is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people, Denis is a clearly a jounalist in this since of the word, but perhaps you have problems with wikipedia being by its nature easily changable. So how about we go to the Webster's(the one that Naoh started, in it its mordern version, not his original). It defines journalist as: 1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience. Again he is a journalist, but while we are at it let look at journalism(from webster's as well). It defines journalism as: 1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium. This is indeed his job, so once again he is a journalist.
To all the fine workers at Joystiq, I am deeply sorry for the length of this post, keep up the great journalism!
nightwng2000 @ Aug 19th 2006 8:16AM
John Bruce, I must say, that is pretty pathetic, really.
In your ranting, and yes, it is nothing more than a rambling flailing at windmills you have just done, you claim Dennis has "bans me from reading his site". After which you admit that you CAN read his site by quoting from it. As has been made clear time and time again, you broke rules of conduct in the LiveJournal blog section. And, just as my own son must suffer the consequences of his bad acts, so, too, must you. In your case, your punishment was to be banned from POSTING. Do I condem or condone your eventual permanent banning from posting? No. Why? It isn't my "house" to do so, as I've said many times before, in general in regards to banning anyone. Nearly every Forum and blog has similar rules of conduct, whether I agree with those rules or not, I must abide by them. As to whether you can read, let alone post to the GP Forums, that is clearly a carry-over punishment and my stance remains the same.
As to titles, as I've said before, they are meaningless. I couldn't care less as to what titles Dennis does or does not associate to himself any more than I care what titles YOU associate to yourself. Frankly, it's the interactive abilities of Dennis's form of news that keeps me coming back. True, there are a few other sites, such as Joystiq, that allow comments to be made and discussions to be had. But GamePolitics was the first place I went to and it was sufficient and quite a decent place to spend my reading time. If it had not been, I would have moved on to "greener pastures". It's not what Dennis alone does or does not believe or what titles he may or may not hold that keep me coming back for more. It's the interest in the subject matter and the ability to comment and interact with others about the subject matter that keeps me coming back. If only ALL news sites were that way. Some of the stories on MSNBC and even my own local news sites I would LOVE to comment on directly, and publically, about. And I mean something easy to save time. Story first, then at the bottom "comment on" or "discuss in the forum". Simple and quick so no waste of time.
As to Dennis's Bar complaint. It's none of my business what is or is not in the complaint, any more than whether he chose to file one or not. Frankly, I've questioned your honor and ethics for quite some time. And if any other individual chose to file a complaint against you, that too would be their right. As to the overall issue with the Bar, I understand a good number of individuals and organizations have complained. Even you have reported on a number of them in public. I've been noting the old case with the Florida Southern District Superior Court as well as the currently active Florida Supreme Court case from time to time. I noted that in the SDSC case, you attempted to have the judge removed from the case. Later, the case was voluntarily dismissed. Naturally, that is a rather shortened version of what happened. But shortly thereafter, you filed with the FL SC. While exact documentation isn't available online, I seriously doubt the entire issue is because of Dennis alone. And, in all honesty John Bruce, any comments you made in regards to either case would be highly suspect as to the validity of truth or even whether they are the whole truth of the matter.
Frankly, and with all due respect, you should gather every single written discussion on blogs, forums, interviews (newspapers, TV, radio, etc), email, and ANY comment you have ever made, and show them ALL to a psychologist. I seriously doubt that was done in that previous psychological exam and therefore the exam was incomplete. I'd wager that if ALL information was provided, that, at the very least, you'd be diagnosed with a superiority complex and magalomania. And, again, with all due respect, that is NOT the best thing to have running rampant for a good career, a continued good social standing, or even for improving life around you. I mean, really, look at that so-called deposition you wrote regarding Bully. You say you aren't trying to dictate your beliefs to OTHER PEOPLE'S children in other interviews, yet there in the deposition do you clearly state that it must be YOU who decides whether this one specific game is or is not appropriate for other people's children. Or how about your over-the-top temper tantrums when you don't get your way? Such as in the Robida case. I mean, really John Bruce.
nightwng2000
Undertaker @ Aug 19th 2006 9:08AM
To jack Thompson:
It might help the viewers of joystiq to know, that as this past week, and continuing to the forseeable future, that Dennis still writes for the St. Paul Pioneer Press on a regular basis. They still pick up his work nearly every week, despite jacks pathetic bitching and whining.
As for the Bar filling jack, how bout we reveal a few things about you eh?
At this time, Jack Thompson has 4 offical bar complaints against him, and in a desperate bid is suing the florida bar in an effort to squash the TRUTH about him being revealed to the public.
And you have the Gail to accuse dennis of lacking integrity?
Oh, and lets see what else jack constintly omits from his various "press releases.
1. Attempted to get penny arcade arrested when Penny arcade donated 10'000 dollars to charity in jacks name.
2. Attempted to get a District Attorney in the Jacob Robida case arrested, claiming that he was "Not doing his job" cause he had ruled out video games as a cause of Robidas actions, clearly and repeatedly ignoring the Neo nazi ties that Robida had, his well noted hatred of Homosexuals, and more.
3. Directly threated Dennis during the Wikipedia Fiasco claiming he was going to shut Game Politics down in retaliation for Dennis banning him, following jacks heartless and insulting statemets in regard to a sad event regarding a member of the metal gear solid forums, who commited suicide.
4. Over 300 pages of press releases, forum posts and more that were submitted to Judge Moore in alabama that led to Jack being thrown off the case.
I could go on, but I think thats enough.
Jack, you are the LAST person who should be questioning anyones integrity. You sir, are the proof that being a lawyer almost always makes you lower then sewer rat, least, as far as lawyers like you are. Your a disgrace to you profession, give good, decent lawyers a bad name, and are an embaressment to humanity.
Dennis has always been, is right now, and will always be a better person then you ever were, are, or shall be.
jccalhoun @ Aug 19th 2006 11:51AM
Jack,
You got the FCC to impose decency fines? That really is remarkable since they usually impose fines for indecency and not decency.
However, you must mean decency since the FCC has been issuing fines for indecency since the 1970s http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/graphics/web-fcc970.html
jack thompson @ Aug 19th 2006 12:20PM
Whine to the Pioneer Press about its warnings to Dennis McCauley, not to me.
IanC @ Aug 19th 2006 12:54PM
Whine to the Pioneer Press about its warnings to Dennis McCauley, not to me.
Wah? The hell you on Jack.
Thefremen @ Aug 19th 2006 1:11PM
You know what I love about our boy John Bruce? First off, he starts with a Press Release style comment talking about how big his dick is, throwing insults left and right, etc. Then, someone makes an even longer post destroying all his "arguements" and calling out his ad hominem attacks, right?
So now he's called out for the fraud that he is, all his ineptitude exposed to the world. His e-dick all shrunken up like he just came out of the e-pool. So what does he do? Find one teeny tiny nit to pick, or something completely random and stupid which he believes is a nit which he can pick, and posts a 1 sentence reply. He actually believes that's a proper retort for the verbal thrashing he just recieved from some gamer somewhere that he would refer to as a "drug addicted nazi jew" or whatever his latest epithet for us is.
Scott Snell
Thefremen
Cecil475 @ Aug 19th 2006 1:57PM
Well, Well, This was bound to happen sooner or later. Jack Thompson comes home to roost. Someone was having Gamepolitics withdrawl symptoms. Someone needed their daily fix of insulting gamers, rude usernames,patting yourself on the back for things you didn't do, and hooah.
Oh, I'm sorry. I meant - HOOAH!!
Jack, You don't know what the truth is. Much less tell it. It must really tear you up that you cannot post at Gamepolitics. You are reduced to emailing others from the site. You cannot have a decent interview with anyone anymore unless they blindly agree with you. And you seem to be running out of those too. People who sided with you seem to be distancing themselves with you. Either that or turn on them. You gave also been reduced to interviewing on G4. Great interview. I made my own mp3 of it.
You have the GALL to spew your hate and your LIES to others like you do and theh whine about how the people you insulted hate you.
You don't have anything to bitch about. All you have is old news just about everyone has heard. Dennis filling a bar complaint against you. Densis' so called 'misrepresenting.' saying Dennis is against free speech when you reek of censorship. And yes people are threating your life. Jeez that line is so old. No one wants to kill you. You just want to see people who don't agree with you in jail.
Bully is still going to be released no matter what you, or whatever anti-gaming flunkie followers you have left. It will still go on sale and you can't do anything about it. Other than Bitch,whine,moan. And send out threats. telling someone they have so many days to do what you say.
Get over yourself Thompson.
- Warren Lewis
cecil475@earthlink.net
tweek @ Aug 19th 2006 2:07PM
Still trolling I see...
I guess you didn't pay attention to any of that, or you would have addressed it rather than whining like the Goddamned troll that you are about the Bar complaint that he (along with half of the rest of GP.com) filed against you for being an asshat.
(What, you don't think you were an asshat? Remember Bodwin? Remember Mitch? I do, and so do they.)
I hear that you're looking pretty hard for people to sue now that you're being thrown out (AGAIN!) of your own case. I wonder - what type of Republican sues a company for not releasing their own IP for some random troll to criticize?
Anyway, if you really want to sue someone, how about you start with me? Remember? For responding to your trollish posts on a board you were banned over 50 times from, and had to be permanently thrown out by having your drool manually removed? You don't remember threatening to sue everyone that responded to your trolling anonymously, and then giving out Dennis' unlisted contact info? I was kinda looking forward to seeing how quickly the suit against me would be thrown out. I was hoping you'd somehow disbar yourself trying to sue me.
So ... uhm. You planning on doing that anytime soon?
Cecil475 @ Aug 19th 2006 2:10PM
Sorry about that.
It's a great article. I think game legislation will repeat itself. The more realistic the games get the more the politictions will keep trying to get the laws passed. I'm not that good with that subject. I could be wrong on it. But it's the impression that I get. I don't think they will learn from their mistakes.
- Warren Lewis
Kincyr @ Aug 19th 2006 2:22PM
he threatened to sue anyone who wouldn't (break LiveJournal's TOS by) revealing their name, address and phone number. Coupled the fact that he called us kids, that just made him sound like a pedophile.
IanC @ Aug 19th 2006 2:27PM
I loved that kids = gamers thing he always had in his mind, despite that most posters on GP.com are over 18.
jack thompson @ Aug 20th 2006 8:30AM
I know you're gamers and you might have only 3 neurons left, but see if you can follow this, which I doubt:
You can't be a journalist and file a governmental regulatory action against someone whom you repeatedly cover in stories without disclosing that conflict of interest to your readers. Duh.
Secondly, the St. Paul Pioneer Press told McCauley that he had to stop portraying himself, publicly, as a "columnist" with the paper, or he would not have his freelance articles published there further.
Now, any of you gamers who can follow that, congratulations. You still have your frontal lobes left. If you can't, then you're posited at the perfect place for you, Joystiq, which can call Wal-Mart about its comment on a story that I generated, but can't bring itself to call me. We have a name for people in Miami like that, and you all might, might, be able to figure it out. Jack Thompson
Jack Thompson
Undertaker @ Aug 20th 2006 8:50AM
So, as usual jack, you come back with a pathetic personal attack rather then facing the many flaws I and others pointed out?
No suprise. You think your personal attacks make up for your failures? Sorry, but Dennis is still working for the SPPP, and your claims about the legality of his bar complaint is wrong as well, for if that is true, why was there no reporting of it, no evidance to back up your claim. Why is the florida bar not ordering dennis to reveal it publicly, unless of course, your full of shit, like always, and are unable to do anything other the directly attack dennis.
But hey, if were gonna attack people, I got some for you, since you clearly are to brain dead to read it the first time through, heres a recap.
1. Attempted to get penny arcade arrested when Penny arcade donated 10'000 dollars to charity in jacks name.
2. Attempted to get a District Attorney in the Jacob Robida case arrested, claiming that he was "Not doing his job" cause he had ruled out video games as a cause of Robidas actions, clearly and repeatedly ignoring the Neo nazi ties that Robida had, his well noted hatred of Homosexuals, and more.
3. Directly threated Dennis during the Wikipedia Fiasco claiming he was going to shut Game Politics down in retaliation for Dennis banning him, following jacks heartless and insulting statemets in regard to a sad event regarding a member of the metal gear solid forums, who commited suicide.
4. Over 300 pages of press releases, forum posts and more that were submitted to Judge Moore in alabama that led to Jack being thrown off the case.
Sound familiar jack, they should, there your own damn actions recorded and saved for the whole world to see.
Give it up jack, failure has to have some kind of limit, and you crossed it long ago. Last I checked, regardless of what happens to Rockstar, someone else will take over the rights to GTA, and they will still be made, so, even if you were, in some way, able to get rockstar removed, GTA, and games like it, will still exsist.
Oh, and, have they coughed up a copy of bully? NO!, well, color me shocked. Not!
Your a sad little man, to be as petty and immature as you are at your age? Shameful!
jccalhoun @ Aug 20th 2006 9:20AM
Jack,
you know for someone who claims to be such an expert at law you sure seem to play fast and loose with legal jargon and with word choice in general.
You wrote:
You can't be a journalist and file a governmental regulatory action against someone whom you repeatedly cover in stories without disclosing that conflict of interest to your readers. Duh.
You certainly can be a journalist and do those things. You may not be an ETHICAL journalist, but you can be a journalist.
You also call a bar complain "a governmental regulatory action." Now, correct me if I"m wrong, but the Florida Bar is not a government body. If it were, why would it be allowed to take public positions on legislation and lobby? http://tinyurl.com/nuv3s
Also, in your earlier post you referred to this complain as a "SLAPP Bar complaint" but SLAPP stands for "Strategic lawsuit against public participation." A complaint is hardly a lawsuit is it?
I have already pointed out how unusual it would be for you to get "decency" fines enacted and that the FCC was fining people for indecency as far back as the 1970s.
Now I may only have 3 neurons left, but it seems to me that when insulting a group of people it would be more effective if your statements were factually correct. If you are correct then the facts can speak for themselves and there is no need for insults to cloud the issue.
Rob @ Aug 20th 2006 10:50AM
John Bruce Thompson-how many anti-video game lawsuits have you actually won?
Oh, that's right NONE. NOT ONE. Greedy, pompous, litigous bastards like yourself are what give lawyers a bad reputation.
You are NOT a "friend of the court" even though in your deluded mind, you think you are. Reality bites, eh?
If you want to change the first amendment, you'll need to somehow get a change the bill of rights, and you aren't important enough to make that happen, ever.
IanC @ Aug 20th 2006 11:42AM
I know you're gamers and you might have only 3 neurons left
How very mature of you Jack. By the sounds of it, your the one with "3 neureons" left
Joystiq, which can call Wal-Mart about its comment on a story that I generated, but can't bring itself to call me
Maybe they think more highly about Wal-mart than they do of you. In which case, i cant blame them.
KungFu-tse @ Aug 20th 2006 12:09PM
So Jack, how your lawsuit against the Florida Bar going? You know, the one you were "100% sure" you would win?
And how's the Alabama case going? You know, the one you got booted off by Judge Moore for unethical activities?
Hey, how's your relationship with with Dr. David Walsh? Still buddies, eh?
So how about those Penny-Arcade guys? Are they in jail jet?
How's Janet Reno doing? Still holding a grudge against her for losing in the election?
Oh, and one last thing? How's your relationship with Tyndale House Publishers? Still happy that they're making a Left Behind video game?
I'd have to say Jack, this is one amazing outline of a career you have going?
Cecil475 @ Aug 20th 2006 12:42PM
Some one really is suffering from Gamepolitics withdrawl symptoms. I wont be the one to say that you have three neurons left. I'm not up to giving you that much credit. Your posting on here is harassment.
You're losing and that scares you. What will you do when everyone quits paying you any attention?
- Warren Lewis
cecil475@earthlink.net
Kincyr @ Aug 20th 2006 2:29PM
Jack, the frontal lobes are also responsible for social behaviour. Considering how you act around us, YOU'RE the only one without any frontal lobes. Anyone with 3 neurons can figure that out. Evidentually, you have less.
Tiago @ Aug 20th 2006 2:39PM
I'm glad to live in a free country and where people understand that games aren't what make people criminals.