Thompson balks at free game violence debate

by Kyle Orland { Apr 26th 2007 at 9:25PM }

We know it's been a Jack-Thompson-filled couple of weeks here on Joystiq, but we can't help it if the guy keeps doing newsworthy stuff (or can we?). Anyway, we were kind of surprised to hear today that the latest bit of hate-filled invective Thompson hurled at IGDA president Jason Della Rocca actually came close to developing into something more than name calling. Apparently, Della Rocca tried to accept Thompson's challenge "to one or more college debates, anywhere anytime, to discuss whether violent video games in any fashion caused school killings..."

A series of e-mails, reprinted on Della Rocca's blog, details the back and forth between the pair on the debate's location and particulars. When the subject of money comes up, Thompson reveals that they can "expect to net approximately $3000 or more per event" though he's quick to add that he's "not in this issue for the money." When Della Rocca balks at being paid to talk, Thompson puts it bluntly: "That isn't how it works and I can't justify leaving my family to go to Montreal on a freebie. Sorry. Have to pay the bills."

Now we can understand the need to make ends meet as much as anybody, but when you make a boast to publicly debate someone "anywhere anytime," the cost of a plane ticket shouldn't really be a deal breaker. That is, unless Thompson can't live up to his own taunt to "put your mouth where your money is." As Della Rocca puts it, it seems that sometimes "the critics of media violence are in fact the ones profiting most from real-world violence and fears of virtual violence."

Tags: debate, della rocca, DellaRocca, IGDA, jack thompson, JackThompson, media, money, thompson, violence

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

TaggertDoom @ Apr 26th 2007 9:34PM

*Hands Jack Thompson a shovel* Keep digging that hole, buddy. We all can't wait until your so deep that we can't hear you. Thats when the cement trucks come in.

Alex @ Apr 26th 2007 9:35PM

He is a joke, noone should wsate their breath arguing with him

Mind if I make threats on him so he can sue Joystiq too?

Rubang B @ Apr 26th 2007 9:38PM

I want to debate Jack Thompson, with my penis.

JT: "Video games are murder simulators."

Rubang takes off pants.

JT: "Why are you pointing your penis at me?"

Rubang wiggles his penis.

JT: "Hey cut that out!"

Rubang wiggles his penis.

The crowd applauds.

Rubang wins $3,000.

JT gets disbarred.

Triforceowner @ Apr 26th 2007 9:42PM

This proves that Thomson doesn't actually care about the issue with a passion, but it doesn't exactly prove he is wrong or anything else. Honestly, how many of you would leave your families with no income for a week or more to debate an issue you don't care about. And that's just it: Jack Thompson doesn't care about the issue, he just wants to get his face and name out there.

Alex @ Apr 26th 2007 9:45PM

Good point triforce, all politicans will exagurate anything to stick their faces on TV. Imo, they're just ruining their reputation, but in Thompson's case, he never had a reputation to begin with

Brian @ Apr 26th 2007 9:57PM

Why is it that, in general, gamers & gaming blogs put up with such stupidity from trolls like Rubang. I guess exposing one's genitals in public is a form of intellectual debate, huh Rubang.

And why is it that, in general, gamers & gaming blogs find NO validity in the other side, and think they're being unbiased?

Jack Thompson isn't the ONLY one who believes video games are too violent. He's just the one all the blogs love to quote because he's so easy to target. Blast Thompson all you want for not participating in a real debate, but I have yet to see a REAL debate on Joystiq as well. Remember that hypocrisy goes both ways.

Wiggle on, Rubang, wiggle on.

HotShotX @ Apr 26th 2007 10:01PM

"That isn't how it works and I can't justify leaving my family to go to Montreal on a freebie. Sorry. Have to pay the bills."

Must be a pretty shitty lawyer to have at least SOME savings sitting in a bank account. But, then again, we all already knew he was a shitty human be...I mean lawyer.

Must suck to part of his "family" too, think his kids get much shit in school?

~HotShotX

Brian @ Apr 26th 2007 10:03PM

Seems I should have read down a bit before posting. I guess mentioning the Xfire debate somewhat contradicts my last line. I stand partially corrected.

HotShotX @ Apr 26th 2007 10:03PM

Sorry bout the typo, I mean he must be a "Pretty shitty lawyer to NOT have at least SOME savings..."

Damn late nights studying for finals.

~HotShotX

NeverSage @ Apr 26th 2007 10:05PM

Brian

This isn't real life. This is just people talking on a gaming blog. Rubang can say whatever he wants (I for one, found it funny). Let's say Rubang comes up with decisive proof that video games do NOT cause people to kill people and posts it right here. Wont change a thing. There's no point to a debate.

But Thompson is working in the real world. Trying to make real laws that are unconstitutional. A debate out there can make a real impact.

Alex @ Apr 26th 2007 10:06PM

Brian, if you've read joystiq's past articles, you'd know he isn't the only politician that game blogs report on. Personaly, I believe no politician who rehashes the same nugatory arguement about violent games deserve any attention, but Jack Thompson has become so infamous because he bitches the most about it, he's made a career out of chastising companies like Take Two, and now is even attacking gaming blogs because of user comments against him. He's the stupid troll of gaming blogs and of the whole gaming industry.

Eric @ Apr 26th 2007 10:10PM

I will happily participate in a fund-raiser to help send Jacky Boy to a series of debates.

ephraim @ Apr 26th 2007 10:56PM

I don't like Jack Thompson, but he does have a point. He shouldn't have to leave his family for a while for nothing.

Killer @ Apr 26th 2007 10:25PM

@Brain, I agree with what you mean by Rubang. I guess he was bored and couldn't find his A.D.D. pills.

Anyway, why would I want Jack Thompson to be in a REAL debate? He's like every other money hungry lawyer that decides, "omg I can make cash and a name for myself!" (I'm just here to make frivalous pointless lawsuits about something that has never been proven to cause something.)

"Jack Thompson isn't the ONLY one who believes video games are too violent."
We'll duh, all the rest of them are either lawyers, self promoting politians, or worse anti-freedom of choice controlling nut jobs.

I hate lawyers, I'll go out and say it. 98% of many of this country's problems are related to lawyers. Since about 85% of elected officials in goverment have some sort of law background.

"He's just the one all the blogs love to quote because he's so easy to target."

Do you not understand that He wants that? just like everything else. (Personally I wish people would stop talking about him so he will just die off in the media.) When someone says something outragous, why do you think they say it? They want to be looked at, they want to make people angry. Anything to get on the news, to make people angry over the topic and maybe a chance to lead his money driven crusade to victory....

Heck, why are video games the target? Why no violent films or music (well wait Rap and Hip hop is being attack since the Imus thing) what about films? why isn't Jack Thompson trying to put a stop to the SAW films? Because if he did, he would have more enemies then freinds and that films are somehow better protected then videogames when it comes to free speech.

I truely believe he should do every single tax paying american a favor and stop bogging down our justice system and wasting our tax money and letting the courts do more important thing like putting away rapists, child molesters and killers.

Chris Putnam @ Apr 26th 2007 10:33PM

Meh. I'm not a Jack booster, but he's got a point. For someone to take time off of work and travel some distance like that, they ought to be compensated. I think any university, etc. hosting the event would assume that. What's unusual is Rocca's refusal, admirable as it is.

All this does is confirm that Jack is as concerned about the money as the issues. I think we already knew that. I still think he believes the crap he spews, or at least the basics of it.

shaoron @ Apr 26th 2007 10:39PM

@eric (#12)
you mean like sending the sheep to the slaughter house? :D

Rubang B @ Apr 26th 2007 10:48PM

Jack Thompson is a liar and rarely provides evidence to support his claims. When he does, he claims that teen and school violence is increasing, which is not true. He also misquotes and misinterprets the Bible to get people's attention. He called himself a school shootings expert on Fox News. Read about his "A Modest Video Game Proposal." He lied about that and didn't cough up the money then, and that was for charity! Before we knew the VT killer's name he was claiming that he had trained on CounterStrike, which we now know he hadn't played in at least 3 years.

Here's Jack Thompson DEBATING on NBC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XtWV-tIeVg

Here's the Wikipedia article about A Modest Video Game Proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Video_Game_Proposal

So excuse me for wiggling my penis at the man. He has no credibility left, if he ever had any.

Rubang wiggles his penis at Brian.

Rubang wins $3,000.

Ratchet the Lombax @ Apr 26th 2007 10:49PM

First of all I hate the guy as much as the next person but I can see where he is coming from in a way. I don't know where he lives since I don't care that much about him to find that out. But I know I wouldn't fly some 3000 miles without some kind of compensation. If the place was paying for the airfare and hotel room then that's ok. Unless it was for a charity then I wouldn't spend that kind of money even if I was very committed to the cause. I'm sure he isn't poor but on the other hand I don't think he's a millionaire either. So like he said he has bills to pay and flying all over the us for a series of debates without any compensation could get quite expensive.

automag5 @ Apr 26th 2007 11:02PM

Jack Thompson is a money grubbing megalomanic that demands that people pay attention to him. I say that the gaming community should do what they can to dig up any dirt on this bastard and let it free on the web to bite him on the ass. Apparently he think's he's untouchable, I'm waiting for the day for him to crawl back into his hole with his tail between his legs.

Jake @ Apr 26th 2007 11:08PM

Personally, I think the effects of violence, sexism, and vulgarity in games should be an issue that we as a society keep and eye on. But I don't consider it to be a major social problem in the least. It is a small issue worthy of attention, just not attention of the sensational sort.

Jack Thompson is an idiot and is not doing society any good. More reasonable individuals should be representing the debate from both sides. Period.

Morons like Thompson basically argue things like video games are the key factor in terrible acts of violence. They argue that if violent games were not in existence, many acts of crime and violence would have never occured. Or at least, they argue the acts would occur in far greater numbers.

But they do so with no logical reasoning. Their arguments consist entirely of coorelation means causation. They don't even consider the fact that violent and criminal individuals will likely be attracted to forms of entertainment that share their interests. The also assume that using these forms of entertainment push them to do their acts.

Violent crime is down around 40% since Doom, especially amongst the age group that grew up with realistic violent games like shooters. That is never mentioned in the debate. The debate more centers on murderers and their chosen forms of media. They also neglect the non-media, non-violent forms of entertainment these shooters participate in. Cho like IM. Did that make him do it? The Columbine shooters bowled the morning of their massacre; they weren't busy polishing their skills on Doom. Is bowling then to blame?

I would almost venture to claim that dodging the real issues and blaming things like games, music, and movies will lead to more preventable tragedies than the medias themselves. We need to tighten up our gun laws so that people with violent histories or meantal health issues have a harder time acquiring weapons. We need our youth to be raised in environments that are less hate inciting. Some of them hate the school environment, are murderous, and act out their rage at school. We need to do a better job preventing it and catching it.

And we need sensible, logical, and responsible individuals leading the way, not pricks fueling their economic and political interests.

halobreaker @ Apr 26th 2007 11:45PM

People that use a knife to cut their food end up stabbing people. I believe we should STOP the sale of knives all together and prevent further tragedy. It not only trains you on how to wield such a weapon but to even gauge it's effectiveness in cutting through flesh.

Brian @ Apr 26th 2007 11:55PM

@ NeverSage: "Trying to make real laws that are unconstitutional."
-How are they unconstitutional? If you're concerned about freedom of speech, remember that the constitution does NOT protect ALL forms of speech (e.g. verbal threats made against the president may be considered crimes).

@ Killer: "why isn't Jack Thompson trying to put a stop to the SAW films? Because if he did, he would have more enemies then freinds and that films are somehow better protected then videogames when it comes to free speech."
-I totally agree that there's a huge disparity between video game criticism and that of movies/music. I think that most of HipHop and grotesquely violent movies have just as much to do with creating a violent society as do video games. To play devil's advocate, however, perhaps Jack is just picking his battles. Perhaps he really is a media troll. Perhaps he's just not very good at presenting a logical argument. I don't think he's sleazy, just foolish.

@ Rubang: "So excuse me for wiggling my penis at the man. He has no credibility left, if he ever had any."
-It's hard to question the credibility of others while pretending to expose yourself to them. Next time go with the logical arguments that you presented in your 2nd response, but leave your penis out of it.

"I don't like Jack Thompson, but he does have a point. He shouldn't have to leave his family for a while for nothing." -ephraim

"First of all I hate the guy as much as the next person but I can see where he is coming from in a way." -Ratchet the Lombax

"And we need sensible, logical, and responsible individuals leading the way..." -Jake

Agreed.

@Jake: "We need our youth to be raised in environments that are less hate inciting."
-Well, I agree, but don't you also think that GTA, or Bully, etc., qualify as hate inciting?

Rubang B @ Apr 27th 2007 12:19AM

We need to let art and entertainment do whatever the hell it wants to do, while at the same time raising children to know the difference between right and wrong. It's not really that hard. Unfortunately for people like Jack Thompson, art and entertainment is protected as free speech by the first amendment, while it's still illegal to pass laws against raising idiots for kids. If you're using GTA or Saw as your kids' babysitter, you are the cause of the problem. It's not like Rock Star markets their game as babysitting software. The game says M17+ on the cover. Unfortunately, we can't have a real debate on these issues while Jack Thompson is running around like a chicken with his head cut off. He makes everybody sound stupid on either side. When he gets disbarred and Fox stops pointing cameras at him, hopefully somebody who isn't totally ass-crazy will take his place and we can have some intelligent discussion...

with no pants on.

JMCampbell @ Apr 27th 2007 10:55AM

Anyone want to donate to fly Della Rocca to South Florida? They can debate at either FAU or University of Miami, so it will be no more than a 2 hour drive for mr. Thompson, you could probably even find a student willing to drive him there. Plus Della Rocca could use a sunny vacation after they fly him down. Anyone want to donate to put it together? I'll even go through the paperwork with FAU so it can happen.

AirIntake @ Apr 27th 2007 1:08AM

What the hell is wrong with all you people? Rubang B says some of the funniest stuff posted on Joystiq in the last 6 months (directed at ole JT none the less), and you guys jump on him for saying 'penis'? It's the internet, you're going to see that word, get over it, it was funny. PENIS PENIS

Yourself @ Apr 27th 2007 1:44AM

I can't stand JT anymore than anyone else here, but if you read the emails posted on Rocca's site, they aren't as obnoxious as Joystiq makes them sound. The fact of the matter is exactly what he said: This isn't how these things work. Rocca seems like he's being a bitch, which is sad, because someone in his position really should be facing off against Jack.

Brian @ Apr 27th 2007 2:01AM

@ AirIntake: "you guys jump on him for saying 'penis'? It's the internet, you're going to see that word, get over it, it was funny. PENIS PENIS"

No one jumped on Rubang for using the word 'penis'. Besides, I work in the health care business and see the word 'penis' a lot more there than on the internet. Here's the real reason:

"Unfortunately, we can't have a real debate on these issues while Jack Thompson is running around like a chicken with his head cut off." -Rubang

Rubang is worried that ole JT is the reason no one can have a debate about the issue, but there's nothing stopping Rubang from laying down some descent arguments on the issue. But instead, we're ignoring the debate in order to make jokes about penises.

The only thing holding back any real debate is us.

Takayo @ Apr 27th 2007 4:00AM

It doesn't matter if we're keeping debate back- we're not the ones parading around on television blaming school shootings on a form of media. We're not the ones in courtrooms trying to get laws passed. Mr. Jack Thompson makes a big deal on the issue and THEN he boasts to guys he'll take them on in a debate anywhere, anytime, and then punks out at the last minute!

It's true Rubang could lay down the logic, but you forgot the last part of that statement of his

"He makes everybody sound stupid on either side."
-Rubang

I agree with that after watching this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd0pbuhsQQE.

From what I've seen of this video, and the one above, Mr. Thompson isn't able to quantify his evidence and weaves a web of speculation while trying to out talk his opponent instead of logically debate. Not to mention he blatantly refuses to accept he's wrong. NO ONE- not Rubang, not Paul Levinson, not even Chris Matthews- can get any further on the issue while people continue to listen to what Mr. Jack Thompson calls 'debate'.

Corey B. @ Apr 27th 2007 5:01AM

Wait, wait, wait...forget the debate on videogame violence because we are definitely not going to solve that in a comment section for a JT article; I have a more pertinent question:

HOW CAN ANYONE DEFEND JACK THOMPSON DEMANDING PAYMENT FOR A DEBATE HE DEMANDED?!

Someone as inflammatory as Jack Thompson crows to any industry figure out there that he will debate them "anywhere, anytime" but then demands payment for the debate he was calling for sounds extremely unethical. Let's get this straight: Mr. Thompson invited any & all important industry figures to debate him...if anything, he should pay them for travel expenses and provide the forum for debate if he is so keen on having this debate. All that should be decided on is rules & format but all the talk about agents & fees are red herrings that Jack is using just to make ready-made excuses to get out of a debate...

Once more, when you beg for a debate and you get the executive director of a game developer's association then I would think you would make the arrangements yourself to get the debate done as soon as possible. This is common sense...the problem we have here is that people are so focused on the subject (game violence) that they just complete forget how idiotic Jack's basic tactics are...

Killer @ Apr 27th 2007 6:20AM

My logic here is, Guns can't pull the trigger, neither can videogames. It's the person holding the gun, that does it. After the VT massacre, the first person I saw talking about the horrible inccident was Jack Thompson. Here is what he said, " I guarantee that if we find (the mass murder's) computer, we will find videogames on it."< does that not say he's completely biase and that he jumps to conclusions before the evidence is collected. He said that before we even know who did it. He's crying "wolf" when he has no proof.

All I'm saying is that his "crusade to save the american youth". Seems really really money driven. It's like when you hear about lawyers sueing the federal goverment for not using money wisely. Yet, when the lawyers say they are doing it for every american tax payer. They're really just using more tax payers money from the Federal goverment to pay for the courts to tri the sueing. I gaurantee that if the federal goverment would cut the percentage of cash given to a lawyer from a court winning, (to about 2% instead of 20% to 45%) frivilous lawsuits would finally start declining. Wait though 85% of the goverment is run by lawyers, so that will never happen.

chuma @ Apr 27th 2007 9:34AM

So basically this is the first bit of conclusive evidence that Jack doesn't care about the issues, he's just out to profit from causing as much controversy as possible. Personally I think that is more of a reason for him to be barred than his attitude and lack of etiquette.

Sam G. @ Apr 27th 2007 10:05AM

Brian, I'm sorry, but having one person bitch and moan about the same damn topic over and over again does not make said topic worthy of debate. The only "debate" is in Jack Thompson's mind and in the minds of those media outlets (*cough*Joystiq*cough*) who continue to follow this non-story.

As far as I'm concerned, Rubang shouldn't just wiggle his penis at Jack, he should slap him with it.

DrunkenKender @ Apr 27th 2007 2:00PM

@Brian's comment:

How are they not unconstitutional? Video games are a form of media like any other, including movies and the music industry. There are no legal bans on these forms of media like the ones Jack Thompson would have imposed on video games. A movie theater employee, for example, can't be arrested for letting a 14 year old kid into an R-rated movie. It should be the parents' responsibility and NOT the government's to keep their kids in check.

Beyond that, millions and millions of high school kids play video games, and the vast majority of them don't end up going on killing sprees. The kids blasting away at their classmates or their families had to be nutjobs in the first place, and video games didn't make them that way. That's common sense.