MAN GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

Ok so Boston banned the ads for video games on the MBTA, based on the fact that it would be exposing minors to mature themes? Great, but shouldn't that then preclude them from allowing entire train cars to be inundated with Tanqueray and Budweiser ads? It seems hypocritical and arbitrary at best. This is from a state who only recently has begun allowing liquor sales on Sunday, and who just last year defeated a bill which would permit alcohol sales in grocery stores. If alcohol is so taboo and must be controlled so tightly, yet is allowed to be advertised so freely on public transportation, how can the legislature justify exclusion of ads portraying fictional scenarios based upon objectionable content and its presentation to minors?

-I’m surprised Jack “Windbag” Thompson has managed to last this long with so many failed bills, proposals, “debates”, whatnot…-

Well he is the Little Engine that Couldn't.

[...] New Video Game Legislation in Massachusetts…Drafted by Jack Thompson - Never underestimate the stupidity of government. [...]

@Jes:

Kind of reminds me of another metaphor I thought of for Jack.

A common metaphor for American Liberty is that "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Jack's idea of American Liberty is tying up other people and then punching them in the nose.

Yuki Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Anki: and you win the “I didn’t study history” award.

You'll excuse me if I don't take studying advice from someone who can't even copy down my handle properly.

As for "[forcing] one industry to restrict itself more then others are doing", I'm not saying that I want a government body to step in. I'm saying that the games industry has a long way to go before they can claim they're being as responsible as they can be.

Like I said, the games industry doesn't gain anything by holding itself to the same lax standards as the movie industry. The film industry's standards are its own problem, and us worrying about it is a pointless distraction and a waste of effort in the long run.

Yuki Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Every single judge has stated that the industries self policing policies are vastly superior to other, similiar industries.

I don't believe I've ever seen anything of the sort. The issues argued in court rarely have anything to do with the industry's ability to police itself so much as the content of the games and whether interactive electronic media counts as "speech" in a First Amendment sense.

Yuki Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Games should be treated no different then any other media, and until the other media is held to the same spotlight, then the industry has every right to point out the hypocracy of people attacking them when the movie and music industries are utter failures in the area of self policings.

I agree - games are being unfairly targeted. And it's true that the industry has the "right" to criticize. But the bigger question is: what does that kind of criticism actually achieve? It does nothing to further the games industry's message or solidify its position; it just comes across as a smokescreen excuse.

Like it or not, violent media does affect the people who view or play it. It doesn't necessarily make people more violent, but it certainly desensitises them to violence. I don't doubt that the interactivity has some effect as well; the hyperbolic rhetoric JBT and his ilk uses is obviously embellished to make their case reverberate better with worried parents, but I have no doubt that violent games can affect the people who play them. It's just a case of figuring out how it affects players.

Yuki Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
...if the industry had a pair they could have bankrupted JT years ago. Same applies to the mainstream media. if the industry wanted, they could use the legal system to force the MSM to fairly and accuratly report on games. Thats why there are Slander and defamation laws in the country.

The sue-happy antics of the RIAA haven't endeared it to anyone - and they've actually got the law on their side. Frivolous slander and libel lawsuits would do more to cause finanical problems for the industry in the long run, especially since you admit that you wouldn't expect them to win most of the cases.

Yuki Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
My ideas might be a bit extreme ,but they are certinaly better then the industry sitting on it’s ass doing NOTHING!

You're right - the industry should be doing something. But there are more positive, responsible and constructive things that it could do to strengthen its position before the lawsuits start flying.

Education and PR are the foundations for a stronger industry defence. Gaming has a very negative reputation, and suing people isn't going to improve that. On the other hand, if the industry can demonstrate that they're being proactive in enforcing ESRB ratings it's going to be hard to argue that the government needs to step in; and by interacting with parents to encourage research into the games their children play and education about the ratings system they're going to help their reputation among non-gaming adults.

That "...for minors" line got me thinking about what games influenced me. I bought Deus Ex when I was 12 and that made me start thinking very politically, and even in that game, you can blow people into tiny pieces with a grenade launcher. And on a couple of levels, there are innocent children (that often tend to be very helpful, by exchanging info for food).

Shock/horror.

[blockquote]Daniel, calm down man. If you react with anger like that you get yourself nowhere and raise your blood pressure. Calm down grab some popcorn and laugh as another state provides us with quality entertainment.[/blockquote]

Like hell he should calm down. This "quality" entertainment, judging from face value, is going to be a rehash sequel of Loony Louisana Legislation. Hopefully the outcome will be more different and bizarre.

off topic, but don't know who to email.
KUSI news (san diego) just gave a small report that PS3 and Wii are capable of accessing pornographic sites. and the new anchors suggested to parents to monitor their children activities

[...] Massachusetts has drafted a game bill with the help of Jack Thompson. According to him, the mayor of Boston asked him to. [...]

[...] Generally, I leave commentary on video game legislation to Game Politics and The Video Game Law Blog because there’s so much to keep up with. Now, however, anti-game attorney Jack Thompson has been asked to draft up a bill that would restrict the sale of violent games to minors in my home state of Massachussets. This trend in attempting to legislate against games is getting pretty ridiculous, and I have been researching it on and off for the last couple years, so I thought it might be time to weigh in. In short, the bill in Massachusetts won’t pass, no bill of this kind will be likely to pass in the foreseeable future, and odds are that you live in a state that is now or has recently been wasting time or money trying to pass doomed legislation aimed at securing voters. [...]

Beardog:

Well, that maybe true Bear, but either way, I think just the threat of lawsuits would be enough to stem the tide of this BS all the time. At the very least it would get a few people to reconsider there anti game posistions if they suddenly knew they couldn't grandstand and lie to try and get press and voters without facing massive lawsuits.

Khyris

To each his own, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. But either way, I hope we can both agree that the Passive stance the industry has taken in the past is both foolish and ineffective. Some action, be it aggresive as I suggest, or less direct as others have suggested. But either way, the point I want to make, and I hope you can understand this, is that the industry has been playing defense for far to long, and that some action has to be taken. They have been silent for to long.

Something has to be done, someone in the industry has to say Enough is Enough and start fighting back. I shudder to think of what might happen if the industry just sits by while the critics and politicans line up against it.

Khyris

Good post man, very well written.

That being said, I seriously disagree with you in a few regards.

The first is this: I don't beilve that the industry would win all or even most of the suits it COULD bring against it's critics. That isn't the point, the point is that by showing them we won't sit by idly while they lie and defame the industry, they'ed be less likely to attack it. If you wanted, I'm sure members of this forum could generate in mass the list of lies that thompson is guilty off.

The other thing is this: Jack doesn't actually care about kids, it's a smoke screen. Anyone who has followed jack knows that it's all about 2 things. His personal vendetta, and his ego. He doesn't give 2 Shits about kids, he's only in it for his own ego, he even admitted it in a Rolling stone interview.

Otherwise, damn, thats was a great post, have to copy that down, print it out and send it to some lawmakers we know.

"The difference is that these people intend to win the court fight, unlike the knuckleheads in Louisiana. That bill was constitutional."

Really? Well, guess what! The judge said no! Sit boy, sit! *bats with newspaper* You've been bad! Bad! Go lay down! GO! LAY DOWN!

Why? It was intelligent and well written.

I think there's a few big misperceptions here about some basic constitutional principles.

Libel and slander are very specific charges that require evidence of harm to prove. Jack can call people knuckleheads and other nasty names all he wants. Only if he was to claim something that could be proven he was knowingly lying (e.g. "Doug Lowenstein murdered JonBenet Ramsey") would Mr. Lowenstein (and possibly the Ramsey Family) be able to file a successful suit.
A lot of what Mr. Thompson says is constitutionally protected by the same 1st Amendment that protects all forms of Digital Media as well. The biggest factor in this is that no-one can prove that he does not believe his own claims. Some gamers might claim that he is just in it for the money and limelight, but such a suspicion is not sufficient evidence for libel nor slander suits.

Equal Protection under the law. This is another constitutional tenet that sets precedent for requiring the same kinds of restrictions and prohibitions one one industry as the next. No single industry nor individual may be singled out for preferntial treatment... therefore the established regulations of the recording industry IS relevant to any attempt to regulate the same on video games. Whether the current regulations on the recording industry THEMSELVES are constitutional, or merely a moralist affront, outdated and in need of review or repeal, is another matter.
In order to remain constitutional in this respect, most statutes state that "ANY material which is harmful as determined by x,y,z must be subject to regulations 1 2 and 3" as opposed to just singling out a given medium.

However, IMO, any form of censorship, no matter how obscene, perverse, disturbing, etc... should not be the place of the government to enforce self-regualtion. In generations past, I feel that many parents admitted they were too lazy/incompetent to guide the growth and development of their own children and demanded someone else do it for them, in which case they really have no business raising children in the first place, but I digress, as that is my own subjective opinion.

Returning to objectivity;
The government can not constitutionally force any industry to regulate itself. The government CAN however intervene when it is demonstrated that there is a threat to public safety, and at that point, it is completely irrelevent whether that industry has been successfully regulating itself or not. The government may set standards, for example, for choking hazards of any small parts of toys marketed to children under a given age. It was demonstrated that there was a significant mortality rate from this problem. Demonstrating a significant mortality rate as a result of video games is far-fetched at best. The argument that video games coincide with more aggressive dispositions would only be valid if causality could be proved through a control set. At this point, it is equally likely that aggressive dispositions are more likely to adopt video gaming as a past-time. This, co-inciding with the FACT that violent crime rates among youth have dropped in the past decade would more likely suggest that, when provided with the outlet of video games, aggressive children are LESS likely to carry-out acts of violence that they WOULD perpetrate without such an outlet.

I am not claiming this to be fact, merely pointing out that this alternative interpretation of the SAME data available to all proves that Jack Thompson's assertions are not the ONLY probable valid conclusion to be drawn. This "reasonable doubt" prevents his claims from being provable as fait accompli in a court of law.

Subjectively;
I feel it is unreasonable for Mr. Thompson to dismiss the FACT that violent crime among youth has decreased in the last decade on the assumption that "If we haven't heard about it, it's only because it's not being reported," as he claimed on national tv. The constantly increasing ready availability of information contradicts the probability of that statement, which has the same basis in logic as "if I didn't hear about the dodo bird flourishing, it's only because they are not being reported." When we discovered the earth was round, it wasn't simply because "fewer people (with more advanced mathematical surveying equipment) were reporting proof of flatness, but the flatness was still rampant!!" That's absurd. He can not ignore inconvenient data simply because it does not fit his foregone conclusion, as that violates the integrity of the scientific method so vital to our system of proof.

I am willing with open ears to listen to every word Jack has the constitutional right to say. And I have the right to refute it all. Not because we shouldn't be concerned about our children, but that we SHOULD be concerned that once again we are turning to the government to raise our kids for us, to decide for us what's moral and objectionable.

Morals have no place in government, which exists only to protects our freedoms and rights. We, as Americans, should have the right to do anything and everything we want, up to the point where we begin to interfere with out neighbor's right to do anything and everything they want. It happens that a christian moral "Thou shalt not kill" coincides with murder law, which addresses interfering with another's right to continue to live. However, christian morals also state "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!" which is diametricly opposed to our murder laws. In this case the law flies in the face of a religious moral. An extreme example, I admit, but the point is that we can't possibly make laws that align with all morals of all religions, and no single religion shall be given preference by the constitutional government, so we can't make laws with the intent of conforming to morals at all. As long as we continue to make laws that conform to rights, and leave the morality and decency to the parents to pass to their young, we'll find that the two will align more often than not in the most equitable ways. We can avoid all the conflicts that you see plaguing the sunni, shia, and kurds today. They have no hope of living peacably with another, because they have never known anything but a state aligned to ethnic and religious preferences. Religion and morality have a place in individuals lives who choose it because they need it to feel fulfilled, but it should remain an individual pursuit, not a national crusade like Jack is trying to create.

I think if Jack had spent more time with his own children, teaching them moral values, and more importantly WHY it pays to be moral in the long run as you find your place in society, and how to differentiate fantasy from reality, he'd be doing so much more for his kid than he's done with all this publicity and madness. That is my challenge to all the public crusaders seeking the limelight: if everyone paid attention to their own faults, nobody would have those faults to weigh upon anyone else... let alone the time to do so.

The man believes he's creating a better world for his kids to live in. That's commendable. But what he fails to see is the opportunity-cost. The world is what you make of it, the world will be what his kids make of it, and he should be teaching them to make something of the world in the right way, and the right way does NOT include complaining about everyone else's way. Live your own life, and no video gamers are going to force your kids to turn into psycho-killers, and if you give decent parents the chance to raise their own kids, chances are their kids won't grow up to be psycho-killers either. Make sure you're qualified to raise your own kids before you try to raise everyone else's... and the only way you're going to be sure is if you pay attention to them for a change, instead of the rest of us.

@ Jotun

I think that comment you made up there about how you hope that Jack Thompson loses everything was marvelous. I knew you weren't a bad guy. Anyone who says that about Jack Thompson can't be a bad guy. I don't care who it is. Jack Thompson is an evil man and he's trying to take away freedom of choice. He should move to Germany, where there about to make playing all violent video games a crime punishable by prison.

People like Jack Thompson are mentally retarded and sick. Why does anyone listen to him? He is a horrible person and he needs to lose more cases. I hate his lies and his guts. He is a despisable person and no one should ever listen to him and anyone who does should seek psychiatric help immediately. Jotun, that was a great comment and that man is a PIG. He needs to be removed from the Florida Bar Association and people need to realize who he is. A lying ugly PIG.

Father Time:

Your partialy right. I don't think we should attack everyone. Opinion is opinion, an everyone has a right to it. But we should attack anyone who states items as fact that are wrong. Like jack, and policitians and the Mainstream Media.

Attacking someone who just says they don't like games is pointless and silly, but attacking someone who claims that games are directly responsible for violence? With no PROOF? Yeah, we should sue that person.

Anki: and you win the "I didn't study history" award.

It's one thing to request responsibility, it's another to force one industry to restrict itself more then others are doing. If the industry has to force retailers into abiding by the Policies, but won't force the movie or music industry to do the same, your rewarding them for incompitance and punishing the only industry that is actually succesful in it's efforts. Thats hypocritical and flawed and more proof that you aren't paying attention. The game industry has done more then it should to control sales to minors, which is why they win in court, among other things. Every single judge has stated that the industries self policing policies are vastly superior to other, similiar industries.

If thats that case, why would we want to force them to adobt stricter rules when the ones already in place are vastly better then any other industry of this type. It's hypocrital, it's stupid, and it shows the same type of biased thinking that the people in office show.

Games should be treated no different then any other media, and until the other media is held to the same spotlight, then the industry has every right to point out the hypocracy of people attacking them when the movie and music industries are utter failures in the area of self policings.

As for my Sue back ideal, it wasn't arrived at by chance Anki, it was arrived at cause the industry hasn't ever had the courage to activly fight back against it's critics. Determined or not, a begger hasn't got much of anything to use against those he hates, and if the industry had a pair they could have bankrupted JT years ago. Same applies to the mainstream media. if the industry wanted, they could use the legal system to force the MSM to fairly and accuratly report on games. Thats why there are Slander and defamation laws in the country.

While I would like to think there were other options, the time for those options had come and gone years ago with no action whatsoever from the industry. Now, it's to late for PR campaigns and commercials. Until the lies and slander stop, it wouldn't matter how much the industry tried to educate the public, the MSM would keep sensationalizing it and just make it look like the industry is the bad guy. When they are left with the choice of either reporting fairly or giving the industry milliions of dollars from lawsuits, then they might take the former.

You can disagree with me all you like anki, thats your right, but the fact is, history has shown so far, that i'm right. Every media that was ever attacked, the first thing people did was try to claim it was different from other media. Comic books are a prime example.

Regardless of the end result in court, that doesn't change the perception of games a being for kids. Until the industry silences the liars and the Sensationalist media, that won't ever change. My ideas might be a bit extreme ,but they are certinaly better then the industry sitting on it's ass doing NOTHING!

[...] Massachusetts residents! Jack Thompson is drafting video game sales legislation at Mayor Menino’s request. This would be pretty much identical to the law that was just blocked in a Louisiana court for unconstitutionality. The general legal approach taken by the bill has already failed in other states, and each state has had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees to the Entertainment Software Association. It is time to write to your local representatives and tell them that you don’t want the state wasting your tax dollars on legislation that simply will not pass. [...]

It probably won't pass.

Menino pushes for dozens of state level bills every year. This year the total is over 60. Most likely, this came up because of the recent rise in homicides in Boston. A law that's more likely to pass that's part of the same folio automatically suspends drivers licenses and revokes vehicle registrations of people who are convicted of a firearms violation.

All of which pretty much ignores the real source of the rise of homicides in the city, which is predominantly driven by murders among recent Cape Verdean immigrants who have brought their gang war to our city (a problem that seems to happen in many cities with large CV immigrant populations). The crimes are particularly vile of late, which may have brought a panicked sense of urgency to the mayor's office.

Addressing the issues in that particular community through city outreach, education and community pacification is the only way that you'll reduce the level of homicides (and is exactly what worked to stop the high levels of gang violence in the past).

The Boston Herald will probably pick this one up as it's media champion, so brace yourselves for that bullcrap.

[...] New Video Game Legislation in Massachusetts [...]

Knuckle heads....like he can talk. I am pissed at him and the LA politicians because I live in LA, so its wasting my parents money, and now Studio will not wanna come here, like Doug said. So I will have to move when I get older. I'm not worried about the bill because it will get shot down...I just wish money and time werent wasted.

I for one am not worried one bit, simply because Jack Thompson is involved. Maybe I should take Jack Thompson with me when I play the lottery so he can cause me to win by ruining the machine. Seriously though, this legislation even if it passes will be challenged by the courts and struck down and Jack will piss and moan about what a bunch of "knuckleheads" the judge and legislators are and go back to Florida to sulk. Then he'll move onto a new state and the process will repeat. Before long, Jack's going to run out of states.

-Auto

@ Deus
yes, that would be. thank you for the correction in logic.

I hope a majority of the readers here were still able to understand what I was trying to say/suggest.

Yet another "block-minors-from-buying law".

The way to break a bad law is to follow it to the letter. If a game has any form of any "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value", then the law is a carte blanche to sell the game, including Grand Theft Auto.

Taking this law out is easy - write to your congressmen and state that this law does the exact opposite of what it claims to do, and state exactly why. There's more than enough cut-n-paste material available to handle this without problem.

@ Gary

GTFO

This has nothing to do with religion. I'm so sick of hearing sh*t like this. Most people are passively religious anyway.

Does Mass. have a thing where you can go the the hearings on these laws and acctually speak on them as a resident of the state?

I remember someone speaking about something like that in Louisana, all you had to do was fill out some sort of card and you could speak at the capitol on an issue.

Maybe get a few dozen gamers down there to speak on why this will end up hurting the state and it's residents in the long run. Of course only intelligent gamers should attempt this (god knows they don't want to hear from some 12 year old gangsta gamer or something like that)

@jer: Uh... a ban on producing unconstitutional things.... isn't that a little... you know... redundant. Unconstitutional by definition is illegal, you don't need to ban something that's already illegal. That'd be like saying that we need laws to ban felonies.

@ cat
"Is he trying to draft these stupid bills in every state?"

I think JT is "gaming" the court system ... and looking at the longer strategy (yes, I just attributed the ability to develop a strategy to this man). States may be irrelevant. The failed court cases he has championed (and/or abandoned) around the country have taken place in different federal court districts. Just my opinion, but I think he is shopping for a sympathetic federal court (not just a judge) ... hoping to find an activist federal judge of any persuasion (con, neo-con, or liberal) who will support his Point of View when a law (if passed) is challenged in court.

I think ultimately, he is looking for the following situation: Pass a Law. Have it survive a federal constitutionality challenge at the federal court level (possibly due to judicial activism). The industry would of course, appeal any verdict that went against the industry, possibly going straight up to the Supremes. He may have some belief that a more-or-less morally conservative Sumpreme Court would either decide in his favor or decline to take the case, in which event, he wins.

Why don't we attempt to come up with a Interactive Media Legislation bill that would protect the video game industry from these attacks? have on there
a ban on producing legislation that is made to prevent/censor games unconstitutionally, getting retailers to have more enforcement on the handing out of video games (i.e. enforcing the ESRB and having parental consent for individuals attempting to get a game not for their age group), and educating the public on video games and the ESRB.

Two things...

First off, does anyone actually have a record of Jack Thompson's career? I'd be interested in seeing exactly how many court cases he has actually won and how much legislation he has successfully drafted that was passed. I just would like to see what makes politicos actually think that he can be of service to them.

Second:
"and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

I actually would LOVE to see that pass. When laws made it illegal for strip clubs to allow full nudity (thus the stickers over the nipples) unless it was art, at least one strip club started doing "naked shakespeare" so that it was okay. Well how about some shakespeare games? That would have literary or artistic value. Titus would be a good example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Andronicus

Or political? Well then, lets create the most offensive war situation ever. Scientific? How about a realistic depictation of what happens to the human body when flayed.

I dare Massachusetts to challenge our industry as such. It will be the goriest revolution EVER.

I get my mail in the state of Massachusetts, so I guess I'm a resident, and with that I shed a tear for this poor state.

I hope you didn't have any social benefactors who needed that money guys because this one is going to hurt you.

It's really funny because the city just spent an insane amount of money redoing the ticketing system on the T. They built brand new Charlie Ticket stations at every T stop, as well as new scanners on the trains. On top of that there's an exorbitant amount of reconstruction going on in Boston, and that's outside "The Big Dig" which will never be finished.

sqlrob Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Yet the movie industry (DVDs) is doing significantly worse than video games. Why are video games demonized, and movies not?

That's really irrelevant when it comes to defending against these kinds of legislative attacks. Whining that someone else gets away with it is not going to help anybody in this situation, just like pointing out the kind of sexual material books get away with wouldn't help the movie industry get past the wrath of legislators.

It's the responsibility of each industry to watch it's own ass and take the steps to ensure it's as well-defended as possible; pointing out the failings of another entertainment sector is an even bigger waste of time than these laws.

Jotun Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I had to say, the behavior and attitude of children lies on their parents shoulders. And don’t expect the police force to be full-time babysitters for your children and don’t expect legislators nor the game industries to do that, it will be a shame thing to do.

It's unreasonable to expect the industry to babysit people's children, but I don't think it's too much to suggest that the games industry take every reasonable step to make sure that they can defend against accusations of irresponsibility.

Educating parents isn't going to be a difficult thing to do, and if they'd taken the initiative a few years ago and made more of an effort in POS information about ESRB ratings and game content - as well as a bigger effort from retailer chains to prevent sales to minors - we'd be in a much securer position and be better placed to argue against accusations of peddling violence to children.

Yes, it's ultimately the parent's responsibility to raise their children and monitor their entertainment intake, but that's not to say that there's nothing resting on the industry's shoulders. There's a limit to the games industry's sphere of influence, but it needs to be much more active and effective within that sphere if we're going to see an end to these legislative efforts.

Where the taxpayers of MA really get shafted is that he'll be billing for the time it takes him to Find-Replace Louisiana with Massachusetts in the Word doc he used last time. Being a lawyer must be the best job in the world. Nowhere else can you get paid twice for doing the job once.

Remember, there is a serious generational disconnect with some politicians. Because video games are "new" to them, they will easily be convinced based on emotional arguments, and will ignore facts.

As a federal employee, there are people I work with daily who somehow were able to graduate from high school...

aniki21:

Spelling never was my strong suit, unlike history and technology, but I digress.

You make some good points, and some not so good points.

You do have a good point, the industry could do more in regards to enforcing it's self policing policy, as while the big box stores are doing great jobs, the smaller retaliers are not. However, and forgive me for paraphrasing as I'm away from my notebook and don't have the Ruilings infront of me, but each judge in each case has made the following or similars statments.

" Given the industries efforts as self policing, when compared to similiar efforts by other media industries, it is a violation of the 14 amendment to single them out for further restrictions without including music or movies in that demand."

Again, not an exact quote, but one like it has appeared in every ruling thus far. SO, again, until the anti gamers start targeting other industries, there argument is flawed and doomed to death from the get go. The industry has done it's part, until the other industries are in line, then I say leave the games alone.

Now, on your second point we can agree somewhat. Games are being unfairly targeted. But as far as I'm concerned, part of the problem is that the industry has never made an effort to point out the hypocracy of the attacks on them. As an example. Leeland Yee attacked games until his bill got put in injunction, yet failed to mention that he gets millions in campaign dollars from the Movie industry. Hypocracy.

As to the effect of violent media, while there may be an effect, theres no evidance as to there being any direct link to violence. If there were, these laws wouldn't be shot down all the time.

As for my argument about JT, ask the PTC what a slander suit can do to you. They had to pay the WWF millions for slander. The industries image is already tarnished ,and wont get fixed by PR and Education at this point, the industry has to stop the lies and critics first, then pr and education can fix there image.

The whole point of the lawsuits is not money, it's to stop the lies and BS, the industry has 10 billion dollars a year in revenue, more this year from what i hear. It's not like they have to worry about the money. They should use that financial and legal muscule the got to put the hurt on JT and MSM to get the lies and BS to stop. Then they can use pr and other methods to fix there image.

Overall, it's not that your ideas about Pr and such are bad, but the time for that passed years ago. Right now theres to much lies and bs in the MSM and from JT for such ideas to work. We need to shut the liars up first.

I"m not trying to be mean man, but the fact is, playing nice nice is what go the industry into this spot in the first place. They sat around for so long doing nothing to counter there critics that now the critics have a massive edge .

But hey, everyone has there own opinion. Agree or not, we dont' have to fight about it.

@aniki21: "Since so many retailers slip up in the odd Secret Shopper survey, it’s being painted as the industry failing to take proper steps to “protect” kids."

Yet the movie industry (DVDs) is doing significantly worse than video games. Why are video games demonized, and movies not?

Wow, so Jack's a bigger dullard than I first thought. If he thinks he can pass the same bill in a different state he's pretty dumb. ESPECIALLY when he calls an entire state "Knucklheads".

His crusade is nothing more than a means to keep his name in the papers.

The sad thing is, Hillary Clinton will probably help him if he comes to New York.

I doubt that Mass would be dumb enough to alienate some of its better paying job markets.

And so it begins.....

OSHYT!!!!

Theory? and my dad are going to be in Boston!!!!! (Well, theory? lives there)

GAHH, EXELLENT TIME TO FILE A BILL, FREAK! MY DAD WILL BE FILIMNG THERE FOR MONTHS!!!

What’s the definition of insanity again? Isn’t it:

“Trying the same thing over again and expecting different results.”

Or is that abject stupidity? I can never remember which.


Andrew Eisen

Our tax dollars? Increased in Massachusetts? Perish the thought.
/sarcasm

Didn't JT pen the Louisiana bill? in other words. he just admitted all his bills are unconstitutional.

I'm going to find the email address of the mayor to verify that the mayor actually asked him

Newsflash: City of Boston to Flush Half Million Dollars down city Sewers. When asked about other recent cases in which similar laws were found to be unconstitutional, city officials were quoted as saying "Louisiana? Is that state?"

The difference is that these people intend to win the court fight, unlike the knuckleheads in Louisiana. That bill was consititutional. They took a dive because of (ESA boss Doug) Lowenstein’s threats.

Funny, if it was constitutional, why did it lose miserably in court?

Oh right, activist judges, silly me. ;)

Is this man capable of EVER accepting the fact that he can't just override the highest law in the land willy nilly? Where does he think he lives, Canada? :P

@Andrew Eisen

Is there a difference? ;)

Yeah, this kind of thing will really make the industry want to consider his "proposal".

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6163854.html

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

eventually the politicians will realise that tax payers hate to see half a million dollars flushed down the drain

Bwahahahahahaahahahahaahah! :D

*wipes tears away*

Oh, I needed that.. thanks. :)

JT will write another letter that reads “…the knuckleheads in Massachusetts.”

My bet is about 20 seconds after the AG refuses to let JT score all the limelight. At which point JT will take his "experts" and go home to sulk again...

@Yuki

I think it's just a matter of time. Notice that not a single one of those states slapped with 1/2 million dollars in legal fees has even *proposed* doing it again (not seriously anyway, there's always dreamers). Eventually JT won't have any ears to bend...

Here's how it starts:

1) JT drafts bill which equates violence to porn.

2) He brings in his bogus "experts" to claim games are "harmful", or "games are used by the military blah blah blah" nonsense, which even John Stossel proved was a lie on 20/20

3) He claims brain scan studies prove a "harm" is shown

Here's how it ends:

1) Courts have already stated that violence does not equal porn

2) The so called "experts" that JT is referring to have already been shown to be irrelevent. Craig Anderson - whose theories have been debunked in court in virtually all the video game bill cases. ex-Lt Col. Grossman, oh boy, where do I begin with this guy. He claims games are used by the military for desentization - lie. Grossman bases all his nonsense on some guy who wrote a book about military men not being able to fire their weapons on the battlefield - which has already been proven to be nonsense. Grossman has also called Henry Jenkins of MIT a "prostitute" for allegedly receiving money from the video game industry, but Jenkins has stated he hasn't received anything. Ironically, Grossman asks for a $3,500 fee when he presents his views on video games (proof: http://www.semissourian.com/story/1166593.html). Who is the prostitute again?

3) Brain scan studies have never shown a "harm" to anyone. These studies were even used in Illinois and were shot down by other experts in this field, and they were shot down by the court as well. Besides, these studies have never been done on other mediums (books, newspapers, etc) so there is no justification for singling out video games for regulation - which is one of the flaws with all the previous video game bills. If you can't prove video games should be singled out, the MRI studies conducted by narrow-minded "researchers" ain't gonna do it.

4) Bill will be thrown out

5) Jack makes bogus claims like activist/liberal judges, and claims the knuckleheads in the Mass. legislature didn't fight the bill in court, or that his "experts" weren't used properly/at all. Just because you have "experts" doesn't make a bill constitutional.

6) Some knucklehead legislator in another state asks Jack to draft yet another unconstitutional bill, which kinda makes you wonder, if these are truly "lawmakers" why does Jack have to do their job for them? Aren't they the ones that should write the bills, rather than have someone else do it for them?

Is it just me, or did Jack pretty much draft the exact same bill as in Louisiana, only worded a little differently? What on earth makes him think this bill will survive the MA courts?..

Oh, and by the way... Jack Thompson "and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for" EVERYONE. ^_^

and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

Isn't that one of the prongs of the miller test involving pornography? It was ment for pornography and not violence. Let's see they had artistic so art can't be deemed obscene, scientific so sex ed stuff wouldn't be banned, and political and literary. . . for good measure? IF they are SERIOUS about doing a Miller test for minors (even though I doubt it would work) then they should add something that could only apply to violence and not to porn . . . HISTORIC values, that way WWII things wouldn't be banned if they accurately depicted the violence there. Also we should never forget the fact that our country started with a violent revolution and didn't just spring out of the ground.

Anyway I have a message Jack thompson's career is not spiralling out of control ready to crash people are taking him seriously, WHY? because he calls himself an expert and it seems no one knows what he has done in the past. Picture a man who fell off a cliff but has some rope attached to him and was able to lasso the rope onto a rock saving himself from death, now the man is slowly climbing the face of the cliff, this is jack thompson and eventually he will climb out of the cliff and make progress with his ultimate goal. We make think his career will self destruct but think about it so far he has said and done some incredibally stupid things and has this slowed him down? No not really. We need to fight him not ignore him because refusing to acknowledge his existence won't help anything. We need to cut the rope he is using to climb the face of the cliff (and give him a nice push) How? by e-mailing those senators and whoever who buy into his garbadge and remind them of Lousiana. Also we need to urge the ESA and whatnot to file legal action (if not bar complaints) against Thompson for every lie and every slander he makes, if nothing else it will be more productive then sitting here insulting him.

Whoever had January 8, in the 2007 Video Game Legislation pool, please pick up your prize at the concierge.

Thank You.

The democrats won so why do they feel the need to manufacture problems? could it be that they don't know how to fix poverty/crime/the war in Iraq?

I actually very suprised to see a bill like this in Massachusetts. Esspecially with all the other failed bills before it and even more so esspecially one that is written by Jack Thompson. I always though Massachusetts politicans were pretty level headed but i guess i was wrong. They're just as idiotic as the politicans in the deep south, esspecially for teaming up with a fanatic like Thompson. Lets hope this bill doesn't get passed the committee phase and dies a quite death.

To aniki21,

That depends though, on how the parents control their kids. And whether the latter is a 15 years old or any age, I would recommend parents to buy Teen rated and Everyone rated games for them and if the parents feel that they should take the risk and felt that they had done enough to teach their kids the difference between fantasy and reality, then the M-rated game will be their choice though.

I had to say, the behavior and attitude of children lies on their parents shoulders. And don't expect the police force to be full-time babysitters for your children and don't expect legislators nor the game industries to do that, it will be a shame thing to do.

... but 'Bully' *has* socio-political value, as does the much-maligned SCMRPG, even if the most they might do is get someone talking about the real issues. That's the point.

Another waste of tax-payer dollars, courtesy the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Jack Thompson.

The law is unenforcably vague. It equates games to porn. It violates first amendment rights. It violates equal protection.

How Jacko thinks this would be constitutional is beyond me - he's obviously deluded. That he still has a license to practice law is a tragedy.

All I can say is.. FAIL'D! Harder than Sony so far, this generation.

@ gary17
go for it

x(wai)x Says:
January 9th, 2007 at 1:51 am
There are plenty of fifteen-year-olds that can appreciate an M-rated game with a deep storyline that a nine-year-old might not be able to grasp…

Fifteen-year-olds shouldn't be playing M-rated (17+) games, though.

The problem is that kids are getting a hold of these games that, according to the industry (via the ESRB ratings) are not suitable for them. Since so many retailers slip up in the odd Secret Shopper survey, it's being painted as the industry failing to take proper steps to "protect" kids.

If there was a more watertight system to prevent children buying games that they're too young for, then the industry could go on the offensive and start pointing out the parents who buy the games on their child's behalf - which I'm sure counts for the majority of the M-rated games that children end up playing.

But realistically, the games industry needs to step up its education campaign, especially when it comes to the parental controls on the machines. Encourage parents to watch what their children play, and suggest that they take anything away if they don't think it's suitable.

All of that's common sense for a responsible parent, but the industry needs to show itself as being proactive in the whole process, rather than kicking back and saying "it's on the box". That doesn't cut it.

By the way, I hope Jack's knuckleheads will kick him off his license and he will lose everything, even his property and he will regret taunting us gamers.

Re: "Fingers crossed that never happens, because unfortunately whatever America does, Australia is soon to follow."

I had the impression that Australia was quite capable of drafting and passing their own suppressive laws.

Alright Ladies and gentlemen, taking all bets! When will Jack's bill fail this time? Dead in committee? Permanent Injunction? Or Maybe even unconstitutional ruling. 3, 6, or 12 months? Who knows! *GRIN*

Seriously. Why does this man insist on wasting our time and money on such frivolous lawsuits? Not that I have any legal knowledge, but can't the ESA sue for this sort of thing at this point? HEY JT! RETIRE ALREADY. YOU LOSE.

And Daniel. They have this wonderful new plan. It's called lay of the caffeine.

I'm going to bring out a saying we used to describe this kind of news in the past, back when GP still had the LJ format (Ahhh the good old days...):

We're going to be 51-0 folks. It's only a matter of time.

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

Truly amazing, I tell you. If JT is anything, it's persistent. Well, persistent up to a point at least, that point being if it seems he may lose. Then he backs out like a coward, leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for the state to deal with in his wake. Worst part is that he shows no signs of stopping.

umm couldn't those "knuckleheads from Louisana" right now sue Jack for libel because of his press release?

First bill of 2007.

Guess Jack wanted to start the year big.

Can anyone get me in touch with Mr Thompson? I would like his help in banning all college football. I believe it has been suggested here (or elsewhere) that by his reasoning it should not exsist. More college age women have had violence done to them by football players (players of a violent sport) than kids have killed others after playing video games.

I agree that this is just going to be a cycle, as long as the legislators aren't going to look at his history.

@Daniel-MOVE NOOB & STFU!!!!!!

Re: Daniel
---"No one makes me madder than an anti-game activist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m hot!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m super PISSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The video game industry is INNOCENT INNOCENT INNOCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "---

laughing too hard. That needs to go on a t-shirt.

seriously, Jack thompson is no big deal. Whatever he does eventually gets canned and its only his psuedo celebrity status that keeps him around. Despite his half brained ideas on video game censorship and the occasional non sensical insults, he really seems to be a decent person. He hasn't killed or robbed anybody. He is a better conservative christian than those far-right nutjobs who are spouting "god hates f---" signs, blaming liberals for the everything bad under the sun, postiing pictures of dead fetuses on Myspace, and misplacing George Bush as the voice of God. And he is not a real anti-gamer any more than he is an anti-music person for attempting to shut down 2live Crew/explicit rap lyrics a long time ago.

I don't hate or praise JT. But I think its hilarious his own obsession is matched by so many obsessed gamers.

@Jer

Ok, I'll give it a shot.

The Mayor of Boston asked me to draft a bill, on his behalf, for the Massachusetts legislature. Mayors get to do that in Massachusetts.

First of all it's got this arrogant condescending tone that's just hilarious to imagine. It's like one of those cases where someone's attempting to sound superior, but just ends up sounding ridiculous.

Then there's the fact that if the mayor of the smallest town in Massachusetts asked a random out of state lawyer to draft legislation on some random issue and they began shopping it around to the state legislature, they'd be laughed out of the state's political circles. The only reason they're getting listened to is because it's the mayor of Boston that's pushing for this. That JT doesn't seem to realize this is amusing.

Then of course there's the little fact that I'm fairly sure that the other 49 states don't have laws forbidding mayors coming up with legislation and talking the state legislature into giving it a look. Only most of the time it'd be the mayor themselves drafting it, or more likely talking about their idea with one of their buddies in the state legislature, and the two of them draftings something. I mean, when you're enough of a politician to become a mayor of some place, you usually know a lot of the guys higher up the food chain. You used to work with them when they were mayor of some place, you've chatted with them at parties, you've golfed with them, etc.

Which kind of brings me to my last point. ANYONE can draft legislation and talk a lawmaker into pushing it. People do it all the time when they write their senators and congressmen to urge that action be taken on something. Of course most don't go further than "There ought to be a law about this." but it's not like they're forbidden from suggesting language. The real trick of the matter is getting the face time to explain your idea for a new law, and getting the politician you're talking to to agree that it's a good idea and they'll get it into committee and back it.

Daniel, calm down man. If you react with anger like that you get yourself nowhere and raise your blood pressure. Calm down grab some popcorn and laugh as another state provides us with quality entertainment.

@Mass residents
Sorry your money is going to be wasted.

Jer- It's a joke. Tongue-in-cheek humor. He's being facetious.

@ Daniel;

You're 20 right? You're roughly one year away from a large part of your life changing. You might need to examine a few things before that happens. I understand that games are great. I play them myself (and I also understand that this is "Gamepolitics") but just by reading your statements I have to say that really, there are far more important things in life. How about war? Famine? The people dying non video game linked deaths? I too think it's bad that people are attempting (if I could underline attempting I would.) to link pornography and video games but why get furious over it? I can understand Mr Thompson's drive even if I disagree with his methods. I don't want to see legal action take the place of a parent's responsibility any more than you do but invectives and tirades about the injustice of it all are not going to change a single thing. We can do our best to calmly dissuade our nations political figures as much as possible. That is all we can do; try. Write local politicians, write state and federal folks too. Don't sink to his level. And please keep in mind that even if you don't remember the things you say (Like Mr Thompson.) two seconds later, others will.

and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

And who gets to make the decision on which games "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors?" And how can they apply the same standard to all minors? There are plenty of fifteen-year-olds that can appreciate an M-rated game with a deep storyline that a nine-year-old might not be able to grasp...

@ Arion

I disagree with your pose on Jack being a 'decent guy' outside of his self-delusional antigame war..

The man has proven himself uncapable time and time of upholding a civil level of conversation and behaviour when someone disagrees with him, be the subject games or not.

In other words, he's the kind of person who'd get angry at you for leaving greasy shoe-marks on HIS part of the sidewalk.

I hope Thompson wins this war and all this filth gets banned. Turn to Christ and true salvation. You will never find it spending your time playing this corrupt evil and when judgement day comes what will you have to mark your name by?