The Political Game: Banned in Boston
by Dennis McCauley 
{ Nov 24th 2006 at 12:30PM }
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
Suddenly, the video game violence debate is big news in Beantown.
The controversy began on Monday when a local advocacy group, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, delivered a letter to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which operates Boston's public transit system. The letter demanded that the MBTA remove poster ads for Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories from subway cars on Boston's Green Line.
Sixty influential locals signed on, including the mayors of Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts legislators, religious leaders, top healthcare professionals, children's advocates and academics. Collectively, the signatories called it "unconscionable" to display the Vice City Stories ad on the train, saying, "Advertising on the MBTA enables Rockstar Games to reach countless children -- those who ride the trains and those whose neighborhoods the trains pass through."
The group called on the MBTA to not only pull down the GTA ads, but to refuse to accept advertising for M-rated games in the future.
While you might expect so much political clout focused on one issue to carry the day, the MBTA flatly refused to pull the advertisements. The agency's director, Daniel Grabauskas, cited First Amendment concerns and recalled spending one million tax dollars in 2001 in a losing effort to block ads calling for marijuana law reform.
Grabauskas, apparently blindsided by the GTA ad protest, complained that he first learned about the controversy on the front page of a local newspaper. For his part, Boston mayor Thomas Menino accused Grabauskas of hiding behind the First Amendment. The Boston Police union joined the protest, calling the GTA ads "complete lunacy." And, of course, longtime Rockstar critic Jack Thompson managed to get a few jabs in, telling the Boston Herald, "It is utter nonsense for the MBTA to suggest the First Amendment somehow prohibits it from not participating in a criminal conspiracy. What's next? Bus ads for crack cocaine?"
The Herald even checked with local hookers, those oft-cited victims of GTA's supposed depravity. The ladies of the evening interviewed by the paper had mixed opinions on the ads.
In the midst of this dust-up, a few questions come to mind. Did the Vice City Stories ads appear on mass transit vehicles elsewhere? Will we be hearing of protests in those towns? Would the MBTA and other transit systems accept ads for R-rated movies or music CDs with explicit lyrics?
So where is this controversy going?
Away, most likely. The ad campaign, which raised $115,000 for the MBTA, ends on November 30th. MBTA head Grabauskas promised to look into his agency's legal ability to block violent game ads in the future. Still, it's clear the transit chief was bitter about the way the attack went down. In a response to the original protest letter, Grabauskas wrote, "I expect that you will now be about the business of taking on the other challenges causing violence in our City and in our Commonwealth with equal zeal."
In a letter written Wednesday to the Campaign For a Commercial-Free Childhood, Grabauskas promised to begin the process of amending the MBTA's advertising guidelines to prohibit M- and AO-rated games in the future. Grabauskas ended his letter with, "I urge you not to be too smug with the result. There is no victory when there was never a battle."
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
Suddenly, the video game violence debate is big news in Beantown.The controversy began on Monday when a local advocacy group, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, delivered a letter to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which operates Boston's public transit system. The letter demanded that the MBTA remove poster ads for Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories from subway cars on Boston's Green Line.
Sixty influential locals signed on, including the mayors of Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts legislators, religious leaders, top healthcare professionals, children's advocates and academics. Collectively, the signatories called it "unconscionable" to display the Vice City Stories ad on the train, saying, "Advertising on the MBTA enables Rockstar Games to reach countless children -- those who ride the trains and those whose neighborhoods the trains pass through."
The group called on the MBTA to not only pull down the GTA ads, but to refuse to accept advertising for M-rated games in the future.
While you might expect so much political clout focused on one issue to carry the day, the MBTA flatly refused to pull the advertisements. The agency's director, Daniel Grabauskas, cited First Amendment concerns and recalled spending one million tax dollars in 2001 in a losing effort to block ads calling for marijuana law reform.
Grabauskas, apparently blindsided by the GTA ad protest, complained that he first learned about the controversy on the front page of a local newspaper. For his part, Boston mayor Thomas Menino accused Grabauskas of hiding behind the First Amendment. The Boston Police union joined the protest, calling the GTA ads "complete lunacy." And, of course, longtime Rockstar critic Jack Thompson managed to get a few jabs in, telling the Boston Herald, "It is utter nonsense for the MBTA to suggest the First Amendment somehow prohibits it from not participating in a criminal conspiracy. What's next? Bus ads for crack cocaine?"
The Herald even checked with local hookers, those oft-cited victims of GTA's supposed depravity. The ladies of the evening interviewed by the paper had mixed opinions on the ads.
In the midst of this dust-up, a few questions come to mind. Did the Vice City Stories ads appear on mass transit vehicles elsewhere? Will we be hearing of protests in those towns? Would the MBTA and other transit systems accept ads for R-rated movies or music CDs with explicit lyrics?
So where is this controversy going?
Away, most likely. The ad campaign, which raised $115,000 for the MBTA, ends on November 30th. MBTA head Grabauskas promised to look into his agency's legal ability to block violent game ads in the future. Still, it's clear the transit chief was bitter about the way the attack went down. In a response to the original protest letter, Grabauskas wrote, "I expect that you will now be about the business of taking on the other challenges causing violence in our City and in our Commonwealth with equal zeal."
In a letter written Wednesday to the Campaign For a Commercial-Free Childhood, Grabauskas promised to begin the process of amending the MBTA's advertising guidelines to prohibit M- and AO-rated games in the future. Grabauskas ended his letter with, "I urge you not to be too smug with the result. There is no victory when there was never a battle."
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
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
DiahrreaMan @ Nov 24th 2006 12:43PM
Politics as usual trying to blame video games for local violence. It's not the video games that do it, it's bad parenting!
STILL WAITING FOR GOLDEN SUN 3 DAMMIT!
MosquitoControl @ Nov 24th 2006 12:45PM
I'm a lawyer trying to find work in Boston - someone needs to start a pro-gaming non-profit group so I can gain some traction with them.
Jim @ Nov 24th 2006 2:13PM
People need to stop blaming Video Games for the violence.
Piet @ Nov 24th 2006 12:52PM
Placing video games in the same specific category as other entertainment is not appropriate.
All other media you engage in a very simple way, as an observer.
Video games you actively participate in and are therefore influenced both indirectly and directly by your actions and the games reactions.
This is one reason that you can't look at Game ads in the same light as those for Movies and Music.
Kelvin @ Nov 24th 2006 12:54PM
The ad policy for video game ads should be the same as the policy for movies. I don't know if R-rated movies are allowed to sell ads on the MBTA, but they'd be ig'nant to allow those and not M-rated video games.
But what I really like is the transit chief and his couth diplomatic words to tell these guys to SHOVE IT.
Anonymouse Rep @ Nov 24th 2006 12:55PM
I'm not shocked at all by this attempt at censorship in Boston. Those of you who know your history know that Boston has always been a bastion of censorship and attempts to control what people can see and think. Massachusetts has always been a bit - off - from the rest of the country, since they're not a state in this country.
(Oh, no they're not - they're a Commonwealth, and they're PROUD of not being a state.)
The problem, of course, is simple. You've got a few people attempting to decide what the masses can see and hear, based on community standards. Welcome to the legal history of pornography versus erotic art - because you then get the question of who decides the community standards.
My issue, of course, is simple. The community standards in that Commonwealth (NOT state) are such that it is perfectly acceptable to drive drunk, cause vehicular manslaughter, and then continue to serve in the U.S. Senate. Any comments on this whole controversy, Senator Kennedy?
What's going to happen is that when the contract expires at the end of the month, the nutjobs will claim victory because the ads came down. They will say that it was because of their influence - and lost in the noise will be the simple fact that it was time for them to come down.
What's next, Boston? Banning TV shows? Burning books? Becoming more facist? Heil Thompson???
Brian @ Nov 24th 2006 12:57PM
I honestly don't understand why some of you will defend the games on this one.
I have no children, but if I did, I certainly wouldn't want them playing these types of games. There's a ratings system for a reason, people.
Just because you enjoy the games, doesn't necessarily mean they're appropriate for everyone.
I'm tempted to believe that those who will wholeheartedly defend the violent games (the ones who will say congress is wrong for trying to blame videogames for teen violence) are actually not adults themselves. In fact, in my mind... I believe that more than half of the people who purchase M-rated games are under the age of 15. And to be perfectly honest, that pisses me off.
Reminds me of how 4 years ago, the people saying the GameCube was for kids... were actually kids themselves. They scream and shout about how only games with gore and hookers are good... yet they're most likely 12-15 years old. It's sad, really.
But anyway... I agree with Boston politicians' actions. I don't think this sort of advertising should be viewable by children. Especially considering children are the ones who will beg their parents to buy these types of games for them for Christmas, and most parents don't know any better.
bandit @ Nov 24th 2006 1:08PM
at this point its getting ridiculous. If you ban these ads you must ban advertisements for rated -R movies, alcohol, explicit music, basically anything a minor should not participate in. However theres too much money in those industries... plus parents dont have to take responsibility now
JJ @ Nov 24th 2006 1:12PM
But brian the real question is, do they allow other Adult oriented things like R rated movies and Explicit language CDs to be advertised on those same billboards?
If so, then i dont see a problem. ADvertising isn't necessarily the same as buying and playing you know. I see ads for Ipods all the time and have yet to buy one or even be tempted too.
and just because a kid wants something doesnt mean you nEED to buy it. I'm sure even without advertising kids will want things that they cant have and parents wont buy... thats life.
I mean heck they show the commercial for this game on TV all the time, they show commercials for R rated movies all the time too.
Kyle @ Nov 24th 2006 1:15PM
I agree with #6 on this one. Trying to keep advertising for mature rated content (be it videogames or otherwise) is a good idea, and should fall under the same restrictions as other adult oriented medias.
Keeping mature rated games away from children is the parents job but quite simply they're not doing it.
These type of interventions by community groups will not affect any of age consenting adults or their gaming (or otherwise hobbies) and are easily preferrable to broad focus legislation that will place unwarranted strain on the industry
J.Goodwin @ Nov 24th 2006 1:15PM
I can attest that the T and commuter rail have in the last year had ads for both Vice City Stories and Liberty City Stories. No one gave a crap.
I did consider stealing one though, but never got around to it. The ebay value might be considerable, in my dreams.
Frankly, the horror film marathon ads were far more objectionable, one would think. This little "ban letter" isn't going anywhere.
bandit @ Nov 24th 2006 1:15PM
Piet you are an idiot, by your reasoning, minors shouldnt be allowed to play paintball as it encourages then to go shoot people, or drive go cars because it encourages them to go drive a real car... idiot. Entertainment is entertainment period. What about advertising alcohol? Thats definitely has the sole purpose of participating and is often in plain view of minors
To brian, it is the PARENTS responsibility to NOT buy those games for their children. Just like its a parents resposibility to NOT take their kids to a rated R movie or but their music with explicit lyrics. The KIDS ARE NOT THE ONES BUYING IT. ITS THE PARENTS RESPONBILITY!!!
JJ @ Nov 24th 2006 1:16PM
Ah totally forgot that. They do advertise alcohol too and thats not helpful for... pretty much anyone with all the drunk driving accidents, injuries involiving drinking and what not.
They should ban alcohol again too eh? Since that just leads to problems. and heck while we're banning video games, we should ban all questionable media, TV, Movies, Music, etc etc. Just get rid of the first amendment totally because if 1 person has a problem with something then its no good.
Granted i dont believe children should be playing these games either. But children aren't dumb and dont need to be coddled for the most part. Sure there's some bad apples out there... but that would be true in ANY case with or without anything to negatively influence them.
spike117 @ Nov 24th 2006 1:15PM
Its amazing how people use children for their own political agenda. Its always about the children right!? The poor children being influenced by evil people, we must stop them! The children are defenseless...its not like there is someone directly responsible for them right? Like I dunno...their parents?
Its also amazing how adults have been proclaiming the end of society since its inception. First its those evil books...then its that evil jazz...then its that evil radio...then its those evil movies...then its that evil television...then its that evil rock and roll...then its that evil gangsta rap...then its those evil videogames!
Now if you had any intelligence you would look back on your youth and remember the vice of your own generation. Did Rock and Roll really screw up your life? No? Well there were groups shouting at the top of their lungs that it would!
Wake up people! These agendas have nothing to do with children. These nuts want to control your life. Do you think they wouldnt ban pornography for everyone if they could? Of course they would, but since they cant they resort to the child arguement. Gotta protect the children!
The only people responsible for children are their parents. Stop trying to protect other peoples kids and worry about your own!
Mr Blonde @ Nov 24th 2006 1:17PM
I agree, kids should not play M rated game for obvious reasons. But if those GTA ads are the same as in Canada then they are drawings and title art. Why can't a company advertize to me? I am an adult and I ride the subway. Does this mean there should be no alcohol ads or anything advertized that is aimed at adults to purchase on the subway as well?
J.Goodwin @ Nov 24th 2006 1:18PM
And the Herald is a complete joke.
It's a smarmy right wing tabloid that routinely has to give away free copies in the afternoon to keep their circulation figures high enough for advertisers to stay on.
They're always in financial trouble, and sooner or later they're going out of business.
droptop GP @ Nov 24th 2006 1:20PM
It's up to the PARENTS to decide what the kids play.
Why don't you ban the Victoria Secret adds too for showing too much skin!!!
Why don't you ban Burger King add cuz it makes you kids FAT!!
WTF???? It's the parents responsibility to watch their kids and monitor what they're playing!!!
This is why I HATE polititians and organized religion.
Joe @ Nov 27th 2006 4:24PM
Wow, an ad for a game? I mean, it's not like they show ads for R-rated movies, or obscene bands, or sell shirts with profanity with them in front of Fenway, or they show hundreds of ads for things that brainwash kids, like iPods and the like.
Nope, I've never seen that riding through Boston.
Dan Seitz @ Nov 24th 2006 1:31PM
I can confirm these ads are all over the MBTA...including the commuter rail, which reaches pretty much half the state (and probably almost zero of the game's target audience, but I'm not a marketing consultant for Rockstar.)
But censorship is NOT what's really going on here. This is a play to embarass Grabauskas and the T, pure and simple.
Essentially, the T, legally speaking, can't say no to anyone, and as a result, it has to do things that piss off everyone else. The state legislature put it on a forward funding mandate and ordered it to vastly expand its service to compensate for the environmental damage of the Big Dig; naturally, the T is now running a huge deficit. The governor, Mitt "The Zit" Romney has ordered the T, for the sake of his Presidential run, to get rid of that deficit pronto, while also paying for his desire to eliminate the T's token-and-pass system and replace it with fare-cards and swishy "Star Trek"-style turnstiles. Grabauskas could either cut service, which is pretty much impossible, or raise fares, which is politically unpopular, to put it mildly.
Grabauskas went with the fare increase (which takes effect 2007), and needless to say, pretty much the entirety of the Boston metropolitan area hit the roof. Mayor Mennino basically wants the fare increase to magically go away. Environmental groups, such as Conservation Law, were furious as this might raise car traffic (of course, the Conservation Law folks don't want to let the T out of the expansion promises they wrested from the Legislature, either.) The legislature is furious too, but there's no way in hell they can do a damn thing until Patrick takes office, since Romney cares about his political career, not his constituents.
Essentially, it's a big fat political mess created by a lot of people who are too damn stubborn. So instead of compromising or working together, the various groups have been taking potshots at each other. This is one of them, so don't read too much into it. I'd be more concerned about what Mennino's going to do about the near-riot at Copley Square.
Space Butler @ Nov 24th 2006 1:32PM
Menino is a mushed mouth idiot. I'm wondering how anyone was able to get a comment out of that stupid stroke-victim-voiced child in a suit. Although I guess anything works to make people forget about the big dig.
Kyle @ Nov 24th 2006 1:33PM
It is up to parent and I being one can say that advertising is not near as influential as friends and other more local concerns. I don't play m rated games in front of my son, but there is simply no way to ensure that he doesn't play them at a friends house.
I have had instances when a non mature rated game did something we frown upon in my household and it was a starting point for the whole father son dialogue(especially with my nephew who is old enough to understand circumstances) but I don't imagine most kids parents are anywhere near the tv when they are playing.
I didn't find much fault with GTA because as my friends and I play it's simply a competition to see who can get the farthest jumps, wheelies, most stars whatever (very few prostitutes were ever harmed , except for bad driving) and of course who could steal the apache.
What i find humorous is that some of the truly gritty or edgy games are never even mentioned by these rights groups.
i agree that kids should not be exposed to these things but until they include all the other mature items on the list it's kind of a placebo solution
Brian @ Nov 24th 2006 1:37PM
To those who say it doesn't matter because ads for alcohol/tobacco/violent movies can be viewed by children:
Ask a child to rank the following by importance...
Movies
Music
Television
Videogames
I assure you, videogames would be their number 1. My point is, children are more receptive to advertisements that are about something they are interested in. Namely, videogames. A child more than likely will not pick up smoking if he or she sees a billboard advertisement for Newport cigarettes... but replace "Newport" with Master Chief or Mario, and the kid will definitely remember it.
And yes, parents SHOULD be the ones monitoring what their children are playing... but here's the kicker: most parents' concept of videogame violence begins and ends with Donkey Kong throwing a barrel at Mario, or Pac-Man eating a ghost. They are almost entirely unaware that in games like GTA, you kill hookers and run over innocent people in cars.
Sure, parents are SUPPOSED to be the ones buying videogames for children... but a lot of the time, retailers DON'T ask for picture identification. And just as well, parents don't understand the point of the ESRB ratings system. If a 13-year-old child asks their parent for an M-rated game for their birthday, or Christmas... the parent will go ahead and buy it, because the child wants it. They have no understanding that "Zombie Prostitute Revolution 5000" is NOT meant to be played by their 13-year-old child. They don't understand that gore and hookers aren't limited to square-shaped pixels anymore.
Werbal @ Nov 24th 2006 1:37PM
#10 Exactly right. If you want to talk ads targeted toward kids, talk about alcohol. I mean, the Budweiser frogs?! Come on, those are practically fucking cartoon characters. More recently, you've got this "Men of the Square Table" stuff with guys like Triple H, who most preteens likely recognize. Hell, Dale Earnhardt Jr., one of the most popular and recognized racecar drivers is SPONSORED by Budweiser.
You know what the difference between alcohol and video games is? Alcohol has lobbying power. Also, the old fat bastards in Congress love to drink, but don't know a THING about games.
In 10 or 20 years, once you've got legislators in office who grew up playing Doom, these sort of knee-jerk, ill-informed attacks will be harder to do.
Maci @ Nov 24th 2006 1:52PM
I do recall seeing these ads, and as a gamer of 19 I thought they should be taken off. They depict woman as sex objects, everyone is holding guns and theres money everywhere. Children do hold video games highly and M rated video game advertisements should be removed, depending on the content.
bandit @ Nov 24th 2006 1:53PM
um... brian i hate to say it but you view is VERY biased and makes a TON of assumptions. Have you conducted a survey?!? Can you direct us to one?!?! What are the demographics. You are one of the people the informed individuals fight AGAINST. Those who make ASSUMTIONS based on their point of view rather than viewing the FACTS.
FACT. The majority of games store DO act for ID for video game purchases of M games for customers who appear under the age of 16. VERY similar to the way movie theaters ask the same.
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/nys/gme/compliance.pdf
Like I said you are ASSUME they dont. DO the research they you can bad mouth the industry all you want.
jack thompson @ Nov 24th 2006 1:53PM
Wow, Dennis McCauley, predicting that this would just "go away" (see above) is wrong yet again. I was delighted to help the Campaign secure the below-noted victory against the sociopaths who run Take-Two. The good guys are winning the culture war, and the video game industry, with its sychophants like Dennis McCauley and the editors at Joystiq, are not.
By the way, love the fact that Joystiq has tried to ban me here, and then it and its readers whine about "censorship" in Boston. Bypocrisy is always hilarious. Jack Thompson, Hooah!
Immediate News Release – November 24, 2006
Victory for Parents against Corporate Predators in the Culture War:
Boston Buses to Ban Mature-Rated Video Game Ads!
Last week a fabulous public interest organization, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org, publicly urged the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), to pull ads for the hyperviolent Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories video game from the sides of its buses.
The Campaign is a national organization of educators, public health advocates, including the Mayor of Boston, who have recognized this and other corporate predatory practices targeting kids with adult products.
MBTA’s General Manager, Daniel A. Grabauskas, shot back in the Boston media that “the First Amendment” prohibits this governmental entity from refusing ads for adult entertainment products, even though children were seeing those ads, and even though the video game industry, through its Entertainment Software Association, has repeatedly promised Congress and American parents, in the aftermath of Columbine, that it would not run Mature-rated game ads in venues in which kids in substantial numbers would see the ads.
As events in Boston this last week have proven, the Entertainment Software Association lied.
Now for the good news: Miami attorney Jack Thompson, over the last decade an advocate against the marketing of Mature-rated video games and a perpetual thorn in the side of the reckless people who run Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. which makes the Grand Theft Auto games, has just this morning received from the MBTA’s Mr. Graubauskas a letter of surrender.
Mr. Graubaskas states that the MBTA will no longer accept advertisements for Mature-rated video games for placement on its buses. This is a total victory for the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which organization Jack Thompson was privileged to assist in this matter over the past several days. This fact is acknowledged by the MBTA in sending Thompson this written announcement.
The First Amendment, of course, guarantees “the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It does not protect the “right” of corporations to market adult entertainment products to children.
Is this a great country, or what? Contact Jack Thompson at 305-666-4366.
BlackTyrannomon @ Nov 24th 2006 1:58PM
I'm sorry, but a group with it's namesake targeting only mature game ads on the MBTA?! Who are they kidding, I'm sorry, the T is loaded with ads all over, but they only target the 1/50 that has games on it? What about the mature subjects such as:
- Domestic violence
- Aids
- Homelessness
- orphans
Such topics are obviously fine to put in a kids head, but not a rockstar game? this is a BS double-standard that I despise. Look, if you're a parent, be a damned parent and don't uy the game for your kid, it's that simple. Just becase an advertisement is seen dosen't mean they're hypnotized into buying that game by any means necessary. And if your child IS mimicking a game they see on TV, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, Don't sue a game company for being at fault, it's a sad attempt to get money for your failure as a parent.
I am not one for having ads all over the place, but I am against a group that claims working for the benefit of the people, when it is pushing it's own agenda which is just targeted against one ad.
Readers of Joystiq, I implore you!
Next time somebody goes "Won't somebody think og the children?!" Slap them upside the head and tell them frankly to go home to thiers.
I'm tired of this surrogate parenting as an excuse for bad parenting and it needs to end before future generations degrade further into pop idols and gansta rap stars.
bandit @ Nov 24th 2006 1:57PM
DEAR JACK,
what is your stance on R-rated movie and explicit lyric advertisements in public venues? Why are those acceptable?
Kelvin @ Nov 24th 2006 2:21PM
#17: Thanks Dan for the political intrigue. It's unfortunate that personal ambition has led to so much crap, especially when it'll be a cold day in Hell when Romney gets the GOP nomination. ;D
jack thompson @ Nov 24th 2006 2:26PM
Response to Bandit's good question:
There is a two-part response re my view on R-rated movie ads:
1. The ESA, headed by prevaricator in chief, Doug Lowenstein, promised Congress, under oath, that ESA would assure that ads for Mature-rated games would not be seen, would not be tolerated by the ESA, in venues in which minors were, in substantial numbers, going to see them. This ad campaign by Take-Two on the sides of buses violates that promise. What do you expect from a paid lobbyist like Lowenstein.
2. These are ads that are being run not on private property, where Take-Two has a "right" to run ads (unless they violate the above industry promised by ESA on Take-Two's behalf--Take-Two is a member of ESA, by the way), but rather these are ads on governmental property. Doesn't anyone at Joystiq understand the difference?
The difference is that the Transit Autority has a rule against running ads for NC-17 movies on buses. I have written the MBTA this past week and asked them to conform that rule to the video game products.
Guess what? The MBTA has now sent me this morning the letter stating that they agree, and that no more M-rated video game ads will be tolerated and accepted, as the movie-rating rule is being expanded to games.
Now, you all would have been informed of this if Dennis McCauley, who is the only censor in this situation, had bothered to update Joystiq directly or his own GamePolitics.com site by sharing the actual letter that the MBTA sent me hours ago and that I faxed to McCauley!
McCauley may be afraid to report this news (unless he has exploded like Mr. Creosote after his turkey day dinner), because McCauley has had a perpetual censorship policy against me for many months now, refusing to report, for example, that the baseless Bar complaint he filed against me was dismissed. McCauley has even rigged his gamepolitics.com site in such a way that I cannot access it from my main computer.
This guy thinks what I do is censorhip? McCauley won't report this great victory in Boston because a) he predicted it wouldn't happen (see above), and b) I was part of the victory.
Bandit, good question. See what we can all learn when self-appointed censors like McCauley are exposed for being the fraud that he is?
Triforceowner @ Nov 24th 2006 2:34PM
Experts in gaming say that the M rating is equal to the movie's PG-13 rating. If this is true, then these parents should go after all advertising of PG-13 and above movies.
I'm not saying I love GTA4, in fact I couldn't care that much for the series after GTA3, but with all the R rated movies being advertised during television events the kids watch (sports...) why are they going after a game that is equivalent to a PG-13 movie?
bandit @ Nov 24th 2006 2:38PM
my personally opinion based on jack thompson response is that the ESA has an obligation to uphold its promise and that an rating equivilent should be applied to video games as well. The question is which standard should apply. Should M-rating games be categorized along with NC-17 movies or R-rated movies? Since M games rarely feature content beyond what would be considered a R rating in movie theaters the latter arguement likely wouldnt apply.
I will say I would like sources of the first point out the arguement to view the context of that oath however i agree the ESA must adhere to its previous oaths. Now that we know the route of the arguement lets search for who is really violating what here.
VoiceofHarold @ Nov 24th 2006 2:57PM
This doesn't surprise me at all. Ever take the Green Line in Boston on a crowded business day? Everybody in it looks straight ahead, completely unmoved. No talking, no smiling, no acknowledgement of even being there or being human whatsoever.
People tend to automatically associate video games with child's play. Many don't realize that the industry has evolved to the point of creating "interactive entertainment" near the level of movies instead of blips on the screen.
nea @ Nov 24th 2006 3:00PM
gta sucks now anyway. it was good in its day and i doubt there are any kids out there who havent already played it
Alex @ Nov 24th 2006 3:06PM
This cencorship angers me and makes me lose confidence in the sence of judgement of lawmakers, political figures, and leaders. Games such as Grand Theft Auto cannot be bought by children, because of its rating. So those games cannot be played by kids unless parents buy them for them, and even if they get them in some otherway the parents should see what they're playing and stop them.
Its parents' job to make sure their kids are morally grounded, and pulling ads down in subway stations is not going to change that!
William @ Nov 24th 2006 3:18PM
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""29. Response to Bandit's good question:
There is a two-part response re my view on R-rated movie ads:
1. The ESA, headed by prevaricator in chief, Doug Lowenstein, promised Congress, under oath, that ESA would assure that ads for Mature-rated games would not be seen, would not be tolerated by the ESA, in venues in which minors were, in substantial numbers, going to see them. This ad campaign by Take-Two on the sides of buses violates that promise. What do you expect from a paid lobbyist like Lowenstein.
2. These are ads that are being run not on private property, where Take-Two has a "right" to run ads (unless they violate the above industry promised by ESA on Take-Two's behalf--Take-Two is a member of ESA, by the way), but rather these are ads on governmental property. Doesn't anyone at Joystiq understand the difference?
The difference is that the Transit Autority has a rule against running ads for NC-17 movies on buses. I have written the MBTA this past week and asked them to conform that rule to the video game products.
Guess what? The MBTA has now sent me this morning the letter stating that they agree, and that no more M-rated video game ads will be tolerated and accepted, as the movie-rating rule is being expanded to games.
Now, you all would have been informed of this if Dennis McCauley, who is the only censor in this situation, had bothered to update Joystiq directly or his own GamePolitics.com site by sharing the actual letter that the MBTA sent me hours ago and that I faxed to McCauley!
McCauley may be afraid to report this news (unless he has exploded like Mr. Creosote after his turkey day dinner), because McCauley has had a perpetual censorship policy against me for many months now, refusing to report, for example, that the baseless Bar complaint he filed against me was dismissed. McCauley has even rigged his gamepolitics.com site in such a way that I cannot access it from my main computer.
This guy thinks what I do is censorhip? McCauley won't report this great victory in Boston because a) he predicted it wouldn't happen (see above), and b) I was part of the victory.
Bandit, good question. See what we can all learn when self-appointed censors like McCauley are exposed for being the fraud that he is?
Posted at 2:25PM on Nov 24th 2006 by jack thompson 0 stars
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Jack.. I'd like to point out a serious flaw in your arguement. You literally failed to address Bandit's question, what you did is a Public Relations job and attempt to change the subject while vaguely answering the original. I happen to know a lot about this. You focused on telling what causes M rated games to be posted in subways and other places, and why they shouldn't, only mentioning the comparison to NC-17.
Unfortunately, many of us know that R movies can feature full frontal nudity and grotesque violence (See Hostel and Saw 1, 2, 3) In the movie A History of Violence the main character visibly performs cunniligus (In case you don't know what that means Jack, that means oral stimulation of the Vagina)and full frontal nudity. He even has rapes his wife on a staircase that visibly leaves bruises on her back later in the movie.
GTA has NEVER had this kind of sexuality, and as for violence, GTA comes no where near close to Hostel. GTA is rated M, Hostel and A History of Violence are R, The movies are worse than the game, thus R can feature more detrimental content...
but for some strangeeee reason R rated movie posters are allowed????
Kids have GTA because parents buy it for them. Not the kids, the parents. Educate them and their decisions, don't ban something that millions have no trouble dealing with.
One last thing, when you answer a question directed at you, try ACTUALLY answering each question. For instance, What is your favorite color?
Instead of saying, "The factory that makes many colors often makes rainbow sherbert and a wonderful peanut cream icecream, but THAT KILLS PEOPLE!!!!"
You're supposed to say, "I like raspberry icecream, I think it tastes good"
Don't try to get in your 2cents that really don't belong there.
Sincerely, Public Relations Pro
GamePolitics @ Nov 24th 2006 3:55PM
I don't understand what Mr. T from Miami is complaining about here when he claims that I am a censor and not reporting this 'great victory' in Boston.
GamePolitics has covered this story intensively all week, including all of the criticism of the GTA ads from a variety of quarters.
Did Mr. T miss the last paragraph of this column, the one that says:
In a letter written Wednesday to the Campaign For a Commercial-Free Childhood, Grabauskas promised to begin the process of amending the MBTA's advertising guidelines to prohibit M- and AO-rated games in the future. Grabauskas ended his letter with, "I urge you not to be too smug with the result. There is no victory when there was never a battle."
reppy @ Nov 24th 2006 3:38PM
@William
I'm pretty sure the term "straight-talking lawyer" is some sort of oxymoron.
Warren Lewis @ Nov 24th 2006 3:42PM
That's a good Jack Thompson impersonation, whoever you are. real good. I thought you were the real Mcoy for a bit there. But the thing is: Jack Thompson was banned from Joystiq just like he was banned from Gamepolitics. Therefore he cannot be posting here.
Nice try though.
- Warren Lewis
Dan Seitz @ Nov 24th 2006 3:44PM
Kelvin: No problem. Boston is one of those cities rife with old-fashioned political warfare and anybody who doesn't live here needs the context.
By the by, Ad-Free Childhood didn't bother to mention entire Green Line train cars and buses turned into massive rolling billboards for everything from airlines to candy bars to liquor.
Quinton @ Nov 24th 2006 6:09PM
I ride the T Green Line every weekday and have seen the GTA ads on the cars. They're very plain and if you didn't know anything about GTA, they'd hardly give you a sense of the game's violence. At worst, one frame shows someone on a 4-wheeler with a gun slung over his shoulder and another shows two bikini babes on roller skates. Most frames are just drawings of characters from the game.
Big deal. Blown out of proportion. Next stop, Government Center.
Kevin M. @ Nov 24th 2006 3:57PM
It's not the games that are driving up the real-life violence. It's the people TAKING THE GAMES AWAY.
Joe @ Nov 27th 2006 4:24PM
Warren: Jack Thompson is an elite HAX0R. How else is he still of any mention?
Jabrwock @ Nov 24th 2006 5:53PM
"I don't understand what Mr. T from Miami is complaining about here when he claims that I am a censor"
Mr T clearly fails to realise that the first amendment is a right applied to public venues. So while he has the right to spew his vitriole from his own website, and noone can censor that, he's pissy that he can't hijack someone else's website to do the same.
He's a perfect example of why the US is in such a disarray. Few people actually READ the constitution... He merely cherry picks those parts that suit him during the current situation. Believe me, if he were the one on the receiving end of attempts at censorship (and as much as he would love to advertise, he's not), he'd be holding the Constitution up in it's entirety like it was handed to him from God herself.
Yukimura @ Nov 24th 2006 7:23PM
As usual, Mr T From miami covers up his own failures by clutching at straws, trying to hide his defeats by getting any claim to victory he can.
Still, after weeks of silence from the Miami moron, I must say it's nice to hear him back in the public arena making a fool of himself. BTW jack, hows that new publice contempt hearing coming, since Judge friedman recused himself, I wonder what the new judge will think of you, oh, and lets not forget his compliant to the florida bar either.
If I were you jack, I'd remove myself from this debate before it winds up costing you your license, your reputation, what little is left, and your family. Word on the street is your son wishs you were dead for all the trouble you cause him, hell, I feel sorry for your wife, who is a respected lawyer. To be married to the laughing stock of the florida legal community, well, that must be humiliating.
Sorry Jack, but all you do is prove us right. The only real censor was you, and you got so good at it, you managed to censor yourself from Game politics, kotaku, and joystiq. Hope they block you again, we don't need your shit here.
Mnementh2230 @ Nov 24th 2006 7:54PM
@ John Bruce Thompson
Now, you all would have been informed of this if Dennis McCauley, who is the only censor in this situation, had bothered to update Joystiq directly or his own GamePolitics.com site by sharing the actual letter that the MBTA sent me hours ago and that I faxed to McCauley!
Jack/John Bruce Thompson, you're such a dumbass - you only just sent that information to Dennis, and you expect instant results. Do you have a grasp on TIME?
Besides which, you've posted the information here, so what is being censored? NOTHING. Dennis isn't censoring anyone, the MBTA is censoring billboards as I suppose is their right, and that is that. If they have expanded their polocies to include video games as well as the affore mentioned movies, that is their perogative, and there is no controversy. Go find another dead horse.
Mnementh2230 @ Nov 24th 2006 8:03PM
Furthermore, Jacko, your b!tching about being censored on Gamepolitics is just about the stupidest thing you've ever uttered. He told you time and again that you weren't welcome there, and yet you persisted, saying that you hadn't been banned because you were still able to post. Perhaps if you had read the EULA for livejournal (which thankfully he's not using anymore) you would have realized that by continuing to make more accounts with which to post on www.gamepolitics.com, you were actually VIOLATING THE LAW (or at least the EULA). As such, you have no place to complain about being censored. Grow up.
Mr.Pat @ Nov 24th 2006 9:14PM
I'd just like to ask everyone to stop calling that moron "Mr. T" - there is only one Mr. T, and that is Mr. T. Jack is nowhere near his level of greatness, and in reality is a fool in which to pity. Thank you.
Jer @ Nov 25th 2006 12:32AM
@ JBThompson
Why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person? Isn't that a little childish?
Ben @ Nov 25th 2006 9:00AM
Such a shame thompson. GTA is not "hyperviolent" as you claim, or if the MBTA actually did what you said, prove it with a link.
Lowenstein is neither a liar or a prevaricator. You however are.
And you are banned from Gamepolitics because of your previous attitudes there and refusal to cease and desist your verbal onslaught of absolute spew.