Jack Thompson - Is He Right Or Wrong?

[gtkdltk007]

I think every one here knows of this man - Jack Thomspon. For those of you who do not know him, he is the man who has been trying to remove violent or graphic games form the market, deeming them unsafe for society. He thinks:

1. Video Games are just simulations that people can use to practice real life situations, like terrorist attacks and shotings.
2. That games are responsibel for many different shootings and other unfortunate incidents.
3. That they are corrupting the minds of children and teachnig them negative things i.e. how to shoot, that murder is ok, etc.
Many other things apply.

For a while now, he has attempted to remove various video games off the market. He has been a constant enemy of Rockstar Games, specifically forthe Manhunt series and Grand Theft Auto series. He tried to stop the luacnhing of Halo, and attempted to pull Bioshock from stores. He will continue to do this he believes until the governemnt deems it fit to intervene and do something about it.

Now, for the major question: Do you believe he is right? Does gaming corrupt minds, influecnce negative thoughts, and teach things to children they shouldn't know? We view them as simply entertainemnt, or just a fantasy world where we can simply play and socialize. Jack Thomspon sees it as public enemy number 1. Do you think he is right? Even a little bit?

Becuase I do not. The ones who usually become bad people from games are those with mental conditions. They may not have a fully working brain, and therfore, perhaps, games can be more dangerous to them than us. It is unfortunate that a person with a less developed mind or disorder i.e. paranoia, schizophrenia, ocd, insanity, etc. could be affected with games in a negative way. Also, I believe that it is up to the parents to decide what games there children play. The ESRB does it work for a reason. If a parent deems it fit, then let the child play the game that they want to.

I believe he is flat-out wrong.

Do you agree with Jack Thompson?

 

[Blackadder]

He is right, on some levels, you know.
"What!? Are you mad boy!?"
Games can influence emotions. You couldn't say that a movie never made you cry, or a book never made you laugh, or maybe that a game never made you angry maybe.
But that's really where it ends. Shooting a gun on screen and shooting a gun in real life are two very different things. The whole "It makes killing people seem like an easy thing" stuff is crap as well. Most of the people killed in video games are facless mooks who do nothing more than shout "Die!" or "It's Snake!" or whatever. Killing a real man would be far harder, both emotionally and physically.

Besides...I was playing The Punisher once. A man I interrogated suddenly screamed "I'm gonna be a daddy!" and I got a rather raphic picture of a Punisher's dead child.
Silly as it may seem, this was actually powerful enough to make me STOP and stare at the screen for some time.
I let him live.

(...of course, one man in the seventy or so I killed is another story)
But that shows that they can have postive effects in a way.

In short, I think Thompson is wrong.
(Sorry for this badly written reply...I'm tired)

 

[Delphiki]

Some of the most violent works of art in Western culture are simply revered. I think people ridicule video games slanderously - they only discredit them because of some bias. It doesn't make any sense for someone to praise the Iliad and then discredit vidgames.

In the Iliad, EVERYONE who is killed is named. This is usually accompanied by a quick description of how they died, and sometimes who they were. And then there's Hector - for those who haven't read, his dead body is tied to a chariot and dragged around a dusty battlefield. Achilles does this purely out of rage and vengeance. To the Greeks, this would be a huge travesty - much honor is given to the deceased. Nothing in gaming compares to the brutality of Achilles.

 

[Mic_128]

I would have thought more concern should have been about
1. How they got acess to the weapons they use, and
2. why the system never picked up on it, usually despite many obvious things (IE last US shooting)

instead of 'they played _____ lets sue the producer!'

Anyway, jack's about to, if he hasn't already be kicked out of the law game anyway for some pretty stupid and ******** acts.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

It is ultimately the responsibility of the child's legal guardian, usually their parents, to decide what the child is and is not exposed to. It is not the role of the government to censor the media in any way shape or form for the benefit of 'the children.'

 

[Mic_128]

the only exception would be of course, shops not selling M15+ stuff to minors without said parents.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

That is an economic problem, not a legal problem. Most stores don't sell M rated games to children becaue they don't want to lose business from the parents. And how does a child get money to buy these games or gets access to the stores without their parents driving them?

 

[Mic_128]

Ever hear of busses? And chores and birthday/xmas/pocket money? And unless I'm wrong, it actually is illegal to sell minors games, and mvoies over a certain rating. For example, porn. Legally, they can't sell it to minors. The same law applies to selling games of a certain rating to someone underage.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Actually there is no federal law that prohibits the sale of AO games to minors and only a few states with laws that prohibit the sales of M-AO games to minors.

And even if a child can get access to violent videogames, it doesn't change the fact that it is still their legal guardians responsibility to monitor their activities. Why a parent would allow their child to go alone on a city bus in the first place in questionable, and why they don't observe what media they consume is irresponsible.

 

[Mediocre]

Ever hear of busses? And chores and birthday/xmas/pocket money? And unless I'm wrong, it actually is illegal to sell minors games, and mvoies over a certain rating. For example, porn. Legally, they can't sell it to minors. The same law applies to selling games of a certain rating to someone underage.

In Australia, Mic, I think you'd be right.

In America, selling porn to minors is prohibited by law, but not letting them see/play R rated movies or M rated games.

 

[Mic_128]

Could have swordn I heard it was there too...

G4f, I'm in no way saying that parents shouldn't. It's their responcability to look after their child and to make sure what they do is appropriate, but that doesn't mean Billy Bob porno should legally be able to sell stuff to a 12 year old :/

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Billy Bob porno can't sell pornographic material to kids, but there is no law saying he can't sell violent content to them.

I think that any store that sells a M rated game to a child without the parents permission is being stupid. It destroys good will. Luckily, and because of that fact, most stores won't sell games to minors. So I don't really think its necessary to make a law for something that really isn't too much of a problem.

 

[Digital Watches]

I would agree with G4F's sentiment that the government should have no role in the censorship of... well, anything. I do believe that first-amendment rights cover media, and that these rights supersede any supposed government responsibility to "protect" children from questionable material.

The supposition that video games are "training kids to kill" or even altering their perception of reality. Most developmental psychology models have this kind of effect strictly regulated to a period between infancy and age 3 or 6 (it varies), so I hardly think there's any valid point to be made to the effect of Jack Thompson's claims.

I do find it interesting, however, that video games are coming under fire, mainly because it's a predictable cycle of blaming new mediums for society's ills. It happened to TV, it may be starting to happen to the internet, and it even happened with the Novel as a form of literature (19th-century preachers had a field day) and the written word itself. The newer it is, the easier a target it is, and the conservative right will always have something to say about something. I predict that this whole thing will blow over in the next few decades.

 

[AltF4]

Let's suppose that these allegations are correct about video games. Suppose that they do corrupt the minds of our youth and make them more violent. Suppose that all video games are a complete detriment to society.


The government still has no right to restrict them. Freedom of speech and of expression is of such absolute importance to a healthy democracy. The government cannot be allowed to censor free expression in such a way.

It is not the role of the government to protect us from ourselves.

 

[gtkdltk007]

I think the situation we are in can be relate to the Steroids scandal of the NFL. It got so public and so intense, the government at some point stepped in, as visible with the televised trials and such. For video games to hit sucah a level, it would take such a massive force, that it would probably not happen.

What would itt ake for governemnt involvement? Well, firstly, more politicians like Thompson, and if Hillary gets elected, expect her tot ake action. SShe hates video games.

On top of that could possibly be a gaming realted death, where the player was affected and killed under their own free will without any mental diasbilities. This, should it ever happen, would be the wors possible situation we could encounter.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

It is really hard to parse your post.

I don't think it is possible for a player to kill himself without first having a mental disorder, not because I don't think games have the potential to affect people, but because psychiatrists think everyone has a mental disability of some type.

I've played plenty of games that made me really emotional, I've had friends throw controllers at walls out of anger and frustration (I don't throw my equipment, ever). But aside from a mental mind screw game like Eternal Darkness, I don't know of any game company that would want to make the player kill themselves IRL.

 

[Mic_128]

I would agree with G4F's sentiment that the government should have no role in the censorship of... well, anything. I do believe that first-amendment rights cover media, and that these rights supersede any supposed government responsibility to "protect" children from questionable material.

So then you have no issue with some 10 year old watching something like the SAW movies, right? Or Chainsaw Massicre(sp)? I'm sorry, but if something's been given the rating of Mature or M15 plus or whatever the US version is, I say it should be illegal to sell it to someone under the age unless accompanied by a parent. Kids mature at diferent rates and if a parent thinks their child is ready for whatever it is, then the parent can go with them and get it. I just think that there should be no way some kid can just walk in, grab one of these movies and be able to buy it. Nothing's being banned or stopped from the public sale, freedom of speech is still there, I just think there are some things that shouldn't be sopken to a child without an adult present.

 

[Digital Watches]

So then you have no issue with some 10 year old watching something like the SAW movies, right? Or Chainsaw Massicre(sp)? I'm sorry, but if something's been given the rating of Mature or M15 plus or whatever the US version is, I say it should be illegal to sell it to someone under the age unless accompanied by a parent. Kids mature at diferent rates and if a parent thinks their child is ready for whatever it is, then the parent can go with them and get it. I just think that there should be no way some kid can just walk in, grab one of these movies and be able to buy it. Nothing's being banned or stopped from the public sale, freedom of speech is still there, I just think there are some things that shouldn't be sopken to a child without an adult present.

Right. Requiring parental consent for minors is fine, and not really what I'm talking about. Really, people don't have all the rights of a citizen until age 18, which, while in some cases is probably due for some change, certainly is a good idea in cases like this, where it puts more control over the education and development of the child in the hands of the parents.

That being said, I think that trying to redraw the lines of what should be restricted by what age based on what some politician or lawyer finds offensive (the "Bully" scandal comes to mind) is a misuse of this power, and I also think that outright banning (or effective banning, with things like the virtually unmarketable AO rating on things that don't deserve or warrant it) of anything falls outside of the government's jurisdiction.

But what's MOST disturbing is, getting back to the meat of this topic: The tendency for conventional wisdom to be made into policy without scientific backing. If some idiot lawyer from Florida claims a correlation between video games and murders, it's seeming like he may well be able to make headway towards a law that tightens restrictions on content, without bothering to go to the trouble of, say, bringing up a psychological case study, or even a statistical trend which controls for other factors, and it's because you don't actually need to prove anything to incite a public riot over some pseudopsychological bogeyman.

 

[Mic_128]

But what's MOST disturbing is, getting back to the meat of this topic: The tendency for conventional wisdom to be made into policy without scientific backing. If some idiot lawyer from Florida claims a correlation between video games and murders, it's seeming like he may well be able to make headway towards a law that tightens restrictions on content, without bothering to go to the trouble of, say, bringing up a psychological case study, or even a statistical trend which controls for other factors, and it's because you don't actually need to prove anything to incite a public riot over some pseudopsychological bogeyman.

That reminds me, a DVD of a pile of old Sesame Street episodes got an AO rating in the UK because of Big Bird being delusional and seeing invisable creatures, Ernie and Bert sleeping in the same bed and god knows whatever else that's harmless but looks odd.

 

[behemoth]

This is another scion of the growing trend which allows parents to be children themselves. A generation or two (or four, who knows) back, parents started raising their kids with the television. Surprisingly enough, kids misbehaved, and parents didn't know why. Now, we have a surge of ADHD diagnoses, schools turning into daycare, and leeway for jackoffs like Jack Thompson to have a job.

Parents don't have to grow up, to take responsibility of their children. It's because many stopped doing it, and the government "had to" step in. The only people who should be censoring the world for kids are their parents.

For a more in depth understanding of "the government as shepherd", google "soft despotism".

I agree that kids shouldn't play manhunt. I disagree that it's the government's job to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

We seem to be mostly in agreement. Does that mean that the debate was successful and we can end it?

 

[Digital Watches]

We seem to be mostly in agreement. Does that mean that the debate was successful and we can end it?

Yep. Honestly, it's been a while since we've had a topic here that most people aren't largely in agreement on. Seems to me like we need to attract some patronage possessing of more disparate political views and/or philosophies if we're to have anything interesting going on. Either way, this topic = brick now.

 

[FireWater]

Truth be told, I do not believe Jack Thompson is at all correct.

If his campaign was to simply ban the sale of Mature Rated content to minors, then I would have no problem with that. But he uses these victims of these poor shootings and sells them on the idea that the person who committed the crime is not responsible; the video games are.

My problem with Jack Thompson is simple: He cherry picks his research as well as does not fully understand what he is talking about. He constantly cites studies from the American Psychological Association stating Causation. Causation that children who play violent video games are guaranteed to become violent killers when they grow up.

This is incorrect. The APA cites Corelational effect rather than causation. Corelational research simply means that two different variables are related by something other than chance. There are high corelations between violent video games and teen violence, but that could mean also that already violent children are playing video games that are violent.

Also, another thing that JT uses is that he predicted columbine would happen, and that it was because the two teenagers played "Doom".

If you look at every single school shooting that has occured in the history of the United States, you will NOT find a single school shooter who was popular, starting on the football team, or a cheerleader etc....

The most common theme is that the teens who commit these murders are socially isolated, enraged that they continually get picked on, and need appropriate mental health services. They bottle up all of this rage and anger without a safe way to cope with it, and explode on their classmates. Their actions are inappropriate, and horrible, but not of the result of violent video games but of bad parenting, hostile school environment and a lack of communication of problems.

Jack Thompson constantly mis-uses statistics and anyone who is against him is simply wrong. If I had one question to ask him, I would ask him "How come so many millions of Americans can play video games without killing people in real life?"

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

Ban guns, everyone just use tasors from now on... should slove some problems.

 

[Digital Watches]

Ban guns, everyone just use tasors from now on... should slove some problems.

Lol. SRK GD is full of news articles about police killing people with Tasers. Saying Tasers are somehow better than guns is like saying that dull, rusty knives are better than sharp ones.

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

Lol. SRK GD is full of news articles about police killing people with Tasers. Saying Tasers are somehow better than guns is like saying that dull, rusty knives are better than sharp ones.

Rusty knives are 10% more scarier then sharp ones. More people would back away from a person with a dull , rusty knife over a sharp "new" looking knife. I know I would. ^_^'

 

[DH_Ninja]

Thats really opinion based, but anyone would back away from a person coming at them with any kind of knife.

 

[halfDemon]

The government's role is to protect its citizens, first and foremost. However, it has no right saying who can play what when.

The ESRB rating is on every single game (in the States) for a reason. It is there to inform the customer or guardian of the content in the game, so they can decide if the game is suitable for the person that's going to be playing it. It is merely a guide.
Because the game is rated M, the parent should "why" it's rated M and decide if their child can handle it.

By having the government say what games can and can't be played is ludicrous. That's not protection, that's limitation.

Take for example the recently released Manhunt 2. It was going to be the bloodiest, goriest game yet. And it succeeded. It gained a huge following because of just that fact, and would have been a great money maker for ADULT gamers, and teens allowed to play it by their parents. However, by the ESRB slapping an AO rating on it, it developed a stigma. Man stores wouldn't sell it, thus loosing almost it's entire audience. Rockstar removed content and got the rating lowered. So what happended?

It was released everywhere and sold very little. Parents were no longer willing to get a game that was banned from some stores, even if it's available now. Adult gamers looking for the goriest game ever were no longer able to find that in Manhunt 2. The rating prevented a great work of art from being displayed.


Ratings need to be guidelines, and the government needs to back off. Allow parents to make proper decisions for their children, and that's that.

As for games corrupting the minds of the players and turning them into gunmen. How about we focus on Hollywood first. I think the Bourne series taught me how to kill much better and more proficiently than Grand Theft Auto ever could.

 

[DH_Ninja]

Why are video games getting so much blame when there are so many more violent things like movies or television, hell, classic opera is full of violence. I believe Rock and roll in the fifties had problems with the government and media, a bill was almost passed to ban it all together. Half the reason manhunt 2 got its rating was because of the whole thing with the ESRB being stricter since the whole hot coffee incident with GTA and the controversy of the first one which got a M rating. Besides, Jack Thompson is hardly a reliable source as he tends to over exaggerate, recently he had a problem with his court ethics as well.

 

[FireWater]

Why are video games getting so much blame when there are so many more violent things like movies or television, hell, classic opera is full of violence. I believe Rock and roll in the fifties had problems with the government and media, a bill was almost passed to ban it all together. Half the reason manhunt 2 got its rating was because of the whole thing with the ESRB being stricter since the whole hot coffee incident with GTA and the controversy of the first one which got a M rating. Besides, Jack Thompson is hardly a reliable source as he tends to over exaggerate, recently he had a problem with his court ethics as well.

Video games get most of the blame because many parents do not want to accept responsibility for their own children's actions. Some parents would rather try to ban certain material for everyone rather than assuming responsibility for their own children.

Politicians jump on the bandwagon as well because they will never blame their high voter base for what the real problems are. Despite the fact that research shows that the PARENTS are the best indicator of a child's success or not (not schools, society or the government), many people will continue to blame society for their own faults.

 

[Jeremy Feifer]

Video games get most of the blame because many parents do not want to accept responsibility for their own children's actions. Some parents would rather try to ban certain material for everyone rather than assuming responsibility for their own children.

Politicians jump on the bandwagon as well because they will never blame their high voter base for what the real problems are. Despite the fact that research shows that the PARENTS are the best indicator of a child's success or not (not schools, society or the government), many people will continue to blame society for their own faults.

Agreed, couldn't have said it better. Now back onto which is scarier rusty knives or new knives.

 

[halfDemon]

Actually, as history has shown, it's more likely everyone jumps video games as the cause of problematic actions because it's the new form of artistic expression.

-When the written novel (mass produced) was first beginning, many churches and states band such uses (aside from the Bible) because it was seen as a way to spread ideas of heretics

-Television was originally (very early in) disapproved of because its ability to display questionable ideas to the masses all at once

-The internet, still in contreversy, is constantly attacked and questioned because of it's ability to show millions of people anyone's thoughts and ideas, and can easily spread and influence others because of such

Even music, such as rock n' roll, was originally frowned upon because of it's suggestive lyrics and dances, and their ability to influence many people's lives

It's just history repeating itself. Nowadays, all of the above things are rated and censored (books have ratings, movies and shows have ratings, the internet has warnings and birthday checks, music CDs have explicit content warnings) and games do as well. This is how all things will be until we can reach a completely uncensored society.

 

[FireWater]

I believe its a little more in depth than that now. Due to its interactivity video games has been researched and often times scapegoated for a reason behind society's problems. Though the research that has been turned up provides no direct causation that video games CAUSE violence, only show that there is a relationship with between the two.

Many parents seem to have time to form groups to ban video games. One woman even blames Everquest for the death of her schizophrenic son (upon discharge, almost half of schizophrenics will attempt suicide.) suffering delusions and hallucinations from the game.

In America it seems, we seem to be more apt to pointing the finger rather than solving the problem. Its better to have someone to blame than to fix anything.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Yet in University studies playing video games have been shown to decrease stress and satisfy destructive urges (rather than destroying real things).

 

[Ophelius]

I've got a question. Aren't video games protected under the first amendment? If they are, then Noone can do anything about it.

Good point btw G4F.

 

[FireWater]

Yet in University studies playing video games have been shown to decrease stress and satisfy destructive urges (rather than destroying real things).

To confirm that, one of my professors at my school actually did a study on video games and found that while participants were playing, they found no signs of increased aggression or threats of violence, and actually found more of a positive affect overall than a negative one. The participants were elementary school aged children.

 

[AltF4]

I've got a question. Aren't video games protected under the first amendment? If they are, then Noone can do anything about it.

And that's the only thing that matters. 1st amendment, end of story. The government has no right to say who can and cannot view art or entertainment. That would be censorship in its worst form. It doesn't even matter if video games WERE responsible for all kinds of terrible things, the government has no right to regulate it.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

You'd be surprised what people can do. If the administration posts judges that agree that violent video games are the reason for today's social ills and senators are elected who have the same view then they can create and uphold laws that ban/censor video games for our own good. This is one of the reasons why people like Jack Thompson are so dangerous.

 

[FireWater]

You'd be surprised what people can do. If the administration posts judges that agree that violent video games are the reason for today's social ills and senators are elected who have the same view then they can create and uphold laws that ban/censor video games for our own good. This is one of the reasons why people like Jack Thompson are so dangerous.

State governments have tried like over 10 times to get video game laws passed. They all pass, but they are overruled by the judicial system citing that video games are a form of art and expression and as such gets trumped by the 1st amendment.

Sure they have tried to find ways to circumvent this issue, but ultimately fail.

For reference, I recommend viewing gamepolitics.com they have a huge resource of information about laws that have tried to be passed and what not.

 

[AltF4]

(To G4F)

Yes, correct. Unconstitutional and unjust laws are made all the time. I have no doubt that a law could be made along the lines of what Thompson is asserting. It is the responsibility of the populace (us) to ensure that unjust laws are not made. To protect ourselves from the government.

But unjust and unconstitutional laws aside, this would be a flagrant violation of free speech. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and freedom itself, it cannot be relinquished in any form.