EDITORIAL: Are Lives - or Egos - at Stake in Louisiana?

August 29, 2006 -
Are lives really at stake in the legal fight over Louisiana's video game law, or has the situation devolved into a finger-pointing battle of bruised egos?

Over the last 18 months GamePolitics has reported extensively on anti-game attorney Jack Thompson's relentless crusade against video game violence. Nowhere during that time has Thompson enjoyed the kind of political success he found recently in Louisiana. Readers will recall that Thompson drafted the state's video game law, testified on its behalf, and basked in its unanimous approval by the legislature.

The video game industry, of course, mounted a legal challenge, contesting the law's constitutionality. And it is on that playing field that Thompson has dropped the ball - in more ways than one. Especially regrettable is Thompson's ugly feud with the Louisiana Attorney General's office.

Thompson has recently - and publicly - expressed the view that A.G. Charles Foti and his deputy, Burton Guidry, bungled the legal defense of the video game law. It's difficult to see how, since, from the standpoint of constitutional precedent, the deck was always stacked against the Louisiana bill - despite Thompson's claims that it would survive legal challenge.

Of particular concern, however, is Thompson's unwillingness to share so-called expert witnesses and information with the A.G.'s office in the wake of this dust-up. The Miami attorney wrote in an August 7th e-mail to Louisiana officials:

"I have just instructed all of my... experts in the Alabama wrongful death case, all of whom have testified before Congress about the need for your kind of law, to have NOTHING whatsoever to do with your litigation in Louisiana unless I approve it... Lives are at stake, while your Mr. Foti does press conferences on Hurricane Katrina... "

That Thompson would even think of comparing the relative importance of the video game issue to the ongoing Katrina recovery process is offensive. Meanwhile, via e-mail, Burton Guidry complained last week to Rep. Roy Burrell, sponsor of the legislation, about Thompson's hard-line stance:

"Unfortunately we have no facts or experts to contradict their motions due to Mr. Thompsons reluctance to help. We have very little choice but to wait for the bomb to fall."

"The bomb," of course, would be the federal court's final determination that the law is unconstitutional.

If, as Thompson claims, there are truly "lives at stake," how can he think of withholding his full cooperation from Louisiana officials?

Whether Thompson is motivated by simple pique or a genuine disagreement with the A.G. doesn't really matter at this point. To borrow a football analogy, it's 4th-and-long in Baton Rouge - time for Thompson to show that he can be a team player, not Terrell Owens with a law degree.

Not that we think it's going to make much of a difference - this law will be overturned by the court just as its predecessors were. But it was Jack Thompson who jumped into the Louisiana video game fray with both feet, giving assurances that his bill was better than previous efforts, more narrowly crafted and proof from constitutional challenges.

Somehow, things aren't quite working out as advertised.

Whether or not the anti-game activist approves of the Louisiana A.G. is irrelevant. Rep. Roy Burrell and his colleagues put their trust in Jack Thompson when they fast-tracked this law through the legislative process. Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco put her trust in Jack Thompson when she signed the bill into law. They now have every right to expect Thompson's full cooperation in defense of the video game legislation.

Win or lose, Jack Thompson has an obligation to see this fight through.

UPDATE: Thompson takes exception to today's GP editorial, writing in part, "I have repeatedly offered to help Lousiana win this court fight if the Governor will do what is necessary to stop the laydown by AG Foti's office."

GP has, in fact, previously reported Thompson's position of withholding his experts unless Gov. Blanco stepped in, a move it's pretty obvious she is not prepared to make.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Michael ChandraSo really the guy's own words strike me as "wah! How dare you disagree with me!" behaviour, which is the sort of childish attitude I am unfortunately not surprised by.10/20/2014 - 2:17pm
Michael ChandraCorrect AE, but then again the owner's own words are about "wishes", not about an order. No "we told him not to", but going against his wishes.10/20/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonyup. sadly that has been true for awhile.10/20/2014 - 2:10pm
james_fudgewelcome to 2014 politics. Increasingly fought online10/20/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is honestly a shame that anyone has to publicly state they are against such vile behavior, but that is the sad life we live.10/20/2014 - 1:46pm
E. Zachary KnightDecided to publicly reiterate my opposition to harassment campaigns. http://randomtower.com/2014/10/just-stop-with-the-harassment-and-bullying-campaigns-already/10/20/2014 - 1:45pm
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
Michael Chandra'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP goes "EZK, do not talk about X publicly for a week, we're preparing a big article on it" and he still tweets about X, they'd have a legitimate reason to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP tells Andrew "we'd kinda prefer it if you stopped talking about Wii-U for 1 week" and he'd tweet about it anyway, firing him for it would be idiotic.10/20/2014 - 8:51am
Michael ChandraLegal right, sure. But that doesn't make it any less pathetic of an excuse.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
ZippyDSMleeYou mean right to fire states.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician