September 2, 2007
Fordam professor Paul Levinson called out Sen. Hillary Clinton on Friday over the 2008 presidential contender's views on the regulation of video games: Hillary Clinton is no friend of video gaming. In fact... she proudly introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act in November, 2005... this law if enacted would have exacted [large fines on retailers]
Fortunately, it was not enacted... Hillary, unfortunately, comes by her disregard for the First Amendment through her husband. Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act into law in 1996... Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court struck that one down.
...Bill Clinton and his circumlocutions fortunately can no longer threaten the First Amendment. But Hillary's now running for President... a wise assumption would be that her election as President would bring to our nation steep fines, forced community service, and even jail time for forms of communication clearly protected under the First Amendment.
We all want to protect our children. Trampling on the Constitution is not the way to do it. We can do better than run scared with the likes of Jack Thompson, and the flawed studies he cites.
GP: To be fair, while Hillary's track record is a matter of concern to gamers, she did make somewhat of a suprising reversal in late 2006 when both she and Sen. Joe Lieberman (another long-time game industry critic) endorsed the ESRB system.
We also think Levinson's June, 2006 TV debate against a mustachioed Jack Thompson is a hoot. Here is the original GamePolitics coverage of the Thompson-Levinson bout and here's the video:
...by the way, we note that in this clip Thompson is still pushing the notion that there are studies showing a causal link between video game violence and actual violence. A revealing pair of GamePolitics articles later in 2006 showed this to be incorrect.
...and many thanks to GP reader Zdenko Rupcic for the tip.
Comments
You're definetly on a roll with these letters to the FTC and the USAO. I don't think you want to lose that momentum. Have you considered sending a letter to the Office of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo? I'd imagine the New York statutes have an equivalent to that federal extortion statute you seem to like. Perhaps a letter to the Division of Code Enforcement and Administration? I'm sure that if they look hard enough, they'll find loose floor tiles or leaky plumbing in T2's office building. Or, if you're really lucky, asbestos.
Keep the pressure on, Jack. This is no time to let up.
Sadly...to me...these days any politian will so anything that is "politically smart."
It's all about the vote getters these days.
Just as Sam Brownback endorsed the ratings system and was at some ESRB press conference about commitment to parents or some such? While at the same time trying to push anti-game laws?
Just because she endorsed the ratings doesn't mean she doesn't have her eye on game bans. In fact, she kinda has to drum up support for the ESRB if she wishes to make it a de facto government agency..
And, umm, Ace of Sevens , who exactly are these Republicans she's "pandering" too? Aside from a few wingnuts like Brownback, Stearns, and the PTC, most Republicans are against government intervention in the market. 99% of the game laws since Hot Coffee have been written, supported, and voted for by Democrats. Hell, even crazy-ass Rush Limbaugh is against game censorship...
"most Republicans are against government intervention in the market." While I agree with that in theory, in practice small government has become the least of the Republican party's worries, far behind moralizing lifestyle legislation and the protection of big business to the detriment of the average American.
The Republicans she's pandering to are those who believe that entertainment is a "cesspool" or who feel that the medium is run by "media elites" or who feel that the messages go against their "core values." The reason why Dems are more likely to propose that legislation is because those people tend to be members of the Republican party and this is an issue that can be used to bolster Republican support of Dems without alienating the majority of Democratic voters. You see, gamers aren't important enough in the polls for video game legislation issues to be seen as anything other then a way to reach out to the "family values" block.
Also, responding to an argument isn't the same thing as a filibuster, as responding to an argument isn't the same as trying to delay an argument until they ran out of TV time, as Jack seemed to be trying to do.
Oh and Jack? The US government was on the side of the professor as well. In the form of their own study showing crime had lowered in the past 30 years to levels lower than that in the 60's. Look it up.
Simple as a lawyer he does not have to understand politics that much, just the law.
Anyway to all those who think this is a left v. right
Rush Limbaugh does not support game legislation
yet Bill O' Reily does.
I am a liberal and I would like to see the FCC go down in flames. I do not give a damn if every other Democrat in the world supports the FCC (and I don' t think that's true) i still want it to go away permanently.
Hey, that gives me an idea. Why don't we run a fundraiser or something to try and organize a debate like that. Maybe get Hal Halpin v. Jack Thompson, or see if Professor Levinson wants to go another round. A debate like that, that actually had substance to it, could be used to further educate people if we were able to get some mainstream media coverage.
"Chicken, fight like a robot" is his motto.
Because Jack is a coward and will back out at the last minute. He was too cowardly to debate Jason Della Rocca, he was too cowardly to debate Hal Halpin, he backed out of a debate with the gaming lawyer. All Jack wants to do is grandstand, which is why he goes on short TV segments where he can spew his lies without having to back them up, while every debate against a competent opponent he has ever agreed to he backed out of at the last minute. On the other hand, he is only concerned about money, so if you offer him a large stack of cash, he might debate, though make sure you have a strong contract he can't weasel out of and rip you off. Then again, do you want to give money to a massacre chaser like him?
2, re: jack thompson
seems to be too good at tv news style debate... why does he need to talk over the other guy? and then he says "you're the only one who thinks there isn't a correlation" -that's just a put-down, it doesn't contribute anything
"AMA said 6 years ago that there are now literally a thousand studies that show a causal link" -totally pulled that out of his butt...
"brain scan studies... show that individuals that are in their teens process this material in the part of the brain that leads to copy-catting behavior"... i don't think that brain scans know the difference between video games and other types of media
- - -
have to say that jt is definitely stylin' with the moustache and pink jacket
Rush Limbaugh does not support game legislation
yet Bill O’ Reily does."
And Bill O Rly also supports gun bans and a hodge-podge of other typically "liberal" ideas. As such, this isn't really as much "left v. right" as it is statists v. people who like limited government power. In my eyes, O' Reily is just as "liberal" as Hillary!™ and friends.
By "liberal," I of course mean the modern, hi-jacked, bastardization of the word by the nanny state types, not the original Jeffersonian version of the word which respected liberty and stuff. Seeing as you don't like the FCC, you probably subscribe to the latter. Modern Democrats? Not so much. It seems a growing number of them want to increase the power of the FCC to regulate political speech as well. See also: the so-called fairness doctrine..
That's because Mr. Limbaugh is for free market in most things; he realizes that the market will handle the sale (as they have) of games to minors. That's why we have all these store policies about havin to show ID.
As for JT, well, it's fun to watch him make an ass of himself.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is one of the worst options for president this year. Honestly, I'd rather have Rumsfeld as president than her. She's an absolute liar and a two faced bitch, with no REAL experience to go on. Watch her campaign ads and see what she says at debates; its just a continuation of her husband's stupidity.
It's just so random and out of place
Dennis posting the truth about things (and not spinning stories to make Jack look like the good guy -- which he isn't) on GamePolitics tends to do that, y'know.
I can't believe the presenter made the single point that kids can't get into R-rated movies, totally missing the point that they can buy R-rated DVD's, which games are far more akin to. So no, we don't 'do this with movies', idiot.
I would have been all over that in Levinson's shoes, but I did appreciate his reply.
'That's wrong, also.' :D
Wonderful proof Thompson.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
But In general I think jon stewart said it best. "Seriously, the house of representitives is filled with Insane jackasses."
Personally, I'm not sure who should be the next commander in chief. I can only say that if things keep up, it won't matter, the Reps will take back the house and senate in 08 and whoevers in power will have to work to please it.
Heres hoping that Hilary never sees the white house, but really, are any of the current canidates all that much better?
Those of us outside America seem to prefer Obama. He's a guy who's always been against this shitty War of Terror (HTF does one declear war on a word anyway?); and he has the balls to say what needs be said, regardless of the fact some people won't like it.
And as for Fordham's arguement with Jackyboy last year, well... this Anonymous found it lulzy enough. He doesn't need the mo though, he's ridiculace enough as it is.
It's difficult to tell when Jack's ignorant on the issue, putting spin on the ball, or just plain lying. The 2005 APA report, which I've read, doesn't as I understand it, state that there's a causal link between violent entertainment and real world violence, only a correlation. Which isn't surprising.
Any valid conclusion that there is a casual link be between violent entertainment and real world violence would, in been reached, have to positively exclude the numerous other social and economic factors that could just as likely be the cause (e.g., the long (and sometimes cherished) American history of violence, the increasing availability of firearms and other weapons, the profileration of drugs and the accompanying drug trade, the erosion of traditional family structures, the downward spiral of the U.S. economy, urban decay, immigration, etc., etc., ect., ect.). If Mr. Thompson knew a whit about statistical analysis, he'd know that proving a causaul link where there are many factors that can just as readily cause the outcome is not an easy task.
But he could, I guess, just as easily be confused. By the end of the discussion, he's accusing Professor Levinson of being "the only one who thinks there isn't a correlation." Although Professor Levinson's position, as I understood it, was that there's nothing but correlation.
Above all, having someone with intelligence and the years behind him is a true sight to see.
"Jack is a coward [and] was too cowardly to debate Jason Della Rocca."
Not to disagree with you that Jack is a coward, but, in all fairness to Mr. Thompson, it wasn't his cowardice that caused the possibility of a debate between himself and Mr. Della Rocca to fall through. It was his shameless greed. Mr. Thompson insisted that he be paid $3,000 for his participation in any such debate. Mr. Della Rocca, obviously a more principled person than Mr. Thompson, didn't feel right profiting off the backs of the victims of the Virginia massacre and for that reason declined.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hilliary_Would_Witch_Hunt_Videogamers
Even though she and Mr. Lieberman gave up on legislating video games, the question remains: with or without her other issues, can American gamers trust her enough to give her a vote in next year's presidential ellection?
GP: It's a worthy question. Would you vote for a candidate solely based on her/his view on video games?
@LightWarrior, you're forgetting Bush, whose adamantly refuses to do anything politically smart.
(Not a fan of the Clintons...Obama is my choice)
Also, for those who are interested in JT's "debating" style, here are a list of logical fallacies. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Thomson uses Fallacy 13 a lot, but he uses many of those in his arguments.
We should make a "Jack Thompson Logical Fallacy Bingo Game"... JT is a lawyer, maybe he will help me trademark it.
based on what the professor said he doesn't seem to know himself that movie ratings are enforced volutarily (though he does say that enforcing them with law would be wrong)
"It’s a worthy question. Would you vote for a candidate solely based on her/his view on video games?"
No I would not. There are plenty of other issues that hold more importance to me than this. (although video games are important.) It does however open a window into their soul. If they are willing to ignore court precedence in this matter then what else are they going to ignore in other matters.
So although it would not sway my vote completely, it will cause me to question their political standing.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Amen to that brother, the DMCA MUST DIE!!!
oh... it was. haha.
The real question in regards to the President is the judges they appoint, what we (the gaming community) should want is a president that will appoint constructionist/traditionalist judges, the type who interpret the constitution for what it is and ignore things like foreign law when ruling. So remember at the polls, we get him/her for 4, 8 years tops but their judges are their real legacy.
PS: In CT's defense the now disgraced Gov. Roland did veto a gaming law (not all of our politicians are game haters!):
http://www.ct.gov/governorrowland/cwp/view.asp?A=1326&Q=255716
Dude musta slept thtough Sunday.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Dude gotsa full and busy week aheada him.
...uh... well... huh... I'm all for promoting freedom of speech, but just think about that a moment. The Supreme Court struck down an act. An act that promotes decency. Thus our freedom to be stupid and vile was preserved!
Seriously though, I think part of what makes the reoccurring video game issues so sensitive is that freedom of speech really is a double-edged sword. We have the power to say and do whatever we want, but with that great power comes great responsibility, Peter Parker.
Also, it's easy to just say "parents should just do their jobs", but families aren't what they were over 50 years ago. The days of carefree happy families where one parent works and the other raises the kids are mostly a thing of the past. Families aren't as close knit nowadays, and often both parents hold jobs just to get by so they have to turn to other things to help raise their kids. And /that's/ when the problems start showing up. Parents already have their jobs cut out for them these days.
There must be a way to provide more support to developing families or something so that parents aren't so overworked and can spend more time with their children.
I wouldn't pick a candidate solely because of their stance on video games, however I feel no qualms using it to help me choose a candidate if two or more of them are too similar on other issues. Hillary proved to me a long time ago that she can't be trusted.