January 19, 2007
Earlier this week GamePolitics reported that Utah's Jack Thompson-authored video game bill had been pulled from committee consideration by its sponsor, Rep. Scott Wyatt. The issue? Constitutional concerns expressed by the state's Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff.
Not surprisingly, the outspoken anti-game activist Thompson has now focused his ire on Shurtleff. In an e-mail to Rep. Wyatt (and copied to several news outlets, including GP) Thompson writes:
As you know AG Shurtleff is a video game enthusiast and apologist for the industry... He won't take my calls, so he has intentionally isolated himself from the scientific, medical, and law enforcement evidence that violence games played by teens spawns violence... the US Supreme Court disagrees with him on this issue, but I guess we can't expect an Attorney General of a state to care what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say.
The bill I drafted and which was passed unanimously in Louisiana was in fact constitutional, but it was struck down because a) the Louisiana AG did absolutely nothing effectual to defend the law, and thus b) the judge heard nothing about the harmfulness of the games...
Your real problem is Mr. Shurtleff, not your bill as drafted.
Thompson's Louisiana reference concerns the ugly feud which developed between the anti-game attorney and the Louisiana Attorney General's office while that state's Thompson-authored video game law was being reviewed by a federal judge.
Comments
rather non-offensive comments when the bill was
actually pulled. Which is a first for JT.
However, obviously he was just deciding who his
target for abuse should be. And of course that goes
to the guy that second guesses him first.
-Twixn
Anything that gets his proverbial ship sank.
*passes the popcorn*
About the Supreme Court comment, there was a case in 2005, Roper vs. Simmons, which made illegal the execution of anyone under 18 because their minds were not mature. JT often cites this in regard to video games, although video games are not mentioned in the case.
"We must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of blaiming us."
That should be your motto Jackie boy.
Maybe you should get a fellow lawyer or two to sit down with you and go over your bills BEFORE you submit them to get feedback and a second opinion insted of blaming other legal and government people and accusing them of not caring. Considering that you are casting a poor light on the legal profession, i'm sure a few other lawyers will try to give you some feedback and pointers. You should at least try it before you alienate yourself further from your fellow law people.
Wow he talks as if everyone agrees with him on this.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Seriously, JT's got this whole delusion going on that he's not the one who caused the downfall of the Louisiana bill. Not that I expect him to come to the realization that maybe the courts are doing their job and he needs to revise his help to be more... helpful. But this is Jacko. So no worries. Situation Normal.
That seems, to me, to be more relating to the freedom of students to express themselves than their right to consume electronic media.
As I understand it, the First Amendment angle is only really applicable when they're trying to prevent the sale of games because it infringes on the rights of the game developers.
Buying a product doesn't count as "speech".
Jabrwock, actually the SCOTUS *HAS* ruled on the 1st Amendment rights of teenagers. See 393 U.S. 503 for starters.
"Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."
JT isn't worthy of being compared to McCarthy. Not until JT starts running national conferences grilling industry reps. Until then he's just a McCarthy wannabe. ;)
Thanks for the info. I could have sworn that a lower court said that. Must have been a lower court clarifying it or something...
Anyway, the reason JT is ignoring that ruling is the following line:
In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons
Which allows for States to overrule 1st Amendment rights as long as they follow the rules laid out, such as imminent threat, (shouting fire), etc.
JT seems to feel that SCOTUS saying "teenage brains are underdeveloped" is a constitutionally valid reason to deny teens their freedom. By itself, it's not enough of a reason, especially since courts have time and time again rejected the evidence of any causation link. Without the causation, the courts don't have a reason to restrict media consumption just because teens are "fragile". Especially when it's clear that parents are in control (although some choose not to be).
I can't imagine how ANYONE could fail to be convinced by such a compelling argument as "violence games played by teens spawns violence."
...Oh my God, you guys...it just hit me...
The real reason Jack Thompson hates the video game industry is that he never received compensation for the dialogue he wrote for the original Legend of Zelda!
Ones who does not have Triforce can't go in.
I'm intrested to see what kind of words he will use to describe hal halpin :)
Just because I say something doesn't make it true Jack. Are you sure you failed the insanity tests... I think you might want to retake them again. Good news is I don't think you will need to study this time.
That seems, to me, to be more relating to the freedom of students to express themselves than their right to consume electronic media.
It's a two-parter. SCOTUS ruled that companies have both a right to express themselves under the 1st, as well as teens have a right to be free from government "sheltering" them from someone else expressing themselves.
So a government, without a valid constitutional reason, cannot legally prevent minors from purchasing products solely based on the media content. Nor can it prevent stores from selling said products to minors.
Not to mention, i seem to recall someone mentioning that AG actually doesn't like violent video games and would actually be in favor of such a law IF there wasn't unconsititutional issues and he knew the law could pass... from what i recall hearing that is...
But y'know, one should wonder why jack should even care about what's going on in Utah... afterall, he's got himself pretty set up in Mass for a bill over there. If he really thought his bill was bullet proof, then he knows that in Mass he's about to set a pesedent for the other states to follow in order to bass their own anti-game laws. Perhaps this is a sign that even jack has doubts in his own bill and thus, wants Utah and everyother state possibility to keep going with their bills so he has somethign to fall back on should his bill fail in Mass (which it will ofcourse).
@Jabrwock
Damn, i had forgetten about him mentioning that court case in an interview. I looked it up and was completly baffled about how it had anything to do with video games... now i know what thomspon's angle is...
Anyways, we all know Jack is off his rocker so why is this a story?
Don't ever expect that to happen. Thompson apologizing to anyone who might be a gamer is unthinkable
I'm assuming JT is referring to that SCOTUS ruling about the death penalty for minors. While it in no way referred to the first amendment rights of minors (which was established by a lower court and never debated by SCOTUS), it agreed that the teenage brain was less developed than an adult one, and so kids should not be executed because they have less capacity to distinguish right from wrong.
Of course people like JT now twist that to use as "proof" that video games teach kids "wrong" or stunt their development, and so sales to kids should be banned. Connecting two different sets of medical evidence, one sound (that the teenage brain is underdeveloped), one nowhere near (that video games somehow 'cause' this).
Who DIDN'T see this coming?
Senile
–adjective
1. showing a decline or deterioration of physical strength or mental functioning, esp. short-term memory and alertness, as a result of old age or disease.
2. of or belonging to old age or aged persons; gerontological; geriatric.
3. Physical Geography. (of topographical features) having been reduced by erosion to a featureless plain that stands everywhere at base level. Compare peneplain.
–noun
4. a senile person.
5. John Bruce "Jack" Thompson
I'm beginning to wonder if he really has lost it. Either that, or this is some PR stunt to end all PR stunts. Jack could not possible be more oblivious to the facts, and is seemingly "creating" his own truths.
"The bill I drafted and which was passed unanimously in Louisiana was in fact constitutional", wasn't this the same one that was finally ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL? The reason why the politicians in Louisiana wouldn't defend it was due to the fact that it was indeed unconstitutional.
I look forward to seeing Jack piss on the wrong person's leg and end up on the short end of the legal stick. He needs a good lawsuit to straighten things out. That, and he owes the people of Louisiana a bit of money for selling them some "snake oil".
With everything that's gone before, particularly earlier this week, I have a hard time believing that anyone would take him seriously anymore. The Jacob Pribyl incident made him look like an idiot once again. It looks like my hunch is being proven increasingly correct and that more and more people in the mainstream are starting to realize wheat we've known for some time: he's a loon.
Did he really say video games were more harmful than smoking? Oy vey. He's clearly gone off the dge of sanity, then. There is no longer any doubt.
As for violent video games causing violent or aggressive behavior, all the evidence that there is linking the two are extremely weak, inconsistant, incredibly flawed and biased.
At most all they have proven is a weak correlation between playing violent games and aggressive or violent behavior. Also none of the lab studies done have shown any real violent or aggressive behavior in youth from playing violent video games but what the researchers consider proxies for real aggression such popping balloons, giving an opponent in a game a noise blast or punching a plastic doll. These proxies are way too vague and overtly broad to be considered a legitimate way of determining actual real-life aggressive behavior.
So in essence Jack Thompson must be off his rocker to actually believe what he is saying is true. Personally i don't even think he believes what he is saying is true. He just trying to do anything in his power to attack the vieo game industry.
Ok, First of all, a number of people have stated quotes that Gp has not reported, unless I, in my current sleep deprived state, am missing them. So, I have a couple of requests.
1. Could GP make a link to the whole EMAIL so that I can read the madness in it's entirety.
2. What Supreme court stuff is Jack talking about? Has anyone got any clue as to what he's going on about?
Thanks folks. Any help would be apreciated. I'm off to take a nap.
It does? And to listen to him talk, you'd think it was Shurtleff that made the call to pull the bill...
I mean, the US Supreme Court disagrees with him, not Shurtleff, in this case: The Miller obscenity test cannot be used for violent materials.
Secondly, his bill in Louisiana was never constitutional to begin with, since, as the judge said, it looked no different than the other failed legislation before it(and apparently, after it). Besides that, Thompson withheld his "evidence" and his "experts", so the state couldn't defend the bill anyway.
Thompson just continues to make excuses for his failures.
Your real problem is Mr. Shurtleff, not your bill as drafted."- Jack Thompson
That's called bigotry, and your crusade against horror games have no effect on helping people, in fact, you are actually not helping people at all, all you care about is yourself, boy, YOURSELF!
Besides, call us video gamers assholes, fuckers, bitches, sociopaths or whatsoever, as they say, Sticks and stones break my bones, but words don't. Go ahead and say whatever you like. People will just ignore, your words.
But the real sad thing is, his wife is a kind person. Sad to see a family, a neglected son, a mad man and a kind wife.
But real question in that is, which person will you want to be out of your family? I would be happy to see your answers, fellow gamers.
It'll never happen. He's in this to make money, not lose it.
Look Thompson, your Louisianna bill got thrown out because the Attorney General there too saw how UN constitutional it was. Do you honestly think someone would throw away their entire career so you can have one little temporary win? And you call us childish.
He's yet to behave like a reasonable adult in the aftermath of a court defeat, and I doubt he'd be much more mature if he won.
Seriously - even if these guys aren't following videogame legislation, you'd think politicians would at least do some research into who they're working with, in case it comes back to bite them in the ass later. Even a cursory glance at the Google results tell you that this guy's at least extremely controversial, if not a career-endangering, agenda-driven lunatic.
Sure doesn't seem like much "scientific evidence" if one can't be bothered to provide those defending your legislation with at least a few of them.... But I think a lot of us would love to see all such evidence that somehow manages to overwhelm that of smoking causing cancer.
I said it last time and I will say it again, someone is surely looking for reasons to excuse them self from any blame or failure.
Let's get readyyyyyyyyy to Ruuuuuuuumble!
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
No offence meant to any *real* lawyers out there of course!
Jack, it is not. Not according to at least several FEDERAL courts.
Umm, SCOTUS did who what now? Did they somehow grant cert, hear a game case, and render a decision last night while every gamer in the world, GP, the ESA, et al were sleeping or something?
Or is he just nattering on about that random, unrelated decision about food being processed in a different part of kids' stomachs or whatever again?
Scientific/medical evidence: The APA, whom Mr. Thompson claims have proved this link have come out and clarified the situation saying that they discovered a correllation between violent games and aggression, not causation. This is not evidence that games cause violence and the AG is correct to ignore it.
Law enforcement evidence: Didn't an FBI study into school shootings report that there was no one single reason behind them, and that video games on their own could not be considered as a risk factor? There is no law enforcement evidence that games cause violence and the AG is proven correct once again.
"Representative Wyatt, there is more evidence that violence games are harmful to teens than there is evidence that smoking causes cancer."
If this is the case, then why do cigarette packets have warnings along the lines of "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" on them, and video game boxes do not say "GAMING CAUSES VIOLENCE"?
This is a major insult, not only to the AG, who has seen the failure of all these other laws and is only trying to save his state a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, but also to the millions of people who have died and families who have been bereaved due to illnesses caused by smoking.
'Thank you Mr. Thompson for bringing this to my attention. I only wish I would have known sooner that playing video games was more harmful to my health then smoking, for I would have taken smoking up instead. But now I am 20 and have been playing these games for 3 years now, and have tried multiple times to quit, but never with any success. I may be a lost cause, but I will make sure to pass it along to the younger gamers that if it comes down to video games or smoking to choose smoking.'
Sarcasm aside: Wow, the shear stupidity of that comment. I want to see this evidence, because I will play a nice game of CS:S with my 16 year old brother ( I asked my mothers permission to let him play, because "M" is 17+ in my book), but I would never give him a cigarette. In fact I remember my other brother (now 18) smoking at the age of 14 and when I found out I kicked his ass. There are a number of game titles that I won’t let my little (16 year old) brother play, mostly because I find them to be gruesome but claiming that a game title like CS:S is more harmful then smoking is pure BS.
I got an idea Jack why don’t you go on a crusade against the movie industry and write a law that would require them to put all R rated movies out of sight of minors, because some R rated movies just as violent as some M rated video games. Compare watching movies to smoking and being more harmful then smoking and see where that gets you.
"So, the key to defending your bill if it becomes law, is marshalling the hard scientific evidence that the games cause harm..."
The fact that neither of those assertions have any basis in reality is exactly why this bill is damned to failure like all the others.