jackthompson
Latest
Jack Thompson to unfortunately appear on AOTS
As if Jack Thompson wasn't already considered a total disgrace all around the planet, we now hear the man is going to appear on G4TV's Attack of the Show tomorrow night. We're going to assume Kevin Pereira himself will interview the pseudo-lawyer, and we'd like to think Kevin may do his best Bill O'Reilly impression while interviewing this attention hog.Most pressing question we'd like answered is: Mr. Thompson, would you please go away, forever?If the answer was yes, you just might find us jumping up and down for joy whilst naked in the streets. Guess we'll all just have to tune in tomorrow night to find out -- that is if your cable provider even gets the network.[Thanks, Zelda Master]
Rumor: Hillary Clinton preps for video game tax
Brian Crecente of the Rocky Mountain News and Kotaku* is claiming that a reliable source that Senator Hillary Clinton is getting ready to advocate a tax to video games, much like cigarettes have their own special tax. Furthermore, Clinton is seeking out concerned parents who feel passionately enough about violent games to come and speak at fundraising events press conferences. We are confident that both sides -- the pro-tax and anti-gamers -- will be represented.It would not be the first time that a game tax has been proposed (nor the first time that games have been compared to smoking), but Senator Clinton, likely a candidate for the 2008 presidential election, is gearing up to make this her punching bag for the next few years. Are you a registered voter?While not confirmed, Crecente is a respected blogger and we trust that he is not just pulling this one out of thin air. Game Politics has more discussion on the subject.* Kotaku was at war with Joystiq: Kotaku had always been at war with Joystiq.
Louisiana guv signs JT-penned bill into law
... and we dance ...Just a couple days ago, the governor of Oklahoma signed a bill restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, effective November 1st. Today, Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco signed into law a bill written by outspoken anti-video game opportunist Jack Thompson that would essentially do the same thing. The only difference, the Louisiana bill is effective immediately. That means like, right now. Game Politics points out the new law borrows language from the Miller Test for obscenity (I know it when I see it) to classify whether or not the level of violence in it is appropriate for children. These are in accordance with "prevailing standards in the adult community" and "contemporary community standards." This is always the problem with these laws: whose standards. I can guarantee you my standards (and I imagine most Joystiq readers) are radically different than Uncle Jack's.GameDaily BIZ is reporting that the ESA has wasted no time in mounting a lawsuit against the bill. ESA chief Doug Lowenstein said, "Both parents and industry are working together to ensure that video games are purchased responsibly. The Federal Government has found that parents are involved in game purchases more than eight out of ten times. Retailers already have increasingly effective carding programs in place to prevent the sale of Mature or Adult Only games to minors. Legislators know full well that this bill is destined to meet the same fate as other failed efforts to ban video game sales."Let's review: St. Louis unconstitutional Indianapolis unconstitutional Washington State unconstitutional Illinois unconstitutional Michigan unconstitutional Maryland (doesn't really count, so we'll let 'em have it) California (currently under review by Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte) Minnesota (lawsuit has been filed) Oklahoma (lawsuit has been filed) ... and now ... Louisiana (lawsuit has been filed)
ESRB: Lie to us, pay up to $1 million in fines
ESRB President Patricia Vance on Wednesday testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection about informing parents about (and protecting children from) violent and explicit video games. In her testimony, Vance showed off the ESRB's war chest of available actions for penalizing publishers. The armaments include: Fines of up to $1 million for the "most egregious offenses" Suspension of publisher's access to the ratings system. Similar to the government ratings system in Australia, titles without rating usually do not get shelf space on retail stores. In addition, publishers can be forced to Pull advertising until the ratings information is corrected Correct the ratings with stickers placed on the package Recall the game To what extent the ESRB will use these tactics is uncertain. Vance's testimony (download the PDF here) was meant to soothe the government's concerns that kids being traumatized by a values-destroying games industry. When another publisher tries to swindle the ratings board, how harsh is the ESRB willing to punish the violator?See Also:Tepid Coffee: Take-Two gets foreboding slap on wrist by FTC
Tepid Coffee: Take-Two gets foreboding slap on wrist by FTC
The Federal Trade Commision today handed down its final verdict regarding the "Hot Coffee" controversy. While not fined, the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection director Lydia Parnes stated that the hidden sex game, and publisher Take-Two's subsequent coverup, "undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers," adding that "parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system."The harsh words give the impression that this is the game industry's final warning on the subject of full disclosure to ratings systems -- the FTC ruling did note that all future violations by Take-Two will results in an $11,000 fine per violation (i.e. per game sold). As GameSpot extrapolated, with 7.27 million copies of San Andreas sold in the US, Take Two would have had to pay almost $80 billion dollars.The Hot Coffee incident involves a sex minigame found in the code of Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which could only be found by hacking the title or downloading user-made modifications. Although difficult to find (and play), its inherent inclusion (and Take Two's initial denial) ignited anti-game activists and more than a few opportunistic lawmakers into action.[Thanks, SickNic]
Analyzing JT's rhetoric: assassins vs. gamers
Jack Thompson has made headlines again after convincing the police to seize games from a suspect who shot a delivery man in the face (you can read the details at GamePolitics). The new quote that is making its rounds on gaming blogs is widely regarded as one his craziest yet: "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer." Before we attack Mr. Thompson, let us see exactly what that means (WARNING: Dry logical analysis ahead)."Unless" can be a tricky word, logically. It is defined as "except on the condition that." The sentence now reads "Nobody shoots anybody in the face except on the condition that you're a hit man or a gamer." Therefore, if man X is to shoot someone in the face, he either falls in the category of (a) a hit man or (b) a gamer. While he may believe so, the quotation does not make either of the following assertions: A gamer is equal, in some regard, to a hit man. While person X, who has shot somebody in the face, must fall into one of the two categories (or both; it is not mutually exclusive), it does not say that "All gamers are assassins" or "All assassins are gamers." All gamers can (or will) shoot someone in the face. This would follow an implication that "If X is a gamer, then X will shoot someone in the face." However, such a statement is not found in Thompson's comment. Although neither of those proposals are explictily stated in his latest wacky quote, the fallacy lies in not taking into account outside influences: cops can also shoot people in the face and not fall into either category (gamers or hit men). Ergo, finding one example of a face-shooter who neither plays games nor earns money killing will nullify his statement. Q.E.D.[Thanks to everyone who tipped us!]
Penny Arcade creating ESRB ad campaign
With an angry mob of politicians and parents (and pareticians) waving their pitchforks and torches at the ESRB's front door these days, launching a new ad campaign might be a wise move -- at least a good deal wiser than dumping gallons of hot oil on your detractors. The powers that be at the ratings board have tapped none other than the Penny Arcade crew to create a new marketing initiative aimed specifically at gamers, one that hopes to illustrate the importance of those letters you may have glimpsed on American game covers.Thanks to the involvement of people who have actually played games before, it's a safe conclusion that we'll be spared from the usual in-your-face X-treme to the max gamer representatives that only exist in the minds of ill-informed marketing types. Instead, Gabe and Tycho have spent the last few months creating a series of characters, each one being paired with one of the ESRB ratings. As you might have expected, Tycho has already written short narratives for all the characters that explain just how the ESRB impacts upon their lives. These will no doubt be filled with words too gigantinormonomical to comprehend.Though some teaser images were already shown at E3, Penny Arcade says that the full campaign will be invading magazines and websites very soon. We're hoping that 'ole DivX machine will be teaching us the ins and outs of the M-rating.
Pixelante t-shirts; charities profit, JT smolders
GamePolitics has led the charge to reshape Jack Thompson's "Pixelante" portmanteau from a barb into a badge of honor. They've chosen the winners of their t-shirt contest, and made them available to purchase on Zazzle beginning at around $15. The best part--what's really gonna piss Jack off--is that for every "sociopath with a mouse" that buys themselves a Pixelante shirt, GamePolitics will be donating all the profits of that purchase (17%) to the Get Well Gamers Foundation. Alright Jack, sure we're "pimple-faced geeks who use death threats to drive people of faith and with values from the public square," but we also care.Continue reading for images of all the available shirts.
Jacko wants cops to seize and destroy 25 to Life
In a letter to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Miami anti-games lawyer Jack Thompson suggested California police officers seize and destroy all copies of the controversial upcoming title 25 to Life. Thompson writes:"Additionally, please know that California Civil Code Section 3495 enables and authorizes each and every law enforcement officer to walk into any video game store, without a court order, to seize and destroy each and every copy of 25 to Life. California law treats this as acceptable 'abatement' of a public nuisance by parties particularly endangered by such a nuisance... In the next six days I intend to take to the public airwaves in California, and to use other means, to encourage all law enforcement officers in California to in fact go into video game stores and seize all copies of 25 to Life."While I highly doubt Eidos, the game's publisher, would agree with Jack's interpretation of California law, it's more disturbing that he is encouraging the destruction of content he finds inappropriate. Without getting too hyperbolic and invoking Godwin's Law, history hasn't looked favorably on all the people who've destroyed works they found offensive.
Interview with Jacko; still recalcitrant
You would have thought, considering the bad press that he's received in the last couple months, anti-game crusader Jack Thompson would have resolved to be better behaved this new year. In an interview with Netjak's Rick Healey, Thompson almost sounds convincing. He is not as belligerent and you are reminded that, as much as we may disagree with everything he does, he is genuine in his beliefs. He says, "I think your piece was unfair, to imply that I would deny a donation to some starving kids in Africa or the like over a technicality. Not going too deep into my personal beliefs, but my wife and I believe in a Christian obligation to tithe, and we fulfill that obligation. I believe people are dying for these games, and I made the proposal to shine light on this."He doesn't sound so bad. Towards the end of the interview, he makes as (genuinely) modest a proposal as he's ever made. He says, "Video games are like any other technology – it’s neutral, capable of either good or evil. I don’t want to do away with video games. I just want to protect children from adult games." I think that's something most gamers could agree with, or at least understand. Now this guy is at least broadcasting from planet Earth. But not for long...His very next response, at the end of the interview, blows any goodwill he may have been trying to earn. As a final message to gamers he unleashes, "Yes, put down the controller and get a life... It’s not healthy... It’s a masturbatory activity...." Alright ladies and gentlemen, he's back, and as unreasonable as ever!
