Jack Thompson helps Boston's Mayor Menino draft legislation

by Alexander Sliwinski { Jan 8th 2007 at 10:05PM }

Game Politics reports that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino requested help from Jack Thompson in drafting a bill, to be presented to the Massachusetts legislature, placing some video games in the same category as porn.

The legislation, which currently has no primary sponsor, would prevent minors from buying games that are:

Depicting violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors.
Is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors.
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

If all of this seems familiar, it's because similar legislation has been shot down or bounced around in one state or another and eventually declared unconstitutional. Not to mention this is just the latest spectacle from Jack Thompson. Let's see if Tom and Jack can stay civil, unlike what happened between Thompson and his Louisiana allies.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Number One @ Jan 8th 2007 10:12PM

Hooray for Jack thompson!!

I thinks he's too far into it to pull out of this bullshit quest of his... I cant wait for celebrety boxing to have him go against Akuma from street fighter and have his scrotum fed to him... Please Lords of DRam, make it happen.

Josh @ Jan 8th 2007 10:19PM

Quite ambiguous qualifications for a game a minor shouldn't buy they have there.

These bills never pass (thankfully), so why won't they just give up and stop wasting everyone's time and money?

Brian @ Jan 9th 2007 12:11AM

Mumbles and Jacky-boy. A match made in heaven.

LuckyCharm2007 @ Jan 8th 2007 10:53PM

They are going to do shit if parents keep buying them Mature games assholes!!

dont forget that you can also download mature games and porn for free on the net!!

Jack Thompson and Mayor Menino suck my cock.

Dan @ Jan 8th 2007 10:26PM

Ah, Tom Menino. As a former resident of Boston it's hard to take this guy seriously, he's more like a mascot than a mayor.

Much like a cookie, I predict this bill will crumble. And the results will be delicious for gaming fans.

Jonah Falcon @ Jan 8th 2007 10:41PM

I can smell his breath from here. Phew. Smells like rotten fish.

HotShotX @ Jan 8th 2007 10:31PM

"Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

Could someone please state when something that did not lack in these qualities came from Boston?

~HotShotX

PS: Hooray 1st Amendment.

Defenestrator2.0 @ Jan 8th 2007 10:54PM

Uh oh, Jack Thompson is in it for now. Massachusetts has a lot of homosexual people living there like it or not. And Jack Thompson hates homosexuals. Openly.

Eric @ Jan 8th 2007 10:56PM

Why do they keep attempting to put up bills like this when it will get pulled down the next day, wasting tax payer's money?

mcatrage @ Jan 8th 2007 11:05PM

I think gamers should unite when it comes to these bills that are infringing on our rights.

We need marches or whatever else non lazy people do when they have been wronged.

xboxer @ Jan 8th 2007 11:16PM

Good God... I thought that pic was from an in-game character. Surely a caricature of an air-bag politician if I've ever seen one.

SickNic @ Jan 8th 2007 11:15PM

I sleep tight at night knowing my tax dollars are going towards a losing war and useless videogame reform...

RyanLN @ Jan 9th 2007 12:56AM

I am speechless, which stinks because the First Amendment demands that I say SOMETHING. I will being by stating that this legislation would ban all but 15% of the commercials on MTV. Having said that, I just come away scratching my head like I always do when this asswipe decides that he has something to say. I wonder if he would continue to exist if everyone just ignored him- stopped giving him press, stopped reprinting his nonsense, and just pretended that his voice was the sound of the wind through the trees? Somehow I doubt it... but it would be fun to try. I'm also beginning think that maybe he hates video games so much because a couple of five year old girls beat the hell out of him with a sack full of used copies of Sega Genesis Mortal Kombat. He has yet to point to any sort of empirical data or evidence that support any of his propositions, and the fact that any of our elected officials pay even the slightest bit of attention to him instead of wasting their time on trivial things like job creation, education and fighting poverty only serves to demonstrate the sad state of affairs that is our political system. Yes, we have the best system in the world- but it still sucks, which should tell you alot about everyone else's.

TheGameMaster @ Jan 9th 2007 2:01AM

VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SAVE US JACK AND THANK GOD WE GOT A BUNCH OF MASSHOLES TO HELP US TOO!! The only state where homo's can get married (and that's good moral standing) but if you put up an ad for GTA OMFG SAVE THE KIDDIES!!

Kyouryuu @ Jan 9th 2007 1:36AM

I swear, Menino is the spitting image of evil bureaucrat Adrian Ripburger from the game Full Throttle.

Of course, unlike Ripburger, Menino is just a tool. Thompson will shout from the mountains about his bill. It will fail miserably. And it will cost Boston hundreds of thousands that could have been spent improving schools.

The fine people of Boston should be concerned that Menino either doesn't know how to do a Google search on the "Internets" or is deliberately ignorant about how these bills have all failed in other states.

Jeff Bryce @ Jan 9th 2007 1:34AM

Remember kids, The Big Dig doesn't kill people, video games do!

Mushed mouthed idiot. Although when are the retards in Boston gonna wake up and vote this lunatic out? He's not a king, he CAN be ousted.

driven2sin @ Jan 9th 2007 1:56AM

that dude is claymation... the press conferences must take forever..

Collin @ Jan 9th 2007 2:16AM

Jack Thompson is a clever, clever man. This piece of shit legislation is so cleverly worded that it would take a thousand years to point out all the reasons this is gonna get smacked down by The Courts. Also this is so obviously vague it would also take a thousand years to discover the true depths of it's deception. It's worded to seem that the banning of video games would be decided by what society decides, and it would supposedly change with each generation, since it is based on the adults in the community. But of course this would mean that whatever generation passes this law would stay in power, based on the fact that society would not change since it would be exposed to one, and only one set of ideas. Like I said Jack Thompson is a clever, clever man.

reppy @ Jan 9th 2007 2:50AM

Just curious, how is the fact that children can be barred from purchasing adult material unconstitutional? You can't get a gun if you're a child. I mean, everyone has the right to bear arms, right?

CJ @ Jan 9th 2007 3:02AM

it always makes me laugh a lil when one of these comes up, or jack thompson mentions. i was playing mortal kombat on sega when it came out at the tender age of 10 years old and im not a murderer or psycho. but now that i am old enough to purchase the "racy" games im kinda glad kids cant... just because i hate 12 year old crap talkers on halo and GoW :)

Matt @ Jan 9th 2007 3:09AM

Something like this upsets me, because it gives Boston and Menino both a bad name. Menino is not a bad mayor, far from it. There's a reason he was just elected to his 4th term as the mayor of Boston, he does a good job. Unfortunately he, like many other politicians, are behind on the times, and can be manipulated quite easily by someone like Jack Thompson, who comes in and says, "Video games kill people, you need to have a law about it." This has been a terrible year for violent crimes in Boston, and Menino is trying to do everything he can to improve his image and try and make Boston a little safer. When a jack ass like Thompson tells him that this law will make the city safer, he's very likely to do it without really researching how these other laws have turned out.

kite @ Jan 9th 2007 3:17AM

I am sorry ryan, but from my point of view, the american political system is NOT the best. Your elections are almost commercial, and people 'buy' their way to the top by bribing news stations and other factories.

I don't know in person how it is there, so I can't give a 100% true statement, but that is the image a lot of us europeans have of your system.

--> no personal attack, just popping someones dream

reppy @ Jan 9th 2007 7:20AM

Have you ever met a 10-year old that plays GTA and listens to Eminem? I swear it'll scare you out of that whole "kids should have freedom to buy M-rated games if they want to" attitude realllll quick.

RyanLN @ Jan 9th 2007 7:42AM

@22:

While I don't want this to deteriorate into a debate about the American political system and how it actually plays out in its execution, as a philosophical construct our constitutional representative democracy is clearly the best thing humans have come up with since we've been coming up with ways to govern ourselves. Scandals, bribery, corruption and general shittiness are problems that ALL governments deal with: give me an example of one that doesn't that's not an elementary school student body election and you'll win a cookie. While I've neither seen nor heard of anyone "bribing news stations and factories" in order to win elections- yes, our electorate is sometimes stupid and yes, crazy nuttiness, moral and ethical ambiguites are commonplace- look at two other "democracies" and how they handle videogames and free speech: Germany, where the State can apparently ban any game that has any kind of Nazi imagery, and Australia, where you routinely can't legally sell games that their ratings board deems to violent. For the same reasons why this statute mentioned in the article is going to get struck down, that would never play in America because the First Amendment forbids it. I like living in a free society, warts and all, especially if it means I get to play Grand Theft Auto, Gears of War and Call of Duty 3.

NoHitHair @ Jan 9th 2007 8:24AM

RyanLN:

You've missed the point. The American system, even when the Constitution was actually regarded as something relevant, has never been perfect (though I will grant it was an incredible product of very intelligent people). It's of the highest arrogance to shrug off the problems Americans have with corruption simply because it may exist in other governments. Not only does that not disprove any problems with America, it ignores what could help to stem corruption by analyzing what others do right.

Yes, we have a First Amendment. But that hardly guarantees Americans anything in the status quo, as we have clearly seen in the past 6 years how much our 4th, 5th and 6th amendments can be raped. I'm curious where you draw the line on exactly what is a "free society": Do you oppose all forms of censorship? Does the First Amendment apply cart blanche to minors? I have a friend who lives in Austria and another in Germany where any form of Holocaust denial is a punishable crime, yet they consider themselves to be very free. Are they not?

Believing you live in some safe societal bubble where laws are stagnant and unchanging is naive.

Finn @ Jan 9th 2007 9:01AM

don't worry everybody, theres no way that a MA judge will ever vote the conservative route on anything, and I say vote because our judges make the laws in this state. Which is good in this and one other case to my recollection.

erica. @ Jan 9th 2007 2:47PM

@23. Kids don't get that way just by listening to white boy rapperz and bad video games, its the parents attitudes on raising thier children and no state legslation will change that.

I'm 20 and went to get a new copy of halo and needed to show ID so they could put my DOB in the system at a Target in Boston. Really let's not waste more money on this crap, not after I'm spending 45cents more now on the T.

Chris @ Jan 9th 2007 10:56AM

Douche bag

crono141 @ Jan 9th 2007 12:09PM

The problem with any representative political system is political parties.

The idea of political parties that almost always cooperate with each other undermines the will of the people who elect them. Now, when you vote for senator, your voting in someone to represent the democratic or republican parties, not someone who represents YOU.

And now that political parties are the ones in power, it will never change.

Not without a revolution.

RocketPunch @ Jan 9th 2007 1:21PM

Video Games are not the problem. The true problem of America are Lawyers and Politicans.

RyanLN @ Jan 9th 2007 3:00PM

NoHitHair:

My word: in my 35 years I think that's the first time I've ever been called naive by a stranger on a website. Refreshing. While I think your comments and assumptions about me are off base, I will not resort to name calling, as I have no idea who you are- for all I know, you could be Stephen Hawking, or in the alternative, Ralph Wiggum. It's more likely that you're somewhere in between, as most of us are.

For starters, I am deeply aware that the law is not stagnant: it is a living, breathing entity. I know this in my capacity as an attorney, more specifically I know this in my role as a prosecutor in a major american city. The laws that we follow on a daily basis are constantly being amended and modified by the legislature, and challenged pursuant to the dictates and mandates of the constitution. Additionally, I am deeply curious as to what events you refer to as the "raping" of our 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights. Having said that, while we repeatedly and frequent fall short of the many aspirational goals of our constitutional democracy- equality, justice, and freedom [see Plessy v. Ferguson, the internment of the Japanese during WWII, the detention of alleged "war criminals" by a rogue White House] we at least *try* to get it right, and it's in the effort where the nobility of our country and system lies. I do not "shrug off" the flaws in our system and the problems that we have- I acknowledge them and embrace them, because it's only through dialogue and through the actions of a non-apathetic populace that change can occur.

And yes, there are limits to the First Amendment, e.g. child pornography, and obscenity, depending upon your community standards. But the level of scrutiny used in determining whether or not legislation regulating constitutionally protected speech is constitutional carries one of the highest burdens in our jurisprudence (to paraphrase, narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest) and time and time again it has been demonstrated in court that you just can't go around regulating speech, e.g. restricting the sale of video games- even to minors- just because you don't like it, or because it *might* be harmful. When someone comes up with some reliable peer-reviewed studies that show a link between violent video games and assault, homicide or messed up kids, maybe then the government could shoulder that burden, and regulate them. Just don't hold your breath- it's not going to happen, and until then it is a parental decision, not the governments. The day I abdicate my role as a parent towards the raising of my children is the day I put a bullet in my foot.

And now that you mention it- having Holocaust denial as a criminal offense is NOT something I'd tolerate in a free society. We need to know exactly who these nutjobs are, and making it a crime for them to open their mouths and reveal themselves would be just as dumb as restricting or trying to regulate all other forms of stupidity. I'm sure Germany is a great country, and I mean no disrespect towards a place I've never been and a culture I've never known, but crushing a group by legally banning their viewpoint only relegates them to the fringes, and deprives the populace of open debate and the engaging of unsound ideas- and serves to act as fuel for hatred and idiocy- just like taking away the right of parents to determine what games may or may not be o.k. for their children.

Seer S @ Jan 9th 2007 6:14PM

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this law's similarity to the Miller test, which was set forth by the SCOTUS in 1973 in Miller v California. For a work to be declared obscene, and therefore censorable, it must meet ALL three of the following conditions:

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Prurient basically means carnally sexual, BTW.

So, there are only two difference between the Miller test, WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL, and this proposed legislation:

1) This legislation applies only to minors buying certain material, which makes it LESS RESTRICTIVE and therefore MORE LIKELY TO PASS, and
2) It replaced prurient (ie lustfully sexual) with violent.

Those are the only differences. Believe it or not, this bill has a very good chance of passing and being ruled constitutional.

Now, if it were to pass, there's a very small chance it would actually cause any games to be censored. This is mainly because of the third requirement. AFAIK, all games have an art team, so they should all pretty much pass.

Understaker @ Jan 10th 2007 2:11AM

Seer S:

Actually, it's been tried and failed before, mainly due to issues with the 14 amendment and a lack of evidance. A supreme court ruling long ago cemmented that Violence is not the same as sexual content, so it has 0 chance to win. If the miller test failed in the past 5 times they tried it, I doubt it will work here .

Jon @ Jan 20th 2007 2:32PM

Hey, you never know, after all, (as a bostonian) Menino is one of biggest douches of all time, I could easily see him letting this go.

and I think that the ESRB is handling it fine the way it is, keep it.

and to one of the above posters: Being a masshole is a point of pride. This has nothing to do with being a Masshole.