We're live at the Philadelphia Convention Center, waiting for the panel discussion between Jack Thompson and Oddworld's Lorne Lanning – and moderated by Newsweek's N'Gai Croal – to begin. After watching Spencer Halpin's Moral Kombat (more on that later), we returned to the same theater eager to hear the debate.
3:55pm - N'Gai lays out the rules (no cameras, sorry folks) and introduces himself and the participants. N'Gai asks Jack how he came to be involved with the film. Jack delivers what appears to be a sincere appreciation for the film and the opportunity to be involved with it. He commends both N'Gai and Lorne, as well as director Halpin, for being will-intentioned, and that's a major reason he was in the film and he's here tonight.
4:00pm - How does Jack feel about Lorne's point in the film saying that it's easier for games to contain violence – canceling something out? Since Lorne's games aren't known for being the most violent on the market (Oddworld, Stranger's Wrath), how does he see himself in the debate? He wanted his games to be more "substantive" in their content, address socio-political issues he saw on the news, for example global warming. He points to the control over science regarding global warming, and how what used to be fact is now a grey area.
Does what Lorne said resonate with Jack at all? "We've lost the idea of the public space, public square, whatever you want to call it." He argues for the common good, and encourages people to see things beyond money. He said a gamer thanked him for uniting gamers the world over (in opposition to him, obviously) and got a hearty laugh. He says the first time he saw the documentary, he wept. He's audibly choked up as he says that the film clearly shows both sides of this issue care about people.
4:10pm - Lorne points out that Jack chooses to go on network media, "permeate those sound bites" and can disseminate his argument uncontested for free, while the industry pays $300k per 30 second ad. He says if it's not Jack on the air, it's "Ms. Nazi with the blonde hair." Jack says that he's almost always contested, whether it's by a guest or a host. On a recent show, Take-Two was invited and they turned it down. Lorne points out that he can be on the news within hours of a school shooting.
Jack says, "They called me." Lorne argues they've called because these networks pursue sensationalism and he's built up the brand of Jack Thompson as the defender of violence in video games. Jack says, "And I thought this was going to be friendly." The audience claps and laughs. Alright folks, Mr. Thompson has taken the gloves off. He brings up Paducah and argues that the shooter there was trained on Doom – his behavior was not commensurate with a first-time shooter. Lorne says Jack's not qualified to make those claims.
4:17pm - Jack says he was concerned about this before video games. He got the first FCC decency fine and "there were no video games in that." He says he's proud to represent people whose families are ruined by people from Lorne's industry who don't have the ethics that he does.
Lorne chastizes N'Gai for not calling out something that's untrue. N'Gai says, "Stop. Stop. I'm the moderator." Ouch, it's getting awkward up there. N'Gai addresses Jack's claim that the killer was trained on Doom, and says that the mechanics of Doom don't line up with the reality of this particular shooting. Jack says the individual played other games as well as citing The Basketball Diaries as a major influence.
"No one in their right mind would say that a video game by itself would turn an angel into a demon."
"The incredible extent that adult and adult-rated products are sold to people in other age groups." He says the only issue for him is the industry's failure to properly label their products, and enforce those ratings. N'Gai notes that the failure rating is roughly analagous to that of the movie theater industry allowing underage people into movies.
4:23pm - Lorne points out that there are two different issues here: the violent content in games and selling those games. He talks about consumer deception – big food company applying the label 'organic' on food that isn't to deceive consumers – and how that is uncontested. Meanwhile, he feels the ESRB has been doing a phenomenal job and, if anything, there's a problem at retail.
Jack mentions GamePolitics (hey Dennis, wave!), and says that he's proposed that developers and publishers threaten retailers by withholding products to those outlets that break their self-imposed rules. The retailers aren't serious because the industry does not enforce the rules. He agrees with Doug Lowenstein saying if it's supposed to be a parent's decision, "then don't sell them to my kids." Lorne points out, "He didn't."
Jack says a Harvard PhD revealed that there are T-rated games with more violent content than M-rated games. Lorne quips, "PhDs said there were WMDs and those weren't there either." The crowd likes that one.
4:30pm - N'Gai asks Lorne why people like Tipper Gore – a product of the 60s – is one of the most outspoken voices against things like media issues. Will gamers grow up to replace those politicians and render the debate moot? Lorne doesn't think so. Jack brings up religion and says that our founding fathers built a Christian nation. Lorne asks the Christians in the room to raise their hands (about half do, including Lorne) trying to point out the "neocon" belief that we're a Christian nation.
Jack mentions the Bar complaints raised against him by the video game industry. Says that speaking publicly about faith isn't tolerated. N'Gai points out that the major political candidates have all spoken publicly about their faith. Lorne points out the boom in religious radio by Clearwater and the growth in tax-free churches. Jack says, "I don't hear the Christian line on the news?" Lorne says, "Well, you watch Fox, don't you?"
4:37pm - Jack says that Rupert Murdoch is "certainly not an honest person." Lorne responds, "We agree." The audience laughs and the two stand up and shake hands. N'Gai says, "Rupert Murdoch is the new Jack Thompson."
Lorne addresses Henry Jenkin's comments in the film about how our media is always violent. He points out the violence of the Old Testament, and Jack jokes, "How about Grand Theft Ark?" Hey, we'd buy that! Lorne discusses the permeation of violence in the media, like the evening news, and says he doesn't feel video games are explicitly different. Gives an example of people watching 12 hours of violent films, like video games, versus 12 hours of violent multiplayer games. Which activity is more antisocial? He says that neuro-scientists would admit they know nothing about the human mind.
4:43pm - Lorne points out one of video game defender's favorite stats: that violent crime has gone down as video games have become more popular (marked by the introduction of the PlayStation). He relays an anecdote about a prison warden he rides motorcycles with saying that violence in younger people isn't as bad as it used to be (anecdotal evidence FTW!). Jack rebuts that FBI crime statistics show that teenage violent crime is way up in the last two years (including here in Philadelphia, where violent crime is way up).
Thompson addresses the propensity of criminals to shoot police officers (this raises the eyebrow of this Philadelphian who's been inundated with news of three police officers shot in the last week or so). After a brief chat about the errors in Jack's Wikipedia entry, Lorne asks how much money Jack's seeking in his cases? "A lot."
Lorne thinks of himself as a craftsman, creating things by hands, working hard for his money. The industry has exploded with virtually no support from the government, built on the creativity of its creators. He says that Jack's business model is "to convince grieving families" that the video game industry is responsible for their loved one's deaths all in pursuit of huge settlements, like $600m huge (wow, that is big).
4:52pm - Jack defends himself, says he's willing to continue to pursue this case, in the face of disbarment in Florida, against Blank/Rome, one of the largest law firms in the world. (He knows his audience, and points out that Blank/Rome is one of the largest contributors to Bush and Cheney).
N'Gai asks the audience to raise their hands if they've played a GTA game. The entire audience raises their hands. He says to keep your hand raised if you think the primary goal of a GTA game is to "kill as many cops as you can," which Jack had just claimed. No hands. Jack retorts, "What about prostitutes?" Again, no hands.
Lorne says, Jack has faith that video games teach kids to kill, but the facts don't bare it out. Jack makes some humble cracks about his intelligence, and says that he still understands that violent video games cause increased aggression and points to several studies. He says that corporations can only be punished financially and says they pose a great threat to our liberties. The crowd applauds the sentiment.
5:01pm - We're onto the Q&A session. Amber from PMS Clan asks the first question: "I know you've come into a den of wolves here, so I wanted to thank you."
"Well, you're a very attractive wolf, so ...". Hehe, good one, Jack. The crowd giggles. Lorne and Jack tussle for a moment. Next questions is basically, "Do you think Pac-Man is a violent game?" Remember this one? Jack says he doesn't recall that game being included in the study.
5:12pm - A dude rocking a Power Glove asks if Jack is a gamer and manages to completely blunder his point by forgetting David Walsh's name, asking generic questions about agreeing with him or not, and then wanting to continue to follow up the same line of ineffective questioning. Jack is exasperated and, for once, we totally agree! Next guy introduces himself as a developer at Multisoft (?), says he's surprised at how much he agrees with Jack (Jack replies, "God bless you.") and wants to know how Jack sees the difference between 'simulators' and entertainment software as simulator tools.
5:17pm - Jack says the questioner is using the definition more narrowly than he has in the past, so he attempts to clarify. N'Gai points out that Full Spectrum Warrior is really about squad tactics (as opposed to just killing). Next question is about the link between video games and killing. Jack says that in this country you only need to prove 'causation' from one event to the other, not direct link. Last question of the evening is from a lawyer (insert lawyer joke here). He asks about Jack's comments in the film about the differences in violence in art or video games. Jack says, "I draw a distinction between Beowulf and Grand Theft Auto." Lorne says, "Yeah, I think the distinction is six-hundred million dollars." Asks why Jack doesn't go after the gun companies or any of the other companies that could be held responsible; argues that Jack exploits the uncertainty and fear Americans have about video games "so that he doesn't have to work for a living like I do, as a hard-working American." Whoa, whoa, whoa Lorne. Let's leave the blue-collar rhetoric out of this one, k?
5:23pm - Wow, alright, N'Gai calls it. The debate is over with one last gripe over Jack's "business model" and the two stand up, shake, and Jack takes a bow. The audience claps enthusiastically, we grimace over not being able to snap a photo, and wrap up the liveblog. All right, folks. More on VGXPO and Moral Kombat, the movie this time, later.
Reader Comments (90)
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 5:59PM RogueJedi86 said
I may be a little slow, but what film do they keep referring to in this? It isn't specified at the beginning, that I know of. But then, I need to read more.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 1:20PM vincentj7 said
Yeah, I missed it at first too, it's "Moral Kombat." Notice the lack of the letter T in Moral. It's a documentary (of sorts) about violence in videogames.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Kombat
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIu3JMGxk3Q
Reply
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Kombat
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIu3JMGxk3Q
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 6:16PM (Unverified) said
I love how the question why doesn't he go after the gun companies coems up. Why not punish the criminal? If that's the case, why not go after the alchohol and car companies when a drunk driver kills someone?
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 7:28PM (Unverified) said
@Synner
Because Cars and Alcohol aren't made for the express purpose of killing or hurting people.
Reply
Because Cars and Alcohol aren't made for the express purpose of killing or hurting people.
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 9:45PM (Unverified) said
Cars and alchohol cause more accidental and criminal deaths than guns do. A gun is a tool, in the penny arcade game I noticed you are armed with a rake, does that mean if I beat someone to death with a rake after playing it that home depot is culpable?
PUNISH THE FUCKING CRIMINAL.
When someone kills a person with a car, we don't outlaw that type of car, when someone kills a person with a bat, we don't outlaw baseball. Quit making out an inanimate object to be capable of anything other than what it is, a tool which can be misused by assholes.
@ Muppetmeth: Most times a gun is used to protect, they never get fired. So they actually protect with the fear of death.
http://www.a-human-right.com
Reply
PUNISH THE FUCKING CRIMINAL.
When someone kills a person with a car, we don't outlaw that type of car, when someone kills a person with a bat, we don't outlaw baseball. Quit making out an inanimate object to be capable of anything other than what it is, a tool which can be misused by assholes.
@ Muppetmeth: Most times a gun is used to protect, they never get fired. So they actually protect with the fear of death.
http://www.a-human-right.com
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 11:58PM ThornedVenom said
@Synner
What you point out about "protecting by the fear of death" is true, but I don't think that the gun debate is only limited to "guns/people with guns killing people" but also about the power a gun gives to a person.
When a guy points a gun at you and asks you to give him your money, that person might not die if he complies, but guns are a form of power, and all power tends to be abused.
The real question is if society can be responsible enough to use guns properly.
Reply
What you point out about "protecting by the fear of death" is true, but I don't think that the gun debate is only limited to "guns/people with guns killing people" but also about the power a gun gives to a person.
When a guy points a gun at you and asks you to give him your money, that person might not die if he complies, but guns are a form of power, and all power tends to be abused.
The real question is if society can be responsible enough to use guns properly.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 12:26AM (Unverified) said
That is the fundamental difference between me and you. I think yes, people are not children that need looked after by a nanny state and should be trusted with that power. I have 6 guns right now, the only reason I don't have more is I'm going to italy for 3 years, and you can't import them there. Once again I'll point out my belief that rather than making excuses for and coddling the criminal, we should be punishing them, not taking away the freedoms and rights of the law abiding.
It really is a shame those of you that have such a low opinion of your fellow man that you think they can't be trusted. It makes me wonder if you are perhaps projectiong your own untrustworthiness on others?
Reply
It really is a shame those of you that have such a low opinion of your fellow man that you think they can't be trusted. It makes me wonder if you are perhaps projectiong your own untrustworthiness on others?
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 6:24PM Mr Khan said
This guy does seem a lot more coherent in reality
Is this the same person? Or a lookalike hired by the real guy to seem more rational in real life?
Is this the same person? Or a lookalike hired by the real guy to seem more rational in real life?
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 6:54PM (Unverified) said
5:26
The gamers take over and begin a riot. Before the police could get there Jake's head was on a pole and his body was tied to a tree and being beaten.
5:31
Everyone, including the police, go home happy.
The gamers take over and begin a riot. Before the police could get there Jake's head was on a pole and his body was tied to a tree and being beaten.
5:31
Everyone, including the police, go home happy.
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 8:34PM PlatinumSkeet said
"why Jack doesn't go after the gun companies..."
"so that he doesn't have to work for a living like I do, as a hard-working American."
JACK THOMPSONS UNAMERICAN!!!
"so that he doesn't have to work for a living like I do, as a hard-working American."
JACK THOMPSONS UNAMERICAN!!!
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 9:53PM Anticrawl said
How about this? We start taking personal responsibility for our actions and stop blaiming the actions of people on anything/one than themselves. I know it's a stretch and goes against humanities train of thought but it could lead to a fair and just world perhaps?
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 10:39PM (Unverified) said
I know that's too hard for most to belive.
So I say we blame Jack instead!
Reply
So I say we blame Jack instead!
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 10:27PM wirikidor said
It shames me that Jack considers himself a Christian conservative and Republican. I am both, and I do not share his beliefs.
While I don't play games like GTA or Manhunt, I don't think it's wrong for them to exist or other people to play them.
IMHO a true conservative republican is a constitutionalist. That means limited federal government. Limited government oversight.
The gaming industry has a self regulated rating system. They have taken a step they didn't have to take, but it made good business sense to them, and it was probably meant to give parents good warm fuzzies about it. That's the free market system. That the true conservative republican system.
Federal government shouldn't step in unless there is large evidence that video games upset the public good. I see riots after sporting events, I never see riots after video games.
I believe Jack is a Republican In Name Only (RINO).
While I don't play games like GTA or Manhunt, I don't think it's wrong for them to exist or other people to play them.
IMHO a true conservative republican is a constitutionalist. That means limited federal government. Limited government oversight.
The gaming industry has a self regulated rating system. They have taken a step they didn't have to take, but it made good business sense to them, and it was probably meant to give parents good warm fuzzies about it. That's the free market system. That the true conservative republican system.
Federal government shouldn't step in unless there is large evidence that video games upset the public good. I see riots after sporting events, I never see riots after video games.
I believe Jack is a Republican In Name Only (RINO).
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 11:08PM Anticrawl said
The first real republican politician in decades is right here infront of us for the next presidential election. I'm most certainly voting for him. Plus he has a nice sense of humor, check out the 10-second video on his front page.
http://www.fred08.com/Index.aspx
Fred Thompson for the win. Note I said FRED, not Jack, he isn't related to that nutjob.
Reply
http://www.fred08.com/Index.aspx
Fred Thompson for the win. Note I said FRED, not Jack, he isn't related to that nutjob.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 12:51AM (Unverified) said
too bad freddy won't win. He might get the vice prez nomination tho. the repubs are probably gonna pick romney, the crazy ass mormon, and the dems seem like they'll pick hillary :(
I'd vote for obama or edwards, but if it's hillary I'll abstain
:(
Reply
I'd vote for obama or edwards, but if it's hillary I'll abstain
:(
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 2:26PM Mr Khan said
Well, being republican doesn't have to be all of one thing
What you coin as the true republican, something erring on the side of a libertarian, has gone by the wayside since the Reagan years and neo-conservatism, which errs more towards being reactionary (or actively trying to revert to an older standard of ethics, which of course involves bigger government), although now that Bush has alienated everyone, this libertarian-republican style (Goldwater style) is becoming more popular
Jack is probably Neocon, if he could categorize himself
Reply
What you coin as the true republican, something erring on the side of a libertarian, has gone by the wayside since the Reagan years and neo-conservatism, which errs more towards being reactionary (or actively trying to revert to an older standard of ethics, which of course involves bigger government), although now that Bush has alienated everyone, this libertarian-republican style (Goldwater style) is becoming more popular
Jack is probably Neocon, if he could categorize himself
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 11:52PM (Unverified) said
Hey gonk,
Why not call out any other candidates on their religion? Oh that's right, Romney's a mormon, mormons are all so wacky and bug-shit crazy, right? You probably don't know anything about them so maybe you should refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Would you call Obama a "crazy ass negro"? Wait, let me rephrase that. Would a rational person use that phrase? Now scurry off to google and try to justify your mormon prejudice. Oh, and my vote is going to Giuliani. Taking on the mob ftw!
Reply
Why not call out any other candidates on their religion? Oh that's right, Romney's a mormon, mormons are all so wacky and bug-shit crazy, right? You probably don't know anything about them so maybe you should refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Would you call Obama a "crazy ass negro"? Wait, let me rephrase that. Would a rational person use that phrase? Now scurry off to google and try to justify your mormon prejudice. Oh, and my vote is going to Giuliani. Taking on the mob ftw!
Posted: Nov 5th 2007 7:14AM (Unverified) said
True, reagan was the last of the true small government limited spending republicans, but thompson does sounds more like reagan that any other candidate. I just wish libertarians had any chance of winning, I am tired of being betrayed by the republican party. Asswads Like Mccain and my senator Arlen Spector are either a bunch of pussies or too moderate for my taste.
Reply
Posted: Nov 3rd 2007 10:37PM (Unverified) said
wow, good live blog. Again, I think he just tends to send out the wrong message whenever he's quoted, or his behavior in court doesn't reflect the mature guy he can be. However, Lorne really pointed out several things that show Jack's true colors, and if anything, its not surprising. The guy's obviously after money (I mean, come on, he's a lawyer), but at least he's pretty up front about what he thinks and believes.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 1:46AM (Unverified) said
I'm glad they had a respectable (or what seemed like one) debate for once.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 1:38AM (Unverified) said
Thanks a lot for this piece, Chris. It's nice to see something from time to time that reminds you that Jack Thompson is a human being and not an evil troll, no matter how misguided his mission is. Stuff like this is what keeps me coming back to the 'stiq.
Posted: Nov 5th 2007 1:06AM (Unverified) said
Jack, as we already know, stick firmly to a hot-button issue to stay relevant. Before he did video games he approached rap music. However, being a lawyer, he will always try to tackle the problem lawyer-style, even if it's not the best choice. THIS is what we have a problem with. We want parents to be responsible, while he wants complete government intervention.
The analogy is, to a carpenter with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
The analogy is, to a carpenter with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 3:48AM goat biscuit said
A very interteresting read.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 6:52AM (Unverified) said
As much as you pretend to hate him...you support his ass a fucking lot.
Fuck you Joystiq. If you had any integrity for the gamers, you'd blacklist this mofo (you know damn well you could almost kill him, name another blog that covers him more than you?). No cover his ass, he brings hits and comments.
Gotta do something to make up for the "sister-sites" no one visits.
Fuck you Joystiq. If you had any integrity for the gamers, you'd blacklist this mofo (you know damn well you could almost kill him, name another blog that covers him more than you?). No cover his ass, he brings hits and comments.
Gotta do something to make up for the "sister-sites" no one visits.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 8:32AM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said
A deadly stabbing. Rape, and it's murderous avengeance. A persons head nailed with a tent pole. Whole towns barren of life by military force, where men, women and children are killed. What game am I?
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 11:47AM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said
If you answered "not a game" and "the Bible" you are correct. That's why I don't believe in violent makin' media.
Reply
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 9:48AM stabile007 said
Darn it I live a block from the convention center I wish I read joystiq yesterday ah well I was out anyways.....
Posted: Nov 10th 2007 2:59PM WiredKnight said
"violent video games cause increased aggression and points to several studies."
Once again I'd like to point out that no psychological study can scientifically prove causation, only a positive, negative, or neutral correlation.
Once again I'd like to point out that no psychological study can scientifically prove causation, only a positive, negative, or neutral correlation.
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 10:05PM miguelotron said
Damn, I was at the expo, and i heard about the debate, it just wasn't advertised very well... had i known that joystiq was there, i would have definitely gone!! It would of been fun to meet you guys :(
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 10:06PM (Unverified) said
5:17 pm, Jack Thompson gets owned.
Jack says, "I draw a distinction between Beowulf and Grand Theft Auto." Lorne says, "Yeah, I think the distinction is six-hundred million dollars."
Jack says, "I draw a distinction between Beowulf and Grand Theft Auto." Lorne says, "Yeah, I think the distinction is six-hundred million dollars."
Posted: Nov 4th 2007 11:34PM (Unverified) said
Would it be possible to get an actual transcript of this debate? The live-blog is cute, but..
Posted: Nov 5th 2007 12:33AM (Unverified) said
I scoured the tubes and can't find a transcript yer. Blargh.
Reply
Posted: Nov 5th 2007 9:33AM Pipp said
It's too bad Jack doesn't recognize the difference between a Christian and a Deist, or how and why this country was founded.
I think he needs to open up some history books, read up on the founding fathers.
I think he needs to open up some history books, read up on the founding fathers.
Posted: Nov 5th 2007 5:06PM (Unverified) said
Jack Thompson uses high rhetoric to get exposure... That's just good marketing. I am a bit surprised by the conveyance of things he said here. This write-up was really interesting, I wish I could have a transcript of the whole debate. I really like Lorne Lanning and it seems like an interesting conversation! I hope N'gai didn't interrupt too much though because that would be imbalanced!
Posted: Nov 6th 2007 6:24PM (Unverified) said
What is Lorne smoking? There is no 'grey area' with regard to Global Warming...
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM





