Head-to-Head Debate on Videogame Violence

This part made me laugh out loud for an extended period of time.

EGM: Jenkins claims youth violence has fallen as games rise in popularity. How do you see a correlation between virtual violence and real violence?

JT: Well, let's look at deaths in and around schools. In 2004, there were 48 in number. In 2003, there were 16. In 2002, there were 17. Yes, the death rate in which murderous actions have taken place has gone down, but there are other factors such as the shortening of ambulance response time, better medical techniques, and so forth.

So deaths in schools are going down because medical response is better. Sorry Jack, but I don't buy it.

I do believe that the law here in Australia is that you can join the army at 17 - still - and kill real people with real guns.

But somehow two years earlier then that I cannot play a video game where I am not really even simulating that behavior, I am more acting out an action movie with no sense of realism then anything.

I do believe that the law here in Australia is that you can join the army at 17 - still - and kill real people with real guns.

But somehow two years earlier then that I cannot play a video game where I am not really even simulating that behavior, I am more acting out an action movie with no sense of realism then anything.

Personally, I do NOT believe the average helping of videogame violence will turn an otherwise well-adjusted kid into a killer. But I do believe that significant exposure to violent content can manifest itself in shorter fuses, more aggessive peer interaction, and other negative behaviors that can further complicate the growing pains of youth, especially when other disfunction is present (which is not uncommon).

It's just common sense. We are products of our environment. Input-Output. It's hard to quantify to what extent this is the case, but I balk at those who say that violent media has no effect. Just walk down to any secondary school and observe how overtly influential popular media/culture is in every facet of behavior. Why would exposure to glamourized violence be exempt? So many people in forums like this one are apologists for videogame violence because they simply enjoy that content, and not due to some logically-derived conclusion on the subject.

And until you're a parent, don't blather on about what a parent's responsibility is. The video game industry has a responsibility to help keep M-rated games out of the hands of those whom THEY'VE INDICATED (throughTHEIR OWN ratings system) as not being the intended audience.

I think the real question here is whose payroll Jack Thompson is on. If he's affiliated on financial terms with groups that support censorship, then it's clear that he's just a pawn in a bigger game, a figurehead. If he's doing it on his own accord, then he's just misguided (at least in part; I personally agree that there should be fines for selling mature games to minors, as long as that's as far as the legislation goes).

what in the hell does left/right have to do with the failure of frivolous lawsuits?

Really, this whole "Video games make people murderers" argument smacks of radical behaviorism...which has been essentially dead for quite some time. Now I'm not saying that Evolutionary Psych is the end-all and be-all, BUT its a lot more credible than radical behaviorism...I've talked to biologists...they generally think that this whole video games spawning columbine massacres thing is a load of bullshit. The fact that this guy is a lawyer...and a slick ambulance chasing politically motivated lawyer at that...really makes me question his credentials on this subject. Talk to a biologist, a psychologist/psychiatrist...talk to other people who something to contribute other than empty and sensational bullshit.

What gets me is the remark about "First Amendment absolutists" which is in the middle of a rant that almost sounds like typical "OMG left-wing judicial activists" rhetoric. He's basically arguing for judicial activism to take away rights...to start chopping away at the First Amendment. This guy is a demogogue...in a different day and age, he'd be inciting pogroms or lynchings or witch burnings...fortunately in our day and age, people like him are much less harmful; especially when reasonable people ignore them.

Is anyone else deeply bothered by his use of the phrase "columbine times 10"? I understand the point he is making, but I think that he could have tried to say it in a more educated way. To me it seems like he really is trying to play on peoples emotions, through the use of loaded words and questions. Of course nobody wants "murder simulators" to be legal, but that isn't what any video game I can think of is. He sites things that say kids who play violent games are more likely to be violent, but the same is true of any competitive sport. Are football games "battery simulators"...all that happens in them is guys hitting each other hard, right? I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, so I'll get back to my orignial topic.

Using emotionally charged language is not a new tactic, and I can't blame him for pulling that strategy, but I can blame him for turning an extremely sad event into a catchphrase. Team America (the movie) used "9/11 times 1000" and I realized they were saying it because of how ridiculous it was, but this guy is totally serious. His use of that phrase exposes just how little he actually cares for the victims of the crimes he attempts to link to videogames.

Jack Thompson is the Ann Coulter of the games industry.

So during Highschool I played doom on a local BBS in the Denver area. My Freshman and Sophomore year, I met and played with alot of people online, and attended LAN parties where these violent games are played.

Among the other BBS patrons/LAN attendees were 2 people who later made themselves infamous: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Nobody else that played those games at the same time were affected? I have certainly not been affected by it. But you'll never hear about me or the other sane control cases in these arguments... or the other 99.9999% of the gaming population that isn't affected by the games.

Wow. What in hell is wrong with that raving right-wing lunatic Jack Thompson? Can you imagine being "ruled" by him or people like him? It would be like some crystalization of the Taliban, the Religious Right and some South American mercantilist military junta ala Augusto Pinochet.

Not cool.

(Does he think America's Army is not OK, or is that the "right kind"--pardon the pun--of "murder simulator"?)

They should rename America's Army to Killing Simulator.

Has a better ring to it.

Can't anyone see the true underlying problem here. Its not the games, nor the mentally disturbed childen, its the GUNS! How the hell are these children getting these weapons, and why isn't anything being done about that. Take away the tools to murder and they can't do anything. Sure I guess they could stab them etc, but its a lot harder then pointing and shooting.

Jack Thompson has mentally molested me. He makes me have violent thoughts. Jack Thompson is a mental molestor.

Haven't we learned anything in the last 50 years? Hasn't the decay of society brought on by the immoral gyrations of rock music, the over-stylized violence and latent homo-erotic undertones surging in comic books, or the brain stem crippling apathy-inducing monotony of watching too much television, served as warning enough to make each and everyone of us DEMAND that we stop video games before the horror and atrocity spreads to new, gut-tearing levels of maladjustment? Jack Thompson is only doing what is right by stopping the evil seed of video game dependancy before it can destroy the world's moral compass like movies, comics and that damned rock and roll music before it.

I think we should ban Jack Thompson... After reading his interview, I feel more inclined to violence than I ever have after playing video games.

I'm going to do whatever I can to work the words "mental molestation" into every day speech.

I have to laugh at all this VIDEO GAME SIMULATORS TRAIN CHILDREN TO BE MURDERERS.

It is one of the most ridiculous things self-righteous mofos have been touting in recent history.

I'm in the Army. My job is to kill people (I'm infantry). Trust me, video games have not made me better suited for this job, heh. Video games ARE NOTHING like running around with a weapon, aiming, shooting, and taking someone's life. Anyone remember that Soldier of Fortune review with the guy they modeled the game off of? Back when Lieberman was all fired up about Columbine, someone interviewed this ex-spec ops guy about video game violence. What did he say? It never gets easier to kill someone.

The people who go on these rampages are mentally depraved. I'm sure that playing these games only worsened their problems. So why aren't the individual's histories investigated? Some genius made the connection of "these guys played videogames" and "they killed people" OMG! Murder simulators! What about the fact that these columbine kids kept loaded weapons? That their parents let them have free reign?

Fucking crucify the parents (legally, not literally) not video game companies. Enforce buyer awareness and educate parents.

Everyone wants to go haywire and point fingers and enact penalties. Yet virtually no one wants to take the time to discover the underlying problem and figure out how to treat it. Media does horrible things to our culture. I believe it has a negative effect on our society (look at what other countries think of us, and remember that our media is our #1 export) but in depraved and mentally disturbed citizens, the effect is more profound.

GG JT. You're only introducing a viscious cycle.

This whole parental/governmental debate against violent video games is becoming even more pathetic as the days go on. Why do they insist that video games are always the culprit here? Why not also blame music and movies. True that you cannot physically interact with music or movies ala video games (remote controller, etc.), but still, if you sit a kid down in front of an R-rated movie that has guns ablazin, nudity and foul language, he/she is still be subjected to the same if not more violence than in a video game. I think the people here who bitch about video games corrupting our society and youth, are those that had probably never even sat down and played the T version of Mortal Kombat for SNES. They probably look at a game, see's that it's rated M, and says "omfg this game will corrupt our youth. Let's get the parents and begin to debate it.". Seroiuslly, the parents and goverment need to shut the F up about this shit because it will never, ever stop.

Alec, dude, this is not a debate. This is two interviews that are side-by-side. A debate would have these two making points and counterpoints based on what they're each saying.

Thanks for the link, though. :)

I remember as I kid my firend and I would watch ninja/martial art movies (Bloodsport, American ninja etc...) and then go play 'ninja' in the woods behind his house for hours hacking away at bushes and trees cause we wanted to play out what we saw.
With video games however I have never felt the urge to 'act out' what I was doing cause I was already doing it in game.
Just a little thought for ya.

I'm amazed that they got Thompson to even agree to the piece. He's notoriously difficult to get an interview with if you're representing the gaming side of the issue

Having said that, I hope the cocksucker dies a slow, painful death from stomach cancer.

Laying blame on video games for some peoples irrational and voilent behaviour is missing the mark and doing nothing to stop it happening. If 10,000 people play Forza, 2 may love it enough to want to try karting or get in racing when they are older and become goog at it. If 10,000 people play Tiger Woods 2 may want to take up golf and become good at it. If 10,000 people play GTA yes 2 may get stupid ideas and want to emulate what happens in the game like stealing a car.

It's not the games fault in any of those 3 cases. Those 2 people had it built in them, the game just triggered their actions. If it wasn't the game it would have been something else so banning violent games or dumbing down the content means that 9,998 people miss out on a great game and the 2 that are left go and watch a violent movie instead or look on the net or in a book which will trigger the exact same behaviour as the game.

Sorry JT, I've played video games for 10 years now and the only time I felt like I was mentally molested is when 3DRealms started pushing DNF back.

Ya know, like most poeple, I have lots of opinions about the right or wrong of lots of different things. But I don't go around doing my best to force them down the throat of the entire country. While I agree there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere (preschoolers playing GTA = bad), it's a line that needs to be drawn by responsible parents, not some market square hero.

Ultimatly, all I see are lawyers looking at a multi-million dollar industry and approaching in the best avenue they can to take a piece of it. Go find a tree and hug it Jack, I'm sure you'll feel better.

$.02

What the hell happened to blaming the kids who buy these games underage? Wouldn't it kinda be their fault as well?

From the article:

"We're going to sue the industry for its recklessness, for being so shortsighted. Eventually there is going to be a Columbine to the factor of 10, a slaughter in a school by a crazed gamer. And when that happens, when America figures out these kids were filled up with virtual violence, Congress may ban the games altogether.

The first thing I thought of when I read this was, "This is going to be like 9/11 times a BILLION!" (Paraphrased from "Team America: World Police" READ: Comedy). That sentance just showed how much of a joke Jack Thompson really is.

"EGM: You once compared Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, to Saddam Hussein.

JT: If I did, I want to apologize to Saddam Hussein. Doug is a propagandist to whom the facts don't matter. He's paid to lie and he does it very well. Doug is paid a handsome salary, probably seven figures, to say there are no studies that indicate [violent games have] an effect on anyone. If this is true, why is the military using them to create killing simulators?"


Proves Lawyers like him are utter fucking assholes. Appologize to Saddam? Get real fucktard.

I am not sticking up for the ESA head, but to actually say you appologize to Saddam, whoum I dunno, TORTURED PEOPLE ... fucking sad. This person should be banned from the courts.

The true path, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.

I do not think that a 13 year old who mowed several lawns should be able to wander over to the game section the next time Mom takes him to (store) or (mall) and buy GTA. So far, age checks have been a "say we're good neighbor and rack in the positive PR" gig by a select group of retailers. The industry's answer is always "ESRB icon's right there," but that seems to ignore the concept of kids having their own money.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly nuts at people who want to diffuse the situation by legislating the can and can-nots of games to the point where they all drop elements and compromise gameplay in order to be sold everywhere they can.

The only way to solve the debate on video game violence is to get Henry Jenkins and Jack Thompson into a caged dome, and duke it out with various weapons. Two men enter, one man leave.

Who's with me!!

EGM: Who are you referring to, exactly?

JT: Game publishers, console manufacturers, and retailers. They're all in cahoots with one another to have a rating system that doesn't work.

I do give JT some credit here. Anyone that can use the word "cahoots" in a sentence without laughing deserves an "atta'boy".

EGM: You once compared Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, to Saddam Hussein.

JT: If I did, I want to apologize to Saddam Hussein.

LOL :D

If I read that correctly, did he basically say that "normal" people don't care for the first amendment as much as lawyers do?

Lawyers tend to be to the left of normal people, and judges tend to be the left of the lawyers. Federal judges tend to be the left of them. So you have a bunch of First Amendment absolutists who block these kinds of lawsuits.

That Jack Thompson guy is a character. It's VERY interesting to me that he decided it would be best to play out this whole thing as a total jerk. In every interview he ever does, he's always swearing and calling people names, and basically acting VERY unprofessional.

He had to have chosen that behavior on purpose. Is it to get more press? To be a more memerable experience? To 'incite' the crowd? I wonder if he goes too far and his outrageousness causes people (judges) to not take him seriously.

Anyway, he makes a very entertaining clown.

This guy has always been such a fucking nut. His interviews and bullshit's always good for a lauch, but he's treading water.

As much as I love young kids and teenagers funding the gaming industry so that they continue to churn out high quality games, I'm not comfortable with little kids being able to come home after school and pick up GTA.

In a related train of thought:

Virtually every kid in my pediatric practice are nutty about those video games and the parents love them because it makes them look like a hero when they buy them and it babysits their kids. Then I have to nearly fight to encourage the parents to spend more time with them and get them off their ass so they can lose weight.

I love playing games but honestly it makes my job a pain sometimes.

i just got off a gta: san andreas binge, anyone want to join me in beating up jack thompson?

My mind is being molested? How about you let the parents decide whether or not that is the case, please, kthx.