Joystiq

Jack Thompson disbarred in Florida

Alexander Sliwinski — 2008-09-25T12:59:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture

Attorney, er, former anti-games attorney Jack Thompson has apparently been disbarred by the state of Florida. It's been a long time coming, but the Court has finally decided that Jack Thompson should "be permanently disbarred without leave to apply for readmission to The Florida Bar."

Mark Methenitis, an attorney who pens Joystiq's Law of the Game, writes us, "While I know a lot of people in the industry truly dislike Jack, I hope people show a bit of respect for a man who has just lost his livelihood. I also hope people realize that this doesn't mean we've heard the last from Jack. I wouldn't be surprised to see him start his own nonprofit group to continue to advance his viewpoint."

We spoke with a representative for The Florida Bar and asked if the association had any further comment. She responded, "We feel the documents speak for themselves."

Check out all the relevant court documents in the gallery below. (View in "High Res" if you don't want to squint.)

[Thanks, Sam & Ballistic]

Gallery: Jack Thompson disbarred doc

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Judge recommends permanent disbarment for Jack Thompson

Randy Nelson — 2008-07-09T18:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Politics

GamePolitics has obtained a copy of the judge's recommendation in the Florida Bar's disbarment case against renowned anti-game violence (or just plain anti-game) attorney Jack Thompson ... and it isn't good. Judge Dava Tunis, who Thompson has referred to as "mentally impaired" and "a raving wild woman" is recommending permanent disbarment in the case, where the Florida Bar had asked for a 10 year suspension of his ability to practice law.

In addition, Judge Tunis recommends that Thompson be assesed a $43,675 fine for the legal costs incurred by the Florida Bar. In May, Thompson was found guilty of 27 out of 31 charges made against him in a misconduct suit brought before the court.

[Thanks, Randall]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Florida requests 10 years disbarment for Jack Thompson

Ross Miller — 2008-06-05T10:57:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture

The Florida Bar this week requested that embattled attorney Jack Thompson be disbarred for ten years based on the 27 misconduct charges he was found guilty of last month. Thompson was reportedly not there to hear said request, as he had walked out during the trial.

According to a GamePolitics report, the attorney (acting as in propria persona) was not allowed by Judge Tunis to read aloud a lengthy objection that he had prepared. Thompson then questioned Judge Tunis' status as a judge and left the court room. Just to clarify: a request for disbarment is not an official punishment - the final decision is left up to Judge Tunis to decide.

In other news, a federal lawsuit filed by Thompson against the Florida Supreme Court has been dismissed with prejudice, meaning that he cannot file it again. Thompson still has two other lawsuits pending related to his ongoing Bar trial.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Judge: Jack Thompson is guilty on 27 of 31 misconduct charges

Ross Miller — 2008-05-20T19:59:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Business, Politics

We're not going to make jokes on this one and save the snark until the final ruling, but the judge presiding over self-proclaimed anti-games activist Jack Thompson's Florida Bar trial has recommended the attorney be found guilty on 27 of the 31 misconduct charges - 21 from the Devin Moore case, 4 when in 2006 he tried to declare Bully a public nuisance, and 2 unrelated to video games.

Game Politics has the full story and a list of some of the charges, including "Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" and "Making statements that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge." A disciplinary hearing is being held June 4. The full report to the Florida Supreme Court is due September 2.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Adam Sessler and Jack Thompson debate GTA on NPR

Christopher Grant — 2008-05-01T19:28:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture

Adam Sessler, host of G4's X-Play, went mano a mano with video gaming super-villain John Bruce (Jack, to you) Thompson on today's Talk of the Nation to talk about all the great ways video game companies are being responsi ... oh, who are we kidding? They were chatting about violence in video games (again) - this time with a focus on Grand Theft Auto IV.

Thompson comes across as paranoid crusader (go figure!), sticking with his usual mantra that the game is "mentally molesting minors for money" before being rather promptly booted off the air ("I'm done?"). Though Sessler and Thompson never really go at each other (don't you see enough bloodshed in your "video games"?) it's as even-handed a treatment of the controversy as you're likely to see in the mainstream press.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Florida Supreme Court orders Jack Thompson not speak directly to them

Alexander Sliwinski — 2008-03-20T19:00:00+00:00

The Florida Supreme Court has sent out an official STFU to controversial attorney Jack Thompson, who is not allowed to contact them directly ever again and will need to hire his own attorney to communicate with the Court on his behalf. This is an entirely separate matter from Thompson's Florida Bar trial we're currently awaiting a ruling on.

GamePolitics has the Court's full ruling regaling the numerous abuses by Thompson like submitting pornographic materials, engaging in a "relentless and frivolous pursuit for vindication of his claim that he is being victimized by The Florida Bar," and "continued inability to maintain a minimum standard of decorum and respect for the judicial system to which all litigants, and especially attorneys, must adhere." That's not all, since the ruling Thompson has filed two new motions with the Court, which would technically put him in contempt at this very moment.

[Thanks to all who sent this in]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Boston Herald editorial questions Mass. game bill

Alexander Sliwinski — 2008-03-18T14:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Politics

As Massachusetts legislators meet today to discuss HB1423, a bill that would restrict access of minors to video games deemed too violent by the state, the normally obtuse Boston Herald has weighed in on the issue with a shockingly sane editorial.

The newspaper lays out that the bill is another example of Boston Mayor Menino, who drafted the bill with Jack Thompson, trying to throw a "big idea against the wall in the hope that it might stick." The paper points out that just yesterday a similar, constitutionally murky bill failed, and asks if "lawmakers sponsoring the bill [are] willing to find money in their budgets to fight the inevitable court challenge?" The Boston Herald piece concludes that the mayor needs to make better use of his time than going after "such low-hanging fruit." We don't know about low-hanging, but it's definitely rotten and is going to cause taxpayers financial pain later between court costs and inevitably paying back the ESA for wasting its time.

[Via GamePolitics]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Mass. legislators considering 'games-as-porn' bill

Alexander Sliwinski — 2008-03-17T13:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Politics

Tomorrow the Massachusetts legislature will discuss a bill that would make it illegal for minors to buy video games deemed too violent by the state (not through ESRB ratings such as M or AO). No similar law exists for movies, music or books. House Bill 1423 is dubbed a "games-as-porn" bill because the rationale used to prevent minors from buying violent video games is the same used on porn. The original bill was drafted by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (pictured) with assistance from Jack Thompson and legislative sponsor Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry (D).

GamePolitics points out HB1423 is based on a failed Utah bill and, given the history of other similar bills, it seems odd that Massachusetts would potentially be putting itself (and taxpayer dollars) at risk of repaying the ESA for fighting this bill in court.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

EA rejects 'impossible' collaboration with Jack Thompson

Ludwig Kietzmann — 2008-03-06T10:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Business

No thanks, we don't need Jack. So says publisher EA, having rejected Florida's attorney at lawl, Jack Thompson, and his recent offer to assist in the attempted buyout of Grand Theft Auto publisher, Take-Two. In an impassioned letter, the spirited lawyer and friend of Mass Effect threw his support behind EA's (thus far unsuccessful) maneuver, claiming he would be "delighted" to help "evict the [Strauss] Zelnick Trojan Horse from within Take-Two's corporate walls."

Responding via e-mail (posted by GamesIndustry.biz), EA's Mariam Sughayer politely turns down the offer, saying, "In response to your offer to assist in the proposed acquisition of Take-Two, we would strongly prefer that you not get involved in this matter." Sughayer goes on to cite Thompson's past behavior towards gaming, "including false claims about content in [EA's] games," as a source of enmity, rendering any possible collaboration "impossible."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Jack Thompson offers to help EA with Take-Two takeover

Griffin McElroy — 2008-03-02T16:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Business

Last week, Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello revealed an offer put forward to Take-Two Interactive executive chairman Strauss Zelnick to buyout T2 for nearly $2 billion. Zelnick expediently and publicly shot down the offer, though this battle of the peculiar last names was far from over -- since then we've heard that other companies took interest in T2 after EA was shot down, though certain industry analysts believe EA will eventually win out. Yesterday brought news of a new player on the field that could tip the battle in EA's favor -- Enter: Jack Thompson!

Yes, everyone's favorite Floridian moralist (and T2 shareholder) recently threw his support behind Electronic Arts in an impassioned letter, saying he would help "evict the Zelnick Trojan Horse from within Take-Two's corporate walls". We think that EA and J.T. would be strange bedfellows, given Thompson's denunciation of Sims 2 a few years back -- though his uncustomary defense of Mass Effect might have rebuilt that once-burnt bridge. How about it, EA? Is your raid on Take-Two LFM?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

MSNBC: video games an 'easy scapegoat'

Ross Miller — 2008-02-19T14:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture

In the wake of the NIU shooting and various pundits finding ways to link violent video games to the tragedy, MSNBC has decided to defend video games, specifically calling out infamous attorney Jack Thompson for his self promotion during school shootings. (They have done this once before during the Virginia Tech massacre.)

In a piece entitled "Playing the blame game: Why search our souls when video games make such an easy scapegoat?" MSNBC's Winda Benedetti writes, "Faster than you can say wild speculation and reckless sensationalism, [Thompson] leapt in front of Fox News cameras and suggested that video games were to blame." Later, Benedetti adds, "The fact is, one would be hard pressed to find a young man of Kazmierczak's age who has not played video games."

Thompson is, unsurprisingly, a bit put out. In an email to MSNBC legal department forwarded to us by Thompson, the Miami attorney asserted his intention to "bring a civil action in state court in Flordia for libel." Thompson further called the two articles "hit pieces" and "crazed and libelous screed" and mentions that NBC did not mind having him on the Today Show / NBC Nightly news about ten times.

"But once my criticism began to inconvenience Bill Gates' NBC partner, Microsoft, (MSNBC.com is a 50/50 partnership) then all of a sudden I'm the Anti-Christ," said Thompson.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Video games 'linked' to NIU shooting; ECA issues response

Ross Miller — 2008-02-18T05:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Politics

The Entertainment Consumers Association on Friday responded to allegations from that day that video games were somehow connected to the shootings at Northern Illinois University, where 27-year old Steven P. Kazmierczak killed five students in a lecture hall. Said the response, "Blaming video games for the behavior of the mentally-challenged is vile on many levels. And, as Generations X and Y mature, it is extremely likely that just about all of us have played at least one video game at some point in our lives."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the origin of the video game link can be traced to Jack Thompson, who was on Fox News the morning of the incident. The New York Post also quickly joined the chorus in blaming video games -- specifically Counter-Strike -- as a contributing factor to the shooting. Kudos to the ECA for being timely in their response, making a concerted effort to prepare against a chance backlash and sensationalism. Our friends at Game Politics have been covering the story extensively, check out what they have to say:

[Our thoughts go out to everyone affected by the NIU tragedy. Image credit: curtaineater]

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Law of the Game on Joystiq: Grumpy Thompson Again

Mark Methenitis — 2008-01-30T16:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Features

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

Like a bear awakening from winter hibernation, you can be assured that after a Grand Theft Auto game is slated for release, a certain attorney in Miami will come stumbling out of his cave, grumbling and growling. Sure enough, Jack Thompson released a statement just after GTA IV's April 29 release date was announced - I won't go as far as to call this statement a "threat," as it seems to lack any credible consequences for gamers or the industry. Jack has made many, similar vague statements in the past, forecasting everything from the destruction of Take-Two to the apocalypse in the wake of game releases, but what can Jack really do?

The answer to that question is 'not much,' from a legal perspective. Of course, there was that oddly short settlement agreement between Jack and Take-Two last year, whose status has been questioned previously, which should theoretically restrict Jack's ability to sue or threaten to sue to block the sale or publication of any Take-Two title. And if you look closely at the latest Thompson statement, it seems he's following those guidelines so far. To quote from his statement, "... contacting state and federal officials to stop the improper sales of Grand Theft Auto IV ..." Specifically, Jack is not suing, per the letter of the settlement, but encouraging government officials to act.

In fact, calling for government intervention is probably the best approach, as there isn't a good private action that could be applied across the board to GTA IV. In fact, only a Federal action, likely by the FTC, would be applicable in all states. In the case of an FTC action, it would likely have to fall under the Federal Trade Commission Act, assuming a case could be made for a "deceptive act" on the part of Take-Two. The alternative would be actions under each state's deceptive trade practices act. Many states, including Texas, where I practice, have deceptive trade practice statutes. (Here's a link to Texas's statute, which you must be dying to read.)

Of course, all of this legal wrangling seems to come back to two particular issues where Jack's theory becomes rather muddied. One is a problem of stretching the intent of the law, and the other is one of misdirected hostility.

The first is the deceptive trade practices claim. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll be focusing on Texas's act, as that's the one with which I'm most familiar. Deceptive trade claims were designed to protect consumers against a long list of activities unscrupulous business people could engage in, from false warranties to false advertising. (There is a pretty good list of Texas's claims available here.) However, legally selling a product isn't one of them, and there's simply no deception here. The video game ratings make clear what the content is in each game (barring the poorly hidden 'outtakes'). However, there is a claim, at least in Texas, that can be made when a retailer is taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of a purchaser to a gross degree. While it would be an exceptional stretch to get a ruling in favor of this claim, the claim could be made that parents are so uneducated about game ratings that stores are "taking advantage of them" by not explaining the ratings in a clear fashion, or that children lack the experience to understand what the rating descriptors mean, and therefore are equally impacted. I, however, wouldn't expect to see that claim make any headway in court.

The second is the target of the suit. Jack's assertion is in this case that there are "improper sales of Grand Theft Auto IV to anyone under seventeen years of age." This has been his standpoint for quite some time: that games should not be sold to minors. And yet, he targets the video game creators (specifically, Take-Two and Rockstar), not the game retailers, in his typical actions. That's not to say he hasn't attacked retailers as well, but the focus of his angst seems always to be the people who make the games. This is the equivalent of targeting a brewery because a bar sold its beer to minors, assuming you even accept that the "harm" done by games is even remotely close to something that needs to be controlled with respect to minors.

Of course, this all comes back to why Jack's typical modus operandi is on the publicity front. Jack is a smart guy, and he knows that he will have ground to stand on if and only if the laws back him up. To that end, he needs to win the hearts and minds of the people in order to impact the lawmakers who may then put him in a position where the laws back him. While he may never win the hearts and minds of gamers, there are plenty of people out there who are swayed by anything from the misleading to the completely absurd. It's an erosion process, not a Mythbusters-style explosion, and every negative game story is another wave over the rocks. Jack's hopes also rest on the court taking a radical turn on its current trend of striking down every video game law on free speech grounds, which seems unlikely.

All of this still ignores the double standard, whereby Jack hasn't complained about the ease of access for minors to similar content in other media (e.g., movies), only games. The Saw films are far more graphic than Manhunt 2 (we'll have to wait to see how the game compares). If content is really the concern, then it should be all content, not just some content, which would put the concept of "free speech" somewhere on par with "get rich quick." But I digress. At some point I'll tackle the whole game regulation issue, but until then, sleep soundly knowing that a certain internet boogie-man won't keep you from getting your copy of GTA IV in a few short months.

Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.

The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Jack Thompson: Mass Effect controversy 'ridiculous'

Ross Miller — 2008-01-28T16:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Microsoft Xbox 360, RPGs

Perhaps the most well-versed individual on gaming controversy (by merit of instigating many of them), Jack Thompson has found a way to make the Mass Effect Fox News report more ridiculous by defending the game. Unfortunately, weather.com has not updated the current temperature in Hell, but we'll let you know when we find out.

Responding to the latest press release, Kotaku's Brian Crecente asked Thompson what he thought about the Mass Effect story. Thompson responded, "The guy who shot his mouth off about it had no idea what the Hell he was talking about." (We assume he meant conservative columnist Kevin McCullough and isn't confusing Fox News guest Cooper Lawrence's gender.) Thompson later added, "This contrived controversy is absolutely ridiculous."

To catch you up to speed: just after McCullough apologized for writing about Mass Effect's "virtual orgasmic rape," Fox News' Live Desk with Martha MacCollum ran a similar, ignorant segment on the "Sexbox" (so clever) title that pitted Geoff Keighley against a child care author who openly admitted she never played the game. Publisher Electronic Arts demanded a correction, Fox countered, and Lawrence apologized after gamers review-bombed her book on Amazon.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Jack Thompson graces Game Head this evening

Alexander Sliwinski — 2007-11-30T16:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Politics

The fabulous Jack Thompson makes a rare appearance in public on Geoff Keighley's Game Head on Spike TV at 1AM tonight. As long as Keighley doesn't pull any punches this could be quite entertaining. Subjects include discussing the man behind the curtain who fills gamers with rage, and what kids at school say about his son -- now that's the question we've always wanted to ask!

Game Head seems to be focusing on video game violence as they also speak to Spencer Halpin about his film Moral Kombat. There is also a debate between Lorne Lanning (Oddworld) and Thompson moderated by Newsweek's N'Gai Croal (which we covered live earlier this month). Set those DVRs just in case you'll be out causing violence this evening after playing all those video games.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Live at the Jack Thompson debate in Philadelphia

Christopher Grant — 2007-11-03T15:56:00+00:00

Filed under: Culture, Politics

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.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

The Political Game: The Public Nuisance

Dennis McCauley — 2007-09-27T10:22:00+00:00

Filed under: Features, Politics

Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:

Once again, Miami attorney Jack Thompson is attempting to have a video game -- Halo 3 this time -- declared a public nuisance. He failed badly in such an attempt in 2006 with Rockstar's Bully.

Under Florida law the term "public nuisance" is generally applied to the likes of brothels and illegal gambling operations, things which, as the law states:

"...tend to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals..."

It's difficult to imagine anyone but Thompson trying to shoehorn a video game into that legal definition. But this isn't really about public nuisances, or even Halo 3.

It's video game legislation -- through the backdoor.

As Joystiq and GamePolitics readers know, laws designed to restrict video game sales to minors have failed on constitutional grounds in nine states, most recently California and Oklahoma. Thompson knows this too. The controversial attorney has been down the legislative road before, and not successfully.

A 2006 video game law he authored for Louisiana turned into an embarrassing fiasco for the state government and was later declared unconstitutional by a federal court judge. Earlier this year the Utah legislature flirted with yet another Thompson-authored bill but ultimately backed off over First Amendment concerns as well as Thompson's unwarranted trashing of the state's respected attorney general.

But how does Thompson's public nuisance gambit equate to a backdoor attempt to legislate video game sales? Look at what he is seeking from Florida's 11th Circuit Court:

"...a permanent injunction, prohibiting both [Microsoft & Best Buy] from selling this Mature-rated video game [Halo 3], directly or indirectly, to anyone under 17 years of age..."

If approved by the court, the highlighted section would essentially give the ESRB's voluntary compliance rating the force of law. And that has been the effective intent of most of the video game legislation passed (and ultimately overturned) in the United States. Should Thompson's gambit succeed, the state of Florida would have, de facto, a video game content law.

What's more, it would be a law that never underwent legislative scrutiny and was never signed by the Governor.

The good news is that Thompson's strategy is very much a long shot. The merits of the case are completely lacking and the legal travesty that was last October's Bully trial has not likely been forgotten in the corridors of Florida's 11th Circuit.

The bad news is that unless the video game industry pushes the issue, we'll be going through this again the next time a game launches that Thompson decides he would like to censor.

Dennis McCauley is the Political Editor for the Entertainment Consumers Association (www.theeca.com), tracks the political side of video games at GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at

Permalink | Email this | Comments