December 17, 2007 -
There is this lawyer in Miami. Maybe you've heard of him...In his latest column for Electronic Gaming Monthly, Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) president Hal Halpin offers his perspective on Jack Thompson:
For the nine years that I ran the [game retailers association], I subscribed to the same thinking as my counterparts at other game-biz groups: Ignore Jack Thompson and he’ll go away. It was the biggest mistake that the industry has ever made... we left Thompson... as the only person at the mic when the media came calling.
Doug Lowenstein... in many respects, my mentor – gave a historic farewell speech last year... In part, he blamed the enthusiast media who covered Thompson as the reason for his popularity and advised them to stop covering him. Many did...
Turns out that the “ignore him and he’ll go away” strategy backfired... [Thompson]... is intelligent, articulate, passionate, and camera-ready.
You may not subscribe to his philosophies or appreciate his liberal interpretation of the facts, but you should respect him... And while you may know that his version of the facts isn’t the same as yours, your parents, grandparents, teachers... don’t.
One of the major strategic changes we at the ECA undertook was to stop ignoring Thompson. We all just need to be smart about it to avoid enabling him. Don’t avoid the discussion; engage it head-on. Don’t jump on a forum thread and flame the man; doing so demeans your argument and empowers your detractors. Instead, voice your opinion, become involved, and speak out.
It’s time to fight back!
Full Disclosure Dept: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.
Comments
As of late, Jack has been trying to find new ways to get the upper hand advantage. He is not going to give any ground any time soon. But what concerns me, that his skills at spinning a story is getting better. But spin can only get you so far. You have made a good point about the whole big name thing. Jack is kinda like Britney Spears in that manner.
@kurisu
He has a habit in not talking about his very public losses.There is a reason that Jack has never talked about the time he was interviewed on a "Daily Show" segment.He was talking about the surposed nudity in "The Sims" in that segment. But I have been having problems finding the video on the Daily Show website.
First let me state that I don't agree with letting kids under the age of 16 play M rated games. And no, that's not a typo. I think that in this day and age, kids are maturing faster due to the effects of living in the information age, which is a good thing. I think that it's entirely reasonable to assume that 17, 16 and even some 15 year-olds can view violent media and still discern right from wrong.
However, the fact of the matter is that parents can and should take complete responsibility for monitoring the actions of their children, and here's why:
Just as with movies, selling M rated games to minors is not, and should not be, illegal. There is no crime in selling games to children, even if it is against store policy.
What Jack and all the other "anti-game" supporters are asking for borders on ignoring the separation of church and state. I realize this is an inaccurate comparison in many ways, but the analogy is valid for a few reasons.
Firstly, Jack himself has repeatedly emphasized his status as a Christian, even with regard to explaining his moral reasoning behind trying to "protect the children". What is the signifigance of this? Not everyone shares his moral values and religious views.
By trying to enact a law that would make it illegal to sell any violent media to minors, you begin to allow them to draw lines for what is "acceptable". While I won't be letting my children play ANY games that I don't think are appropriate for them (based on their maturity level, not simply an arbitrary age line), I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I have the authority to tell my neighbor how he should raise his children.
This is exactly what these people are attempting, only their "neighbors" are every single American family. THIS is why "the industry" (as Jack labels an indeterminate group of mystery conspirators) is PROTECTING the first amendment rights of game developers, and also of American citizens who enjoy the freedom of choosing what to experience.
If you make it illegal for children to buy violent video games, how long until it is illegal for them to buy classic books such as Slaughterhouse Five, In The Lake of the Woods, A Streetcar Named Desire? If war, murder and spousal abuse are unacceptable in games and movies, why not everywhere else? It should never come to this, but these people are trying to take the first steps.
Is Schindler's List a disturbing movie? Yes. Do I think a High School student who is learning about the second World War should see a true depiction of these atrocities? Yes.
It is said that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Why doesn't this apply to young adults and teenagers?
Additionally, should children not be allowed to view a Picasso masterpiece because they might see a breast? Or two or three? By demonizing these things, you make rebellious kids anxious to do them out of spite.
So instead of trying to tell every parent in the country how to raise their children, why don't you just try to encourage parents to educate their children on such "controversial" topics.
It is NOT inappropriate for a parent to sit down with a 15 year-old son and explain why rape and murder are wrong, and what the consequences are. It is NOT inappropriate for a parent to discuss sex with their children in more detail than just saying, "If you have sex, you'll be grounded forever".
It's time for parents to stop being shy and embarassed to discuss topics such as these with kids. If you educate a child, they are less likely to make mistakes. If you teach a 12 year-old what happens if you play with guns, and even teach them the proper way to handle one should they ever encounter one (at an irresponsible friend's house, for example), then you would see fewer accidental shootings, and likely even fewer intentional shootings.
In summary: Raising children is difficult. If you're not up to the task, don't have kids. But don't try and put the responsibility on someone else, either.
Well, in the industry I'm in direct sale means that the manufacturer sells directly to the end user. They way that most game retalers work is they actually sell the material to retail vendors at a discount, then said vendors sell the material at list price. Both sides make a profit, everyone is happy.
Under that system JT doesn't have a leg to stand on because Companies like Take-2 are selling the games specifically to the retail vendors, however the end users are buying it from said vendors. Basically, the stores need to do their job right because financial responsibility for the games is transfered to the vendors when they are shipped.
Hopefully that makes sense to someone else besides me.
I would like to point out that past and present are two different things, and that situations change.
For example, while you were once supported by Senators Clinton and Leiberman during the Hot Coffee idiocy, you have since fallen out of favor.
When was the last time you heard from either one? Would they be willing to verify that?
And regarding your appearance on MORAL KOMBAT:
Can you name anyone else who has played to the media as much as you have in calling games a bad influence?
Someone with real name recognition, someone as comfortable with the cameras as you are?
When you were asked to appear on MORAL KOMBAT, could it be possible that you were brought on simply because you are the only guy who speaks loud enough to be heard?
It seems like you are now simply famous for being (in)famous, and with your current situation, you might reconsider your method of executing your crusade.
Hal Halpin here is complimenting you, and you reply with invective. He calls on us to respect you, and you call him a liar.
We know your opinions very well. But that you cannot demonstrate any self-restraint here, that you cannot "Turn the other cheek", does not speak to your righteousness, but shows you to be a petty man who does not practice what he preaches. That is something quite hard to respect.
He thinks that by flooding their inboxes with messages he is actually 'conversing' with them, even though they trash can each one.
As for his insults to Hal Halpin. It's simple. Hal proved himself to be the better man by acting maturely, and like any schoolyard bully, JT thinks that Hal is taunting him to a fight.
To understand JT's actions you'll need to think like a spoiled third grader.