Jack Thompson's "Modest Video Game Proposal"

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-10-13 10:22am

From Jack Thompson, the man who cannot stand your freedom.

Attorney Proposes Violent Game

October 10, 2005

by: Matt Saunderson

Jack Thompson will give $10,000 to charity if any videogame company makes and releases a game based on a scenario he created.

Miami, Florida Attorney Jack Thompson, a long-time outspoken critic of violent and sexually explicit videogames, has done something totally unexpected. Thompson today actually proposed a violent videogame, and will pay $10,000 to the favorite charity of Paul Eibeler (the Chairman of Take-Two Interactive) if any videogame company will "create, manufacture, distribute, and sell a video game in 2006" based on a scenario he created.

Thompson's proposal is titled A Modest Video Game Proposal and has been sent to members of the press and apparantly to Douglas Lowenstein, President of the ESA.

Here's Thompson's proposal (italics are his, not ours):

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule

This writer has been saying for seven years that violent video games can be "murder simulators" that incite as well as train some obsessive teen players to be violent.

I've been on 60 Minutes and in Reader's Digest this year explaining how an Alabama teen, with no criminal record, shot two policemen and a dispatcher in their heads and fled in a police car--a scenario he rehearsed for hundreds of hours on Take-Two/Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto video games.

I have sat with boys in jail cells, their lives over because of murder convictions, after they, with no history of violence, have killed innocents while in a dreamlike state. Said one cop who investigated such a murder in Grand Rapids, Michigan: "The killing was like an extension of the game."

The video game industry, through its lawyers, its spokesmen, and its head lobbyist, Doug Lowenstein, the president of the Entertainment Software Association, all say it is utter nonsense to suggest that what is dumped into a kid's head hour after hour, day after day, year after year, could possibly have behavioral consequences. Cigarette ads can persuade kids to smoke, but interactive simulators in which these same kids punch, hack, bludgeon, and maim affect not a wit their attitudes and behaviors, notwithstanding the findings of the American Psychological Association, published in August 2005.

The video game industry says Sticks and stones can break my bones, but games can never hurt me. Fine. I have a modest proposal for the video game industry. I'll write a check for $10,000 to the favorite charity of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc's chairman, Paul Eibeler - a man Bernard Goldberg ranks as #43 in his book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America - if any video game company will create, manufacture, distribute, and sell a video game in 2006 like the following:

Osaki Kim is the father of a high school boy beaten to death with a baseball bat by a 14-year-old gamer. The killer obsessively played a violent video game in which one of the favored ways of killing is with a bat. The opening scene, before the interactive game play begins, is the Los Angeles courtroom in which the killer is sentenced "only" to life in prison after the judge and the jury have heard experts explain the connection between the game and the murder.

Osaki Kim (O.K.) exits the courtroom swearing revenge upon the video game industry whom he is convinced contributed to his son's murder. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" he says. And boy, is O.K. not kidding.

O.K. is provided in his virtual reality playpen a panoply of weapons: machetes, Uzis, revolvers, shotguns, sniper rifles, Molotov cocktails, you name it. Even baseball bats. Especially baseball bats.

O.K. first hops a plane from LAX to New York to reach the Long Island home of the CEO of the company (Take This) that made the murder simulator on which his son's killer trained. O.K. gets "justice" by taking out this female CEO, whose name is Paula Eibel, along with her husband and kids. "An eye for an eye," says O.K., as he urinates onto the severed brain stems of the Eibel family victims, just as you do on the decapitated cops in the real video game Postal2.

O.K. then works his way, methodically back to LA by car, but on his way makes a stop at the Philadelphia law firm of Blank, Stare and goes floor by floor to wipe out the lawyers who protect Take This in its wrongful death law suits. "So sue me" O.K. spits, with singer Jackson Brown's 1980's hit Lawyers in Love blaring.

With the FBI now after him, O.K. keeps moving westward, shooting up high-tech video arcades called GameWerks. "Game over," O.K. laughs.

Of course, O.K. makes the obligatory runs to virtual versions of brick and mortar retailers Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, and Wal-Mart to steal supplies and bludgeon store managers and cash register clerks. "You should have checked kids' IDs!"

O.K. pushes on to Los Angeles. He must get there by May 10, 2006. That is the beginning of "E3" -- the Electronic Entertainment Expo -- the Super Bowl of the video game industry. O.K. must get to E3 to massacre all the video game industry execs with one final, monstrously delicious rampage.

How about it, video game industry? I've got the check and you've got the tech. It's all a fantasy, right? No harm can come from such a game, right? Go ahead, video game moguls. Target yourselves as you target others. I dare you.

Jack Thompson is a Miami lawyer who has for 18 years been involved in efforts to stop the marketing of adult entertainment to minors.

It is unlikely that Thompson's proposal will actually be turned into a game, as most videogame companies do not simply accept proposals from individuals. We'll keep you updated, however, as it is very likely that there will be some sort of response to Thompson's proposal from members of the videogame industry.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-10-13 10:26am

Okay, whatever, Jack...

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-10-13 10:27am

Penny Arcade response:

You may have seen Jack’s proposal mentioned on various news sites. He’s offering 10 grand to charity if a game developer makes a game based on his insane proposal.

So I got his email address and I went ahead and sent Jack a note this morning:

10 grand is pretty weak man. Through our charity www.childsplaycharity.org gamers have given over half a million dollars in toys and cash to children’s hospitals all over the country.

I’ll let you know if he responds.

The fact is when we kick off Child’s Play 2005 on November 1st we’ll be going global. We’ll be delivering videogames and toys to children’s hospitals all over the world now. I don’t think there’s any better response to Jack’s insane ramblings than that. Maybe Jack would like to donate his 10 grand to Child’s Play, that could buy a lot of Game Boys.

-Gabe out

And

Jackie's response

My email sig had my phone number in it. Jack actually just called and screamed at me for a couple minutes. He said if I email him again I will “regret it”. What a violent man.

-Gabe out

Seriously this is just some bullshit try to stir up controversy because he doesn't like that there have been reports of violence on the down in this regard, and without such, he can't have his soapbox of fifteen minutes.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-10-13 10:27am

Mr. Thompson responds vitriolically if you suggest 10k is a little on the skimpy side, when charities like Child's Play net half a mill.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-10-13 11:06am

Jack Thompson is unhinged, he needs to be spendiong some time in the Soft Room.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-13 11:08am

It's a stupid rhetorical ploy (not to mention economically unviable; if you took 10 programmers making $60k/yr and paid them $10k, you'd buy less than a week of development time from them).

But at the same time, I think people who glibly dismiss the effect of TV and videogames on people are overselling their case. There is a grain of truth to this; people are affected by their environment after all, and the history of advertising and propaganda has shown that it works quite well, thank you very much. It would be better to argue that violent videogames may have a deleterious effect, but the social and ethical consequences of censorship are a cure that's worse than the disease.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2005-10-13 11:11am

Of course, Tycho and Gabe are just training a bunch of cancer-ridden kids to be a bunch of murderous thugs, so why should Jack give anything to those brutal, bloodthirsty monsters? Right?

Anyway, why isn't he bitching at parents who don't, you know, parent their children? That's something I never got. When did parents stop being responsible for their minor (under 18, not insignificant) children's actions? 1992?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-10-13 11:11am

Vendetta wrote:Jack Thompson is unhinged, he needs to be spendiong some time in the Soft Room.

He's already been close to it: in the 1980s, the Florida Supreme Court ordered him to undergo psychiatric evaluation: which he passed.

The circumstances surrounding the FSC order remain unknown.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-10-13 11:14am

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2005-10-13 12:46pm

Does anyone honestly believe a person can learn to shoot people by playing video games? Shooting a plastic toy gun is nothing like shooting a real live gun for a number of reasons. I'd have to be crazy to think I can really shoot someone because I can play games like that. Video games, no matter how well-made, do not acurately reflect a real situation. Would you let some kid who plays Madden run a real NFL team? Would you let someone who plays a lot of RTS's be the general of a real army?

Someone needs to tell Thompson that the reason his stupid-ass game won't get made is because it's not all that fun an idea, and ten grand isn't going to compensate for what it would cost to make something nobody's going to pay for. I have a proposal of my own for the video game industry now: Every time Thompson makes a stupid statement like this, each company should donate $20,000 to charity.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-10-13 12:52pm

I've really got to stop reading stories from the States, I'm going to become clinically depressed otherwise. I don't see it as much of a surprise that someone is out there with Bible in hand to preach about the virtues of banning videogames just as there are those out to do the same number on violent movies and porn even. What a sad little clique of idiots.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-10-13 01:02pm

You know, I'm reminded of another time when popular media was blamed for violence among young people. It was yet another example of shitty parents searching for scapegoats for their own failures. And that particular battle on freedom of expression was only half-defeated, and it took the likes of Frank Zappa, Dee Snider and John Denver to stand up to Tipper Gore and her gang of anti-freedom cowards.

Now? I'd love to see Jerry Holkins vs. Jack Thompson. Let's see what this motherfucker can do against an intelligent gamer.

Fuck you, Tipper. I'm an AC/DC fan.

And fuck you, Jack. I enjoy violent video games.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2005-10-13 01:04pm

I wonder what the conditions are on who has to make the game, and how good it has to be. I'd love it if someone put a stupid little text adventure version of this on their website and demanded the $10,000.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-10-13 01:20pm

Prozac the Robert wrote:I wonder what the conditions are on who has to make the game, and how good it has to be. I'd love it if someone put a stupid little text adventure version of this on their website and demanded the $10,000.

This is the world. Trust me someone will... Oooh maybe it will be a Source mod.

If it was an offical source mod that would fufill every one of his requirments thanks to stream. He never said it had to be physical distrubtion.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-10-13 06:18pm

Darth Wong wrote: It would be better to argue that violent videogames may have a deleterious effect, but the social and ethical consequences of censorship are a cure that's worse than the disease.

Yes, they may have such an effect... if the person has pre-existing mental problems.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2005-10-13 06:28pm

http://cad-comic.com/images/tack.jpg

XD

Dorenn Stark · Post by **Dorenn Stark** » 2005-10-13 06:44pm

Why is everybody so down on this Thompson guy? He's an absolute riot! I have been laughing at this fruit loop for near 10 mins after reading that article. As an avid gamer I can tell you that article was more entertaining than some games I have paid good money for. I hope this guy gets his own 'reality show' soon so gamers everywhere can laugh at this guy one night a week, instead of just when he makes it into a news story.
Yes he is full of it, and one wonders how a man who can't figure out that a parent should montior what the child is playing ever got into a law school. And he actually graduated too. He blames it all on the game companies....Hey Jack....how do you explain violent children before there were home video games? This goon must actually think that children never did anything violent before home console gaming

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-10-13 07:07pm

Dalton wrote:
Now? I'd love to see Jerry Holkins vs. Jack Thompson. Let's see what this motherfucker can do against an intelligent gamer.

Descend into a tirade of shit flinging and outright lies that even the HoS would be shamed by the presence of.

He's done it before, with Scott Ramsoomir.

Why is everybody so down on this Thompson guy?

Because we're jaded and cynical, and we know that the kind of "thought" that Thompson professes goes down all too well in some quarters. He's also a lawyer, and rich, and not adverse to using the courts as a stick to further his own agendas (as he has previously done against Howard Stern, resulting in a $400,000 fine against Clear Channnel, and Stern being dropped from six stations).

In short, he's a lunatic, but he's got enough influence to do a lot of damage. It's people like him that are responsible for things like the Comics Code Authority, which helped fuck that industry creatively for years.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-10-13 10:55pm

Sharp-kun wrote:http://cad-comic.com/images/tack.jpg

XD

I can't wait, that looks great!

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2005-10-14 12:38am

the giraffes are a nice touch

JediToren · Post by **JediToren** » 2005-10-14 01:30am

Thompson and his kind are simpletons. Like all social problems, youth violence is a complex problem with complex causes. Thompson and his kind are simpletons, and they want simple, easy answers to life's problems. Don't like abortion? Just pass a law and the problem is solved. Think booze is bad? Just make it illegal and everything is okay. Why is divorce rate so high? Because we're not religious enough. How do we curb youth violence? Get rid of violent games and movies. And so on.

They have put forth a theory that violent video games cause violent behavior. Their argument relies on a focused and narrow body of evidence; basically the similarity between a handful of crimes and similar events and scenarios in games played by the criminal. Their theory fails to account for any contradictary evidence such as the extensive research that has failed to find any causal link between violent games and violent behaviour, or the fact that there have been no more than a handful of crimes that have been linked to violent media compared to the millions of consumers who viewed/played said media without any apparent change in their behavior.
Their theory also fails to entertain or eliminate alternative explanations. What if the chicken came before the egg? Suppose teens with violent behavior are drawn to violent video games, rather than violent behavior being cultivated by said games. Is it possible that a crime that is similar to a game scenario is a sign of mental instability in the player, rather than a problem with the game itself? Do you really think removing the video game from the equation will solve the problem and make said player safe to those around them?

Both my brother and I have played many violent video games. We downloaded the Uber-Gore "mods" (edited con files) for Duke Nukem 3D way back when. We laughed and thought it was cool when you could blow away individual body parts in Soldier of Fortune. We got a kick out of Postal and it goes without saying that we love the Unreal Tournament and Half-Life games. We played Mortal Kombat and thought the fatalities were cool. We've also spent plenty of time shooting real fire-arms including my brother's sniper rifle and an assault weapon, and that's a lot of fun, too. Yet neither of us has ever commited a violent crime or even been in a fight. We've never even shoplifted.

I am certain that there are people who are easily influenced by violent games, movies, and music. But any person who can be so easily influenced by a violent game or film is clearly unstable. Reducing or eliminating violent games and movies will not make such a person safe to those around them. Such a person is a bomb waiting to go off.

Films, games, and TV shows all have a ratings system. DVD Players and modern TV's allow parents to restrict what kinds of content their children have access to. The tools are there, it is up to the parents to exercise their judgement and be responsible for what their children have access to. A TV set and a Playstation cannot raise a child.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-10-14 01:56am

And therein lies the problem. Most of these fucking baby-boomer parents are soft, weak and cowardly. They're afraid of taking any responsibility for themselves because it might damage their reputations or careers. They prefer to use the younger generations as scapegoats to cover for their own inadequacies.

They're getting older, losing their influence and as the years go on they're getting scared...

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-10-14 02:11am

And this is not even a good tie in to the real Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal!

Read that one instead, much better.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-10-14 02:25am

Faram wrote:And this is not even a good tie in to the real Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal!

Read that one instead, much better.

There were a bunch of pro-lifers waving signs on the main road when I was driving to work a few days back. If it weren't for the fact that I was going to work, I would have stopped in at Kinkos and bought a big sheet of paper and gone out there with them with a sign along the lines of:
"Ban Abortion!
Elminate Welfare!
Modest Proposals For All!"

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2005-10-14 02:43am

Faram wrote:And this is not even a good tie in to the real Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal!

Read that one instead, much better.

A game where you get to eat babies? That'd be so awesome.