Darth Fracas:

Beat me to it. You have to admire the stupidity of a man who blames the gaming industry for Best Buy's lack of enforcement in sales. I wonder if he asked his son to try to buy an R rated movie there too. Unlikely I would wager as that might damage his straw-man argument.

Actually Dennis, in all seriousness, this is the least newsworthy piece in a long while, and really just seems like a Jack Thompson attention seeking press release. I don't object to hearing about the raving nutter, but is getting his son to buy a computer game from a shop really news?

Right now, I'm just waiting for Jack to show up and try to tear holes in the way that the article is written, or something.

The kid managed to buy an M-rated game due to the fact that a clerk making $6.75/hr didn't give a damn. Gee, what a total shocker. Sorry, but when I have to deal with bitchy customers for 8 hours a day for slave wages, I stop caring, too.

I'd like to see hard numbers, though. Honestly, I love to know how many times Jack has had his child do this in the hopes that it will succeed. The fact he got though once is meaningless without knowing how many times he failed. I do feel kinda sorry for his son, though. He has become a pawn in his father's search for self-glorification and headline-seeking. Sorry, kid.

By sending your child into the store to buy a game couldn't one infer that that can be constituted as Parental Consent to buy the game thus negating the 'if you're under 18 you can't buy the game' mentality? Maybe I'm confused, just like Mr. Thompson and that poor man here in Virginia working for the pilot.

Yea the eb games and gamestop is getting strict on it now since they card me when i buy m rated games and hell i talk to boht of the guys in there that work there often

Said it before, I'll say it again. Someone needs to call child protective services on this jackass before he fucks his kid up any further.

And fuck you, Jack, you pathetic excuse for a parent.

@LokiBNE

You should remember, the reason that the ESRB rating system exists is NOT as a form of enforcment. The reason the ESRB and ratings system exists is to give parents a tool to help them decide what games they should and should not buy; it's meant as a form of advice not as a form of regulation. Unless it's in their policy that allowing a minor to buy the game is grounds for instant termination, i think Best Buy would only give her a cut in her pay as punishment, instead of firing her. (not considering any possible past negative or positive marks she might have had)... if it is in their policy that she should get fired, then it is her own fault; the policy is something that every job should enforce...

I'd definitely contribute of my limited resources to a Save Alysia and the Store Manager campaign.

It's infuriating to me that Mr. Thompson would put these two persons, whether innocent or not, at risk for their employment. But that's ol' Jack Thompson. A selfish, uncaring, and solely self-interested individual. The mere fact that he would so unhesitatingly involve his minor child in his childish "sting" operations says it all.

But, as already pointed out by I'm a Shrink on other threads here, Jack Thompson suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. And a hallmark of that disorder is a willingness to use others (even if that means bringing about their professional or financial ruin) to achieve selfish ends. And Jack's been consistently doing just that (i.e., trying to ruin people) for the last 20 years. Think of all the Alysias that, over the last 20 years, he's cost a source of meager income by which they were putting a roof over their heads and food on their tables).

It's just one of the reasons I believe he should be disbared and never again allowed to practice law. Yes, because he's an incompetent bufoon who couldn't lawyer his way outta wet paper bag, he's no real threat to the gaming industry. But that doesn't mean he's not a threat to others.

But I take comfort and solace in my knowledge that, sooner or later, everybody gets what's coming to them. And Jack's got a lot coming to him.

I think the question we all have to ask here is "Did he bring the game back or is he even now training to kill 'big daddy'?"

DUN DUN DAAAAAAAAN!

Yippee! It's time to tear Jackie boy a new oneee..

John Bruce, did it ever occur to you that you are just as bad as that punk who sold your kid the 17+?

Yeah, you heard me you dumb Nazi. The morals of someone who lets their child buy a game for mature adults are beyond me. Oh, and one more thing: That doesn't have any reasonable connection with Strauss Zednick. Fucker..

@BlackIce, Leftie:

Godwin's Law.

Dennis, you had better tell me if that's who I think it is.

AWWWW...you found him first! Was wondering when jack-o would get around to popping up.

@Johnny:

Online, his son isn't buying it, Jack is.

Sure, a kid can snag dad's wallet sometime, copy down the CC#, expiration date, and CVV and use it. He can also snag the car keys and go for a drive, or get the gun safe key and go shooting.

The card IS the identity, that's what the card companies say, despite Jack's novel theories. The actual user is immaterial to the merchant's responsibility, except of course that they get stiffed with the chargeback.

@ Mr. Thompson

I take it you are uninterested in my proposal (considering you declined to comment on it at all). That is unfortunately, but not unexpected.

@JDKJ:

I think you ought to file a complaint with the bar regarding this behavior. That way, the bar can decide if the behavior in mind is acceptable or not for one of its attorneys. If I lived within 1000 miles of Mr. Thompson and were capable of attending a hearing (should one be required), I would do it myself.

@Tobias

I just wanted to tell you fyi that trying to talk to Thompson civilly has been done. A couple of years back a group of gamers got together and wrote a letter to Thompson apologizing on behalf of the gaming community for the way he had been treated and inviting him to engage in a constructive conversation with gamers on how to fix the problems that are supposedly the basis for his concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Jack

Naturally Thompson was not receptive. He has made it perfectly clear that he is not interested in any problem solving methods that include cooperation or compromise.

I'm not delusional enough to believe that Jack will ever respond with evidence to support his "training" claim. Nor do I think he will ever listen to a comparison he SHOULD be able to understand. Nevertheless:

Jack, getting any kind of combat training out of ANY video game is equivalent to getting a law degree from watching Judge Judy on television.

@JDKJ:

First, I think the fallacy in your thinking is that I expected Mr. Thompson to respond to me. I did not. I did think it would benefit both the gaming community and (especially) his own faltering image. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Also, I think you, like Mr. Thompson (note that I have never addressed him in the shallow, pedantic way he has addressed others), are caught in an "us vs. them" mentality. In the world of politics (because lets face it, this is a VERY political issue), there is no black and white, no us and them, no right and wrong. There are only worldviews and paradigms.

From my experiences, I would argue that there is no way to cause someone else to experience a paradigm shift, short of an immediate tragedy or a massive war. What can change, however, is how we respond to our paradigms.

For example, it is clear that Mr. Thompson has some degree of cognitive dissonance on the subject of free speech: his own speech should be protected, but violence games should be restricted. I believe that through discourse with his ideological 'opponents,' he might be able to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable values into something of benefit to society. There again, he might not.

Oh, and as BlackIce noted, I know my way around the worlds of debate, philosophy, religion and epistemology VERY well. :) A college education and substantial public speaking experience can do wonders.

"This should get things hopping. I’m going to take Strauss Zelnick out with this."

because we all know best buy is a subsidiary of take two.

So, anyone wanna place bets on how many unsucessful attempts there are for every purchase? You kind of get the impression this is some twisted family pasttime or something, there's no way he would have tried this stunt (apparently unsuccessfully) when Bully came out...

I think Bioshock will become the New 'gta'

@Strauss Zelnick/T2:

Isn't Mr. Thompson, by publicly criticizing the product distribution methods of T2 and one of its retailers, once again breaching the terms of the T2-Thompson settlement agreement? I confidently predicted that T2 would quickly bring legal action to enforce the terms of that settlement. You're not going to disappoint me, are you, Mr. Zelnick? And make me eat crow? Say it isn't so.

The only one I feel bad for is that poor kid.

GP: Ditto...

So did Thompson give his son his credit card to buy it?

hmm isnt that what they call bad parenting?

or wait did he allow his son at 15 to get a credit card then force his son to buy Bioshock?

hmm isnt that bad parenting too?

Man I would hate to be jack thompson son or any relative of him.

but dad I wanted to go place ball with my friends school

No, your going to go to best buy and see if we can get u an M rated game

Dad we did that yesterday and the day before and day before that, I wanna go play ball

No son, we are going to keep trying till we catch them in the act.

@Vigi:

That's cool. Maybe T2 needs the echo. They seem somehow less than willing to sic Blank Rome on Mr. Thompson.

Maybe I should buy one share of their stock and then urge them along.

Scratch my second-to-last paragraph. I didn't read the very end of the article.

Yep, he's still thinking all retailers in existence are part of the game industry. Jack wouldn't get past the first five questions of 'Millionaire.'

I have to ask the obvious... how do you prove that his son bought the game and not Thompson himself? I can hear him now saying that his son used the credit card under his name but Jack is authorized to use that card because Jack is the one who had to have gotten the card for his kid.

Let's bear in mind that Thompson claiming "X" occurred is usually a sufficient reason to assume "X" didn't occurr. And, unless Jack stood beside his son and was an eye- and ear-witness to the transaction, then all he's got is a whole lot of hearsay evidence from a 15-year-old as to what actually transpired during the claimed transaction.

Mini Thompson: "It happened the way I said it happened. Trust me."

Apples falling from trees.

Jack probably had his son wearing a wire and everything. This guy is nuts. I agree with everyone else. He has no understanding of statistics and needs to give this a rest. I don't think that Alysia even works for Take Two. ;)

We can add Thompson the Younger and poor Alysia (with the pierced right eyebrow) to Jack's growing list of individuals he absolutely has to subpoena.

I guess Thompson forgot that The Warriors was a movie before it was a video game, so Western Civilization should have already collapsed going by his logic.

Anyway, all this proves is that Thompson is an asshole, and a horrible parent who only uses his son as a prop in his little petty grudge with the gaming industry. Thompson, leave your son alone and stop forcing him to do crap like this. God, he deserves a far better parent than you, but I guess his mother can't be around to take care of him quite so much since she has work her ass off to support your dumb crazy ass for the most part.

Jack Thompson you allowed your son to purchase an M rated game.

Therefore by your own definitions you are a bad parent, so please stop trying to tell other people how to live.

He'd better let the kid play the game after all that.

It hit me like a brick last week when I was baby sitting my nephews(9, 11, 15) and both the 11 and 15 year old could understand by a large degree the war in Iraq. If a child can take and grasp the idea of war, death, hate, poverty and basic political views, I think they can understand the graphic violence of a video game.

I remember when I was 16, I drove my car to Target, reached into my wallet, grabbed the 60 bucks I earned working my part-time job, and was told I could not buy GTA: Vice City. I was able to drive my half ton missile 4 miles, use money I made working in a place where I could cause much harm to someone at my whim, but I cannot comprehend shooting a virtual hooker. This world is funny sometimes.

Shameful Mr Thompson. Dragging your son into your misguided magniloquent misadventures. Poor kid probably WANTS to play BioShock! Too bad daddy's mendacious.

*shakes head* man i just logged on the computer to see if there were any new stories up on Gp and i get to read this.....Now the whole Moron Thompson getting Junior to buy a m rated game really doesnt suprise me at all...he did the same thing with warriors and with san andreas or vice city i believe and it wouldnt suprise me if the idiot got his son to buy saints row also (or did that game not make jack anal)

Personally all this crap is getting stupid and i look at it as some places are going to card and some places arent...I was carded for vice city for my 23 birthday i think it was....of course my mom was the one buying me the game and once i showed the guy my id he kind of laughed and said he was sorry...

Honestly This Thompson crap is getting annoying and its becoming a waist of time...jack we all know that you hate take two and rockstar and are set on "destroying them" but honestly the fact that you used your own son to push your agenda makes you a Creep and a Scumbag and I hope to god the florida bar rips up your law license and your forced to work at burger king.....

grow the hell up already and try acting your age and not acting like some pathetic 8 year old who does nothing but cry and complain....

For someone who insults us on here quite often your just pathetic and have nothing better to do and im sure your going to rot in hell......

take a hike your not wanted around here

Jack Thompson cares about children and wants to protect them from exposure to harm. That's why he sends his 15-year-old child unescorted into a public retail space potentially rife with pedeophiles and child-abductors.

anybody wanna take a guess on when we will get a post that says "enjoy losing your rockstar games kiddies"

Considering John Bruce's exploitation of the tragedies of other individuals, families, and communities, it wouldn't be a total surprise that he would exploit his own child in such a manner.

HOWEVER...

I'd like to see the FACTUAL evidence of John Bruce's claims. Knowing John Bruce's penchance for misinformation, deceit, and outright lying, I, quite frankly, believe that any such comments in his so-called press release to be lacking anything closely related to the Truth, The WHOLE Truth, And Nothing But The Truth.

I can, after all, walk around in a Best Buy, or any other store, look for the most negatively stereotyped individual I can find (note the pierced eyebrow comment), look at their nametag or ask them their name, then later accuse them of any number of acts. Or, even better, stop by their register, Parent and son together, ask a few questions, then make a comment to the son that "I'm going to check something out" and the son make a purchase from the cashier, while a Parent has already been seen with them, and the cashier assume that it must be ok. Or even better, the Parent say "let him get whatever he wants", thereby setting up a situation that only APPEARS one way, while it could be preceived another way. In other words, based on John Bruce's past actions, not merely entrapment, but actually FAKED entrapment. That is, he sets up the situation with him present, he walks away, his son makes the purchase, he asks for a security recording of the event, and only presents the purchase, not the initial meeting.

Again, based on his past actions, this would not be beyond his "morals" to do.

Oh, and based on his prior acts, it wouldn't surprise me if there were actually numerous misses before he had an actual "hit". But, as usual, he doesn't report his misses (you notice he shut up about Robida and the kid from Riverton, among others).

Now, here is another kicker:
Suppose it DID go down as he claims. Suppose further that he did this on his own, with no authority (DA, Police, etc) support). And I hope Mark Standridge or another legal eagle (other than someone corrupt like John Bruce) is reading this to put my assumptions right. Isn't someone who commits a "crime" in the name of "protecting others" without the legal support of a DA or police still guilty of commiting a crime? Ok, this sale wasn't a crime at the time. However, if we go by John Bruce's assertion that Parents are endangering their children by letting them have rated M games, and he knowingly sent his child to buy one, for whatever his excuses were, without authority support, isn't he responsible for endangering his child? I'm saying this on a similar basis as someone who says "I found child porn on a website. I bought it get evidence to give to the police" but since the police didn't ask the person to, some such individuals have been charged with having child porn. I may not have eloquently said all that, but do you see what I'm getting at?

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Could you clarify if it's known weather the young master bought it on his own, or if it was part of another sting set up by his sire?

It's a good thing that video games are Jack's current fixation and no longer is it pornography because sending a 15-year-old to purchase a copy of Hustler magazine and then not let him keep and use it smacks of cruel and unusual punishment.

You know i've been thinking lately that maybe the reason jacky boy hates Rockstar and take two is maybe he never was able to beat gta 3......

Oh My God! This is just golden, pure comedy gold! He send his son into a Best Buy and tells him to get Bioshock. Then blames 2K and T2 for allowing him to buy it. How much more a** backwards can a person get? In all seriousness i do feel bad for the clerk who got caught up in all this. Is 2 years really all that important? I'm sure a 15 y/o who hasn't been living under a rock all his/her life has seen worse than whats in Bioshock on T.V or read in a book or something. So I can understand why the clerk didn't care if she sold it to him or not.

well remember jack is only doing it to "protect the children"


Hey maybe we will get lucky and he'll make a post saying that he wants every "child" in here to post there name address and phone number so he can confiscate our rockstar games"


He's done it once

@hilaryduffgta:

As a matter of well-established credit policies at all financial institutions, a 15-year-old can't be on the hook personally for any credit card or any credit card transactions. Somewhere behind the minor's credit card transaction, there has to be an adult who's on the hook. And that's the unstated reasoning behind the FTC's reliance on credit cards as an age-verifier: sooner or later, the transaction should come to the attention of an adult (assuming the adult's paying attention to their monthly statements).

Shouldn't we report him to child welfare for using his son like this?

So apparently Thompson has been using his son in these sting operations for a long time now.

I can think of a whole lot of things I'd rather do than get driven to different retail outlets all day long, being used as a pawn in my father's harebrained moral crusade.

The thing I find strange is that she asked him for ID, and he said he didn't have it. Does JT junior not carry around some form of identification? If so, he outright lied to the clerk.

John Boy sinks to a new low. No wait, it is the same low as always.

HA HA HA HA! I don't care what the story is about, but that picture just makes me laugh.

well seeing as how insane jack is he probably doesnt want his son having an id cause well what happens if some crazed gamer finds it??????

after all remember in jt's eyes all gamers are maniacs who can and will kill people

I wonder what Thompson will do whe his son turns 17. Probably start kidnapping kids for the purpose of making them buy M rated games.
"gasp"

Taking down Zelnick is an unrealistic goal for this scenario. You can't blame him for the incompetence of a single employee you clearly didn't value her job. All it'll take is a bit of media coverage and the employee will probably get axed, though usually if a manager catches you doing this you get a slap on the wrist the first time. Sacking the manager is iffy but I wouldn't doubt it. Connecting the dots and taking out Zelnick is like using a minor buying liquor as a way to take down Molson. You can't sue a company for making something underage people might want to buy.

"HE CAN START HIS OWN BLOODY BLOG!"

Yeah, he was harping about jackandgoliath.com for quite some time back in the LJ days, why hasn't he done anything with that yet?

I mean, he's had the domain for a year and a half now.

I'm with VenomCarnage, I about split my rib over that photo ... mini-me JT... bwahahahahahha

She asked for ID, he said he had none, but the true question is did she ask how old he was and did he tell her his actual age or did he lie about it. Because I for one can only hold the store so responsible for selling it to him if he lied, seeing as it is a voluntary system, unlike alcohol and porn. But most importantly it wasn't the game makers who sold it to the kid, it was a retailer.

I have stated in the past that at least in my area the best place to go to buy games underage is Best Buy because they just don't care. The least likely to sell it to you will be the game stores like EB Games and Game Stop, because they fire their employees on the spot if they are found to be selling M rated games to people under 18.

Jack: Son?

Son: Yeah?

Jack: I've been thinking, maybe I've been a bit too harsh on your game restrictions.

Son: You mean threatening to castrate meand throw boiled holy water on me if you catch me even looking at a video game ad?

Jack: Ha ha, yeah. Good times.

Son: Awesome! I've been wanting to play Tony Hawk since forever!

Jack: No, you're a big boy now. I was thinking something more along the lines of Bioshock.

Son: AWESOME! It sounds like a doctor game!

Cut to the drive home from Best Buy.

Son: Thanks Dad. I.... I love you.

Jack: I'm sorry, did you say something? Damn camera phones. Every time I try I try to stop recording it speed dials Doug Lowstein, Dennis, and about three gay sex lines. Funny, I only remember adding two.

Son: W-wha?

Jack: Nothing. Give me the game.

Son: But you said-

Jack: SHUT UP AND GIVE ME THE GAME OR I'LL BRAND YOU WITH THE CROSS AGAIN! THIS IS MY CRUSADE DAMMIT! MY LEGACY!

Oh wow Dennis, you still got it - I about snorted milk up my nose when I saw that headline, Anyone take a guess on how long it takes the Grand High Douche himself to show up?

I assume that Thompson's offspring goes to a private boarding school, or is home schooled. That's going to be the only way he gets fully brainwashed...

On the topic though, so if I go in a store and buy 300 on dvd, which is rated R, when I'm only fifteen and without parents it's okay, but your fifteen and you buy a M rated game God Forbid! Stop the fucking presses.

This is just me, but it's gotten to the point that, whenever Jack claims anything, I outright ignore it. He is a shameless liar, plain and simple. He lied that Janet Reno was a lesbian blackmailed by the mob. He lied that that one judge in Utah I believe called him up completely wasted. I think he is simply lying about this. Really, does he have the slightest iota of credibility?

Poor, poor kid..

Roflmao God I love that movie......You know i think what jack needs is a vacation to castle anthrax

Can you imagine Jack's son growing up and feeling used and manipulated for his dad's cause? He will look back on his entire childhood as a tool of his father's fixation with the sale of M-rated games to minors and he will promptly start working for Take Two when he hits his angst-laden rebellion phase.

This wouldn't be an unprecedented reversal of a child's rebellion against the parent's cause; author William J. Murray became the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition (a conservative Christian organization) after a childhood as the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists. Perhaps Jack's son will even author a memoir entitled "In Harm's Way."

Hey, something occurred to me...Wasn't there something about JT's kid having a credit card earlier? What if he used that to buy the game, hence, in a sense, serving as an ID?

Dunno, just putting out possibilities onto the table. For the sake of argument.

Although I don't know the exact details of it, could this potential PR disaster for Jack have ramifications on the T2 settlement?

@A-wel Cruiz
Could not agree any more.

Thompson did have his own website, stopkill.org, and some hacker bombarded it into denial of service. I'm sure the same thing would happen to any attempt on his part at setting up a blogsite.

I think Jack was the person who got carded and was able to make the purchase just so he can make up this story. I wonder what the clerk will be thinking if or when she reads the article. I feel sorry for her and for Jack's son.

@KTP
LOL!

Why doesn't Jack send his son to see an R-rated movie? Even over here in California, few movie theaters care to actually enfore the "nobody under 17" policy.

Oh, wait, I forgot. The MPAA is less evil because movies are too established to be plausibly identified as "omg EEVIL!"

wouldn't Jack having his son buy the games mean that he is a bad parent?

Because no parent should actively encourage what, in jack's own definition, is esentially pornography?

@Nekowolf

Well, i'm not so sure about that... it's true that in the artcile where that comment was made it was pointed out that credit cards are reconized by the gov't as a form of age verification, the rule could be only restricted to the internet. In the real world, we have plenty of good ways to verify age, plenty of ways to ID someone, however on the internet we have none what's so ever... and thus, lacking any possible alternatives, the gov't allows credit cards as a form of ID. I'm not sure about any of that, so if anyone knows than you can correct it.

Though still, it doesn't change the fact that the clerk did not care the kid wasn't carrying an ID... this is why no form of legislation will ever work and be enforcable... it's impossible for retailers to micromanage their employees, and when it comes down to it, the job of upholding the policy comes down to an individual. Retail stores are not well oiled machines, they subject to the human factor. Frankly, i think if you did a stings on bars and so forth(where their are laws in effect), you would probably find that they aren't at 100% neither (probably good, but not 100%)... hell, the UK is living proof that laws don't bring 100% enforcment since there are still cases of minors buying games on their own... really, considering how 100% is impossible to reach and that self-enforcment is increasing every year, it really helps hit home how pointless the anti-video game laws are.

As for Jack's sting... putting aside the obvious flaw that plenty of poeple have already pointed out, i would imagine two things about this sting... Either a) there are a number of failed attempts that Jack isn't telling us about, or b) Jack took a look at the clerks, and ignoring rules of not interfering with a study, used his knowlegde of sterotypes to pick out the clerk that looked the most irresponcible and told his son to go to that clerk in particular.... y'knowi vaguely recall, in the last jack sting, something about the clerk there aswell... like it sounded like he was foreign or something... forgien name perhaps (no offence to poeple with eyebrow piercings and anyone foriegn; i don't mean to offend with that comment, just pointing out Jack's probable line of thinking)

Oh. My. God.

Thompson, P.I.

This just keeps getting better and better.

What a loser.

In all honest, Jack is right about something - the person who sold the video game to the kid should be fired. Rating system exists for a reason - retailers should enforce it.

what the hay, my last comment didnt post...
*hmpf*

Oh man. What's the betting that he's making it up?

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past him to go and have his son go in there, buy the game, and lie about it later.

All he would have to do is stay off camera and give the thumbs up.

Either way, he's got a sampling size of 1; an insignificant sampling size.

But hey, he's a lawyer, he should know all about that right?

I'm just waitin to see how he says its Take Two's fault.

I feel bad for this girl who is becoming a casualty of Thompson's petty personal crusade.
start the movement
SAVE ALYSIA!!!

well 128 posts later and still no jack thompson post...maybe he's playing bio shock or hell maybe jack got into blue dragon (awesome game btw)

wonder what his gamer tag would be....maybe IamHooah

He'd Harvest. I mean, we've already established he has no problem using children to further his agenda.

Yep, he's douch. So much so, we had to make a comic about it.

http://blackvatican.com/trinity/

@Jay:

Well said. I'll never figure out how Jack can sleep at night... but after his disbarment? I won't give half a s**t anyway, so whatever.

Hell yea that would make for an awesome christmas present....Freakin loser

Although the entire thing was blatantly a setup, and is despicable (though not at all surprising) on Thompson's part... if the report is true and this Alysia did infact state that she didnt care how old the kid was and knowingly sell a minor a Mature game, she should loose her job.

We should not be campaigning for her or any of that rubbish, this sort of person is giving ammunition to those who claim the industry doesn't enforce the ratings. If this Alysia girl had done her job right then we wouldn't be hearing a thing.

Being paid a minimum wage is not an excuse to not follow the rules when it comes to who is sold what.

If that is the store policy, yes, it does. You can't expect them to say "oh, its okay because it was Thompson's son."

Besides, I find it confusing that people are defending her here... like I said, if people did their jobs right and didn't sell these games without ID, this wouldn't be used as ammunition against us.

Here's the news: If Best Buy actually had a policy of firing employees without warning for failure to verify age, their employee turn-over rate couldn't keep up with the time it takes them to complete new employee paperwork and get them on the payroll. You can't run a business the size of Best Buy with no policy like that. It's Best Buy, not the priesthood.

And, if Mr. Thompson's insistence that Alysia and the Store Manager be summarily fired is well-placed, by what logic does he stop there? Shouldn't he also be demanding the firing of the District Manager? And the Regional Manager? And the CEO? Or do those demands come in yet another press release to GP?

Wow. And Jacks delusions take another blow at his sanity. Man jack you TOTALY will be able to take down rock* based on the actions of someone whos completely not involved with them at a store thats not associated with them over a game that they barely are connected to!

TOTALY.

And the lack of any real effectiveness in putting the seller up as the central point of defense in a battle against under-age consumpton of anything is proved by the results of those very same efforts in the battle against under-age consumption of alcohol and tobacco products. If, as a parent, you're relying primarily on the clerk at 7-11 to keep a 40-oz and a pack of Newports outta your kid's hands, then maybe, just maybe, you wanna re-think your whole parenting strategy.

@hilary

He's been surprisingly quiet lately, go figure, just take advantage of it while you can.

@InJM:

Man, I love me some PacMan. Just hearing that PacMan music and that "gobble, gobble" sound takes me back to a time long ago in a far away land before I became a screwed-up adult in a screwed-up adult world.

I really feel sorry for his son.

I love how one store doing this = the whole industry...

@Ian Charles

It's not even one store doing this, it's one store doing this ...once!

So Thompson's son was one of the 35% of kids who were able to buy mature games. He was going to be in one of the 2 camps, unfortunately in this case they found a lax retail assistant. Oh well, them's the breaks, but apparently it's a sign of the complete mockery that is the entire games rating system and the downfall of American society and the coming Apocalypse.

If he gets the assistant fired and makes Best Buy adhere more stringently to their own policy, then that's great! He's learning that the system works! But if he tries to turn it around on the games industry? You can't sue Hugh Hefner because a bored clerk in a 7-11 sells a copy of Playboy to an underage kid. You can't sue Take Two because a bored clerk in Best Buy sold Bioshock to an underage kid (or at least a kid whose Father deems him of inappropriate age for the game).

Someone should put a series of 2 questions to Thompson, and it would be very interesting to see his answer if he would give an honest one.

Question 1: Do you believe that if your own son played these violent games, that it would become more likely that he would murder someone else?

Question 2: If not, what is it that differentiates your child from all the other children who you say will be affected in this way?

I don't think any parent would answer yes to the first question. Most would imagine that their child is not that dumb, or irresponsible, or suggestible.

For someone who hates video games, he likes to go out of his way to make sure his son has all the best ones!

I bet every 15 year old gamer out there wishes his dad was more like Thompson, forcing their son to buy M rated games.

Using JT's logic to prove a point, maybe he should take his son shopping for drugs, alcohol and sex... you know, just to show how easy they are to get.

"The Best Buy retail clerk who sold this “Mature” game to Thompson’s 15-year-old son is Alysia. She asked Thompson’s son for his ID. He said he had none. She said, “I don’t really care.” She has a piercing through her right eyebrow, and she can be easily identified by Thompson and by store officials. She should be fired immediately. So should the store manager whose very same store sold Grand Theft Auto: Vice City to Thompson’s son when he was 10 years old (!) in a sting that he and his father arranged, just like this one."


Oh yes, like that's going to identify her, assuming she still works at best buy.
besides, thompson only has words. unless he thoroughly documented it, this farce of a "sting" is nothing.

This reminds of one of those Dateline 'Stings', where they hired underage kids to go into video game stores and buy M-rated games. These kids are like 10, and came in by themselves. My question: Where are the parents? All it takes is for one caring parent to say, "No honey, I don't think you're old enough to play this game, why don't we get a nice T or E-rated game instead."

Personal Responsibility has really gone out the window. Even if you can't control your kid's spending, how hard is it to look over their shoulder and say, "Wow, that's pretty violent, I don't want you to play that anymore." And take the game away from the kid?

Yes Jack, that's right Jack, don't worry Jack, you'll take down Take Two with something completely unrelated to their company...

Take your pills now Jack, they'll calm you down.

It never ceases to amaze me that morons on both sides make this issue continue. Parents fail to do their jobs every day, whether by passing the buck to someone else or by outright making poor judgments. I know a lot of great parents who will NOT buy these games for their children or allow them to play them elsewhere, but this is rare. Clerks fail to abide by their store's policies and in some cases chains simply don't do what is best in the child's interest. As everyone has said, and JT seems to miss, this is a problem with the distribution side, NOT the production side.

For every "nose-pierced apathetic" or willfully disobedient sales clerk, there are scores of clerks who do their jobs. They check IDs and/or make kids bring their parents in to OK the purchase. This is what the proposed legislation accounts for, the parent signing off on the stupidity. I'm not even going to argue about the effect content may or may not have on the youth, it's a moot point. If a lot of stages in the safety net were not being snipped by people who don't care, there would not be as much of a problem with games in kid's hands. Except the fact that kids get the things they are told they cannot have pretty well. Like liquor, cigarettes, and condoms, videogames would still be a sort of desirable contraband.

This is part of the problem with our culture. We tell kids this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, without truly showing them why it is a negative and letting them decide for themselves. We waste millions of dollars on programs to curb teenage sex, STIs, and pregnancy, yet we really are doing nothing more than prompting youth to roll their eyes. JT and his cronies will always fight this content, no matter the effect it truly has. If a GTA game somehow had the power to cure the blind, regrow limbs, or render AIDS void, JT would still be against the content on moral grounds. His war is one of steadfast belief, not logic and surely not facts.

The parents who have a clue are doing their jobs, same as clerks. Children are still growing up and leading productive lives despite the attempts of society to thwart that. They manage to learn despite ignorant parents and a second or third class education system. Yet no matter how amazing we make our education system in the future, there will always be deviants who push the lines of what we see as mores, regardless of the beliefs of the peanut gallery. These deviances are sometimes necessary to reclaim freedoms we have lost. The peanut gallery members who do well to enslave us more every day are entitled to an opinions naturally, as much as it goes against the few freedoms we have left in this empire we call America. It seems a bit over the top, but the truth is this moral war is just another link in the chain to that medicine ball in the corner of your cubicle.

Look, I agree JT is as goofy as anybody out there. But for once the man might actually have a point. If the ESRB wants to be taken seriously it needs to help make sure that retailers follow the system. Movie theaters get called to the carpet for not enforcing ratings, why not these retail stores?

I'm not arguing that what he did was kind of questionable, but anecdotes like this are powerful ammunition. Even worse is a statistic of 35%. Let's make sure that we're getting the message here even if we don't like the messenger.

Technically, Thompson gave his son permission to buy the game, so the policy was not violated. JT's reputation for half-truth's makes his testimony questionable at best. Also, the fervor with which he attacked this girl's appearance indicates a huge prejudice against that particular sales rep. Put the two together, and Best Buy should politely refuse this "evidence."

I wonder if since we are mentioning the son, that he's going to start coming on here and flaming us, oy? And I'm with the blame the parents mentality. They can't fight the Constitution. It's universal.

Since JT told his son to go buy the game, isn't there implied consent that he approves of his son buying this game.

"Also, what the heck does a girl at Best Buy selling a 15-year-old an M-rated game have to do with the CEO of the company that publishes it?"

I've been asking that for the past 4 years...

Man I butchered that last line. That should say "I don't mind saying it was not cool for Best Buy to be selling that game to a kid." Need more coffee.

Looks like this little fish just got his cherry popped. Better to leave you to the metal daddy, little fish.

Oh yes, Jack sure did show us bygum.

He has completely proven that Take-Two is an evil company because ONE kid in ONE store was able to buy ONE M Rated game from ONE cashier making minimum wage. Boy do we have egg on our faces.[/sarcasm]

Seriously though, what did he hope to achieve by this? For one thing nothing unlawful happened, as the ESRB (much like the MPAA) carries no penalty of law. The only thing this broke was a store policy that this Best Buy may or may not follow.

Right, time to tear the fucker a new one.

Jack, did it ever occur to you that you are just as bad as the employee who sold your son Bioshock? Why you ask? Well, just the small matter of you being a FUCKING NAZI BASTARD and not knowing that the game being sold to a minor has nothing to do with Straus Zednick.

Oh, and did I mention your questionable morals at letting your 15 year old son buy a game for mature gamer? Big girl's blouse..

I'm surprised Jack hasn't come in here to "Hooah!" at us yet.

It's just as everyone else has said. Yes, the clerk was wrong to sell it, and should be at the very least reprimanded. The store manager? No, not unless you have proof that he told her to sell it regardless. If he's a good store manager, s/he probably told her to ask for ID. But to be honest, how much control can s/he have when s/he's not there? And especially if, (as it sounds,) the employee was tired, frustrated, and probably hated her job to begin with. Towards the end of my run working for a movie theater, I was tired and frustrated enough that it just didn't seem worth the fight to make every kid who wanted to see an R-Rated movie show ID. I did it, but it's especially hard these days to make a judgment call on age. You'll notice that Jack didn't send an eight year old to buy this game. No, he purposefully muddied the water to try and make his case clearer.

As for Jack and Jack Jr, well, what can we say? I found myself wondering how Jack Jr is received at school, but it occurs to me that he's probably home schooled. Too many naughty influences at Public school, with all those pixelantes out there.

And this is supposed to take down Take Two? Good luck with all that, Jack. No, best buy shouldn't be selling it to minors, but that does not mean we majors shouldn't be able to play it.

@Erik

He may still chime in and explain himself - inbetween calling himself righteous, insulting us - and HOOAH!

In the meantime I can only assume he intends to hype it up at his discplinary hearing. It's fairly well established that he thinks his anti-take2 ravings are first-amendment protected....uck, how to articulate what I'm thinking. He probably intends to site this as an example of proof that his ravings aren't baseless, so he can argue at his hearings that they're not only first amendment protected, they're true. (Of course there's an incredible # of things wrong that logic, but let's not go there.)

You know what I'm really curious about? JT claims to be a lawyer. Fine. I'd like to hear his lawyer interpretation of the settlement between him and T2. He must know he's agreed to SOMETHING. He must know the settlement binds him to something, the question is what? I'd be curious to hear, FROM HIM, what it is he thinks he agreed to do?

@Zigs

It's not so much Best Buy was it was one store and on cashier. I dunno, but I get carded every time, even though I don't go there for games.

@ JackDontKnowJack

He also used his own alleged heart problems in the same way (picture Fred Sanford clutching his chest and going, “Wheezy! Wheezy! I’m coming to be wid cho!”).

In the interest of helping to get 70's black sitcoms straight, Fred Sanford's deceased wife's name was Elizabeth. George Jefferson was the one who called his wife Wheezy.

Yes, I'm that old. ;)

Come to think of it, 15 years ago he instigated the arrest (in handcuffs on national television) and criminal prosecution of the owner of a little mom-n-pop, store-front record shop (who just happened to coincidently be an African-American) for selling 2Live Crew to a minor in some similar sting operation. Turned out eventually that it wasn't even really the crime that Jack was arguing it was. But that's Jack. He just don't give a "hoot" about the other guy.

@Black Manta:

You got me.

Dear Mr. Thompson:

I do not know your email address, however, I know you frequent this blog and post comments on occasion. I hope I am able to reach your ear this way.

I am a conservative Christian, an American, and a gamer. I share many of your concerns, such as maintaining public decency and keeping inappropriate media out of the hands of children. However, I also share many of the concerns of the gaming community, such as protecting our hobby from censorship.

This said, I am curious if you would consent to a civil and amicable discussion on the topic of violence in media (including video games, music, and film). In particular, I would like to discuss solutions. How do we protect the 1st Amendment rights of record labels, movie studios and video game publishers while simultaneously protecting our youth from inappropriate content?

I am not on a nationally televised program. Talking with me will garner you little national recognition. However, I do think it would be good and productive because we could, as brothers in the Lord, try and bridge the gap between you and the gaming community. Perhaps a fresh outlook could even help you turn current foes (like the ESRB) into allies.

We can host our discussion wherever you prefer. I have a personal blog (doejo.blogspot.com) I would be willing to use for this. In order to maintain civility, I propose ignoring all visitor comments, at least until the 'debate' is ended (internet anonymity tends to make men out of mice). I also propose that we adhere to several strict rules. In particular:
1) No ad hominum arguments or personal attacks,
2) No discussion of your current litigation (i.e., the Florida State Bar case), and
3) No hyperbole.

Do you find this proposition acceptable, Mr Thompson? If you do, please contact me at tobias.strauss@gmail.com and I will be happy to arrange things.

I'm not joking Dennis.

 

GP: No idea what you're talking about?

@ Tobias Strauss

Respectfully, don't bother. Many others have approached Jack before for this kind of debate, and he's backed out of all of them. Jack isn't interested in a civil debate or discussion. He prefers to go on TV and spout his lies uninterrupted and unquestioned.

Notice how whenever a school shooting has occurred that he was usually put on as the public and the media were still reeling and wondering what happened. And like any good demagogue, he takes advantage of and thrives in that very climate of chaos, uncertainty and fear. He likes to be the voice of authority and say, "I'll tell you why... It's those VIDEO GAMES! We have to keep them out of the hands of children or they'll all turn violent just like this one did!" And people won't be inclined to question him as much because they're still panicked and scared.

In a forum that's not as emotionally charged where heads are cooler and more logical, Jack's arguments don't hold up and he knows this. That's why he keeps welching out of any moderated debate. The only time he does is when his opponent isn't quite as knowledgeable as he is or more inclined to take his side. Otherwise, he backs out citing either that he's not going to get paid, doesn't have the time or - in the case of the PAX debate - fear of his safety.

So while I understand your desire to want to have a civil debate with the "man", it's not going to happen. Just don't be surprised if you get a terse and insulting email from him.

@JackDon'tKnowJack

Yeah, that one was fun. I can't remember how many people tore him a new Arse that time.

@jadedcritic:

And also check the article and thread on his letter to the FTC about BioShock.

Does anyone else remember how Jack appeared on Fox News (during the Virginia Tech shooting) and made some comment about how his son doesn't agree with him going against games? Kinda odd that his kid would suddenly help him with a sting operation.

As a mother of two young boys, I feel compelled to comment.

Jack Thompson, kindly crawl back under the rock from whence you came, and stay there. I am perfectly capable of reading the rating on a video game box, just as I am capable of reading the rating on a movie. I am perfectly capable of obtaining a copy of any video game my kids might be interested in myself (from my local video rental store, which also rents games) and checking it out before I allow my children to play it. And I am *more* than capable of making my own informed decisions about whether or not any particular game or movie is appropriate for *my children* or not, based on my intimate personal knowledge of the personalities of my children and the things they do or do not have problems with, REGARDLESS of what some stuffed shirt at the Ratings Board thinks.

Does this mean that my children have carte blanche to watch and/or play whatever they wish? Hardly! I keep close tabs on what my children are viewing and/or playing, and I regulate content as I feel appropriate, again based on my extensive knowledge of my childrens' personalities and the way that they think. I do occasionally allow them to use media which the ratings indicate they are not old enough for yet, but I do so on a case-by-case basis, and in every case, I have personally viewed the entire contents of the media in question prior to allowing my children access to it. In many cases, if the subject matter is challenging or advanced, we talk about it.

I feel utterly confident that my 6 and 8 year old sons are capable of determining the difference between a bunch of pixels on a screen in a made-up story and real life, flesh and blood humans or animals. Does this mean I let them play violent, M-rated video games? No. Nor have they ever asked to play such (unless you consider "I Katamari" to be a violent video game - it does involve rolling people up into giant katamari balls and turning them into new planets....). At their age, it's simply not part of their world. And that's fine. It means I've been doing my job.

Will I let them play violent video games when they're 15? Or 16? Or 17? Again, I will have to take each game on a case-by-case basis. But in all likelihood, when they are that old, I will be much more inclined to allow them to play mature-rated games. Of course, we will discuss the content of the game, and why they are interested in it, and what relation it bears to real life. But the bottom line is, if I have done my job right up to that point, my sons will not be clueless, naive children in need of protection from the Big Bad World, they will be intelligent, savvy young men who are capable of viewing and interacting with a variety of mature content - just as I was at that age. (And gee! After all those naughty pictures and violent movies and video games, I turned out to be......a stay-at-home soccer mom who knits and crochets and gardens organically and cooks delicious meals for my family. Ooooh, scary. Obviously I was terribly corrupted by all that mature content.)

I think that we as a society do not only our children but ourselves a major disservice when we forget that teenagers are not children, but young adults. Although they lack life experience, teenagers are smart, on-the-ball, and capable of thinking about and understanding far more than most people want to give them credit for. I truly believe that if we stopped treating teens like 6 year olds, and started treating them like the powerful, vital young adults that they are - capable of critical thinking and making good judgements all on their own when they are given sufficient information to do so - we would discover an amazing and previously untapped resource. Because let's face it - teenagers don't magically get all those great qualities on their 18th birthdays. What is the real difference in maturity between a 17 year old and an 18 year old? It's just an arbitrary age limit. There are plenty of teenagers out there who quite frankly are more mature and more capable of critical thinking than some adults that I have met.

The bottom line is, your crusade is an insult to the mothers of America. You are suggesting, however covertly, and however nicely you pretty it up to sound like "Oh But De Chilluns!" that we are not capable of doing our jobs, and doing them well. You imply through your actions and your behaviour that we are not capable of raising our sons and daughters to be intelligent, rational, critical thinkers who can tell the difference between animated violence on a screen and real life violence on the street.

I enjoy action movies, particularly those involving spooks and covert ops. Does this mean that I think I can go out on the street and start shooting people and blowing things up? Of course not! Even when I was a teenager (lo these many years ago) I knew that there was a difference between the made-up, fictional stories on the screen and real life. Most people are able to differentiate between the two. An inability to differentiate between the two in someone over the age of 10 is indicative of serious psychological problems - problems which may have been caused by genetics, or by an abusive childhood, but which are certainly not the result of being exposed to made-up, fictional stories on a screen.

So, Jack Thompson, please ride your high horse right back under that rock. We do not need you to tell us what our children may and may not watch or play. We are perfectly capable of raising our children ourselves. The fact that you seem to believe otherwise is, quite frankly, extremely offensive. I do not need you or any other crusading idiot to tell me how to raise my children. And I will be damned if I am just going to hand them over to you and the State like a good little sheep and let someone else raise my children for me. So back off. And before you go trying to remove the splinters from everyone else's eyes, perhaps you should remove the logs from your own. I'd start by not giving Junior a credit card, since you now have evidence that he cannot be trusted to use it in a responsible manner.....unless, of course, *you* suggested that he go in there and buy that game. If so, then he had PARENTAL PERMISSION. And that, of course, is allowed for in the ratings standards. A minor "child" may view or play media that is rated over their age level IF THEY HAVE PARENTAL CONSENT. If, when my sons are teenagers, I were to take them to a movie theater and buy them tickets to see an R-rated movie, that would be perfectly legitimate. Similarly, if I bought them an M-rated game, or gave them permission to purchase such, not to mention a credit card with which to purchase it, again, that would be perfectly legitimate. You are a spineless, craven coward with serious control issues. My advice to you is, resign from the bar and seek help. Modern psychiatry has a variety of wondrous new techniques and medications that can help you get back in touch with reality.

As for Alysia - it seems as though you singled the poor girl out for destruction, possibly because you have a problem with people who have piercings in other locations than their earlobes. As I said before, though, ID or not, it seems fairly clear that in this particular case, the teenager in question did in fact have permission to buy, or attempt to buy, the game in question. This being the case, Alysia has done no wrong, and should not be persecuted or punished in any way. While it is to be hoped that Best Buy will clarify their game-selling policies to their employees, frankly, a parent who relies on retail clerks getting paid minimum wage to do the parent's job for them is not deserving of the title. It is not the job of Best Buy, or of any of their employees, to parent my children. It is not their job to decide what my children may and may not watch, listen to, or play. It is not their job to supervise my children in any way, including in their choice of entertainment. It is MY job, and my husband's job. And it is OUR JOB ALONE, except in the specific instances where we ask other people to supervise our children temporarily for brief periods of time (i.e. babysitters). I would never dream of holding a retail store accountable for the supervision of my children. Again, it is MY job to pay attention to what my children watch, listen to, or play. Or read, for that matter. (Banned Books Week is Sept 29 - Oct. 6 this year people! Piss off the Establishment - read a banned book!). So please. Abandon this insulting crusade and try to find something to do that actually helps people for a change, instead of destroying the lives of store clerks in your pursuit of absolute control over the minds of my children, and the children of all the other mothers of America. You might want to start with your own son. It sounds like he could use a father who cares about him and is interested in him as a person, instead of as a pawn in some elaborate crusade.

*the Sourceress*
Motherhood is a Revolutionary Act

Yeah.. you really need to ask about his mental capacity..

Honestly, I just don't understand the point of the discussion in its current form. It's like theres a ton of noise and no solutions.

Mr Thompson's 15 year old son was able to buy Bioshock at Best Buy. Ok, that's a problem. Even if it was a 1 in 100 thing, it just plain should not have happened. But so what? What good are problems without solutions? Is having Best Buy fire the college kid who sold the game going to solve this national problem? Is firing the manger going to solve the problem (frankly, at this point I'm surprised they don't have pictures of Mr. Thompson's son by all of the registers say 'do not sell ANYTHING to this kid')?

That's the big question I have for Mr. Thompson. What's the fix? What's the solution? More laws? Lawsuits? Better ESRB efforts at education? Improved corporate policies?

@Tobias Strauss

You're good at this mate. You have certainly played the game before.

@jadedcritic:

There's actually a point where I believe Jack gets to arguing that the entire agreement is void so he doesn't have to honor a word of it (what he refers to as the agreement being "void ab initio" or in lay terms: "There aint no binding agreement between us in the first place.").

I'm surprised, I'd figure good ol' JT would have made a few comments by now.

No system is fool proof, obviously. I'm sure people get cigarette lighters and pocket knives on planes, too (something that should concern us all far more than video games, but I digress).

However, according to the FTC report GP cited, BestBuy had a 65% success rating in preventing the sale of violent video games to minors. That means that over one third of minors who walk into their local big box store to get GTA/manhunt/murder-sim-2007 :) are able to. That's not great, and I think we can do better.

The question is how. If Mr. Thompson is not interested in that, then frankly I question his commitment to his cause.

@Tobias Strauss:

You're still begging the question. Who said beyond dispute that "preventing the sale of violent video games to minors" was a neccessary, or diserable, or even possible objective?

And solving the problem usually ain't what winds Jack's works. Think about it. If the problem's solved, then Jack's left either flogging a dead horse or off looking for an unsolved horse to flog.

And his search for that unsolved horse to flog has sometimes taken him to strange places. He once landed on Elian Gonzalez. But once little Elian got sent back to Cuba, he dropped him like a hot potato. And likewise Terry Schiavo (but, of course, dropped for different reasons).

I don't think we want Jack roaming around, looking for his next cause. No telling where he'll end up.

@jadedcritic

Of course, the upside of a government controlled ESRB: getting a job as a professional game player, with full government benefits package.

"What do you do?"
"Oh I'm a GS-14 video game player at the ESRB. I sit in a cozy office and play video games 8 hours a day months before they're released to the public."

@point09micron:

Sounds a lot like a gig at the FTC (read advertising all day) or FCC (listen to the radio all day).

I'll bet he had his son try 10 retail stores unsuccessfully before he found this one and exclaimed "ah ha! Gotcha, you son of a bitches!"

@ JT

"Hey, Dennis McCauley and other gamer nerds, here’s a suggestion:’

Why don’t you call the Best Buy store manager at 305-662-xxxx and ask if Alysia, the store clerk who sold the game in violation of the store’s policy, has been sacked yet? A real journalist would have done that by now."

And a real laywer wouldn't have used his own damn son to further his own personal vendetta.

"GameStop, by the way, has promised, through its CEO, that any clerk caught doing this will be fired on the spot, as will any store manager where it occurs."

Isn't this going against your theory that a ten year old can go into a store and buy an M rated? So technically, aren't you going contradicting yourself?

"PS: Manhunt 2 and GTA IV are next. "

Next on what? You can't touch either, according to your agreement, you can bitch all you want about it, but you can't action against them. And if then, what makes you think this time would be any different from your thousand other failures against TT? I just can't help thinking of that one part in Austin Powers 3 where Dr. Evil is talking about his plan about his tractor beam and he says "unforunately, Preparations A-G were complete failure so we will call this one...PREPARATION H!"

@Jack Thompson, who wrote:

"Why don’t you call the Best Buy store manager at 305-662-xxxx and ask if Alysia, the store clerk who sold the game in violation of the store’s policy, has been sacked yet?"

I did. It's an off day for her, so I couldn't speak to her but her manager says she'll be in for work tomorrow as scheduled.

Jack, if you can't even crush Alysia with the pierced eyebrow at Best Buy, how you gonna crush T2?

GP, I know the number the douchebag posted is a public one, but he's only posting it to harass that store manager. Could you please delete it?

I also wouldn't advise having lots and lots of folks calling her place of work. As any person who works knows, receiving lots of "personal" calls can get you into trouble as well.

Although JDKJ says he's already called, the only other person who should call at all should be Dennis, just as Zachary says.

Ahem... of course... if anyone can get a photo of her... ya know... uh... for an article on her... yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.... ;D

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

Government oversight is, in fact, one option. Many countries (like the UK) already have government censors of video games. In the US we have agencies like the ATF, who oversee the sale of substances that are legally limited to adults, and the FCC, who prohibit the display of obscenity over public airwaves. Don't know if I like the idea personally, but its better than the solution I've seen Thompson offer (which is nothing).

I actually like the ESRB model. It's completely voluntary--no one has to get their product rated--but most retailers will not carry an unrated product, giving the industry large financial incentive for compliance with the ESRB. The problem right now IMO is that retailers are not being held to their commitments under the Entertainment Merchant's Association.

Oh, and I think most people would agree that software rated M should not be sold directly to minors. However, as a parent, I choose to purchase a mature software title for my child, then that is my prerogative.

"Hey, Dennis McCauley and other gamer nerds, here’s a suggestion:’

Why don’t you call the Best Buy store manager at 305-662-xxxx and ask if Alysia, the store clerk who sold the game in violation of the store’s policy, has been sacked yet? A real journalist would have done that by now."

Actually because we are too busy sending letters to the Florida bar to get you fired. One at a time princess.

Also:

"PS: Manhunt 2 and GTA IV are next."



Oh really? Let me ask you Jack, have you been successful in preventing any other Take-Two game from hitting the shelves or removing them from the shelves? Name one game you've prevented from coming out.

@ Jack Thompson

"PS: Manhunt 2 and GTA IV are next. "

What? WHAT? Jack, let me explain this calmly, you freak.

You. Are. Not. Getting. Bioshock. Banned.

You think you managed some huge coup here, whereas all you managed to show is you're some sick and twisted monster of a bad parent who can't be bothered to do anything with his kid other than USE him.

In a few months time, you'll be out of a job. And then maybe, just maybe you'll realize that rather spending the kids entire life crusading against whatever you perceived as evil at the time, you should have been raising him. With any luck, come the day he's 18, he'll walk out of the door giving you the finger, realizing there's more to life than what daddy had to offer.

And the worst part of this is, I'm sure you'll do nothing to remedy this. You'll try to continue your "quest," even when no longer a lawyer.

And, for all this, I pity your son. He deserves better than you.

@Tobias Strauss:

And, if indeed there's no significant harm to minors from exposure to violent media, then what purpose is the "M" on the box or the "R" on the ticket stub really serving? You can't solve a problem -- by any means-- that doesn't even exist.

Upon further thought, how do we know JT is being truthful? Its not like he has ever LIED? *cough* Virginia Tech *cough*

@JackDon'tKnowJack

Did you seriously call that number and ask for Alysia? Bravo... Pity - cashier's don't get commission, we could get a bunch of GP readers to go down there and buy games from her! I was anywhere nearby I'd do it.

Agreed - I was really thinking more of a sort of symbolic protest - way of giving Jack the finger. Rest assured though, there shall be no rocking from me.

He skipped that class.

@Tobias

Okay, I'll take you on - the purpose of the ratings is to provide a guideline for parents, as a tool to be used as part of their decision-making process. So, for instance, I can say to my son, "I don't know, this movie is rated PG-13, it might have some stuff that's a bit scary for you. Maybe we should wait a few years." Or I can say "I know this movie is rated PG-13, but I've seen it, and there's nothing in it that you haven't already been exposed to in any number of books we've read together, and I know you are really interested, so yes, this time you can watch. In fact, we'll watch it together, 'cause I love this movie!" (which is what we did with Pirates of the Carribean).

Frankly, I think you're missing the larger question: The question is not whether or not you should be selling that pornography to little 12 year old Johny, but why is little 12yo Johny in the market for pornography in the first place? And honestly, if you want my opinion, I think people get way too uptight about teenagers viewing porn. Let's be real here - it's not like they're not going to know about sexuality if they don't see porn. Nature has taken care of that. No matter how much you try to protect your sweet innocent teenager from the realities of the world, they *will* figure out sexuality, and damn quickly. So perhaps instead of treating them like 5 year olds and pretending there's no such thing, we should try having open, honest discussions on the topic with our kids. Nothing like a little parental communication to sort things out.

Yes, some porn is pretty sleazy. But there is also some really good, high quality stuff out there. So if you're concerned about what kind of porn your teen is looking at, you're much better off if you're communicating with them and yes, even providing a certain amount of material. I'd much rather have my teenaged stepson, for instance, looking at a book of erotic b&w art photos than at a Hustler. How to manage this without undue embarrassment? Simple. Get the stuff I don't have a problem with, and leave it lying around where I know he'll find it. (And of course the bonus here is that I end up with a high quality porn library.)

Again, it all comes down to parental responsibility.

And this whole business about "Ooh, you're selling that to children....": teenagers are not children, and it is a mistake to treat them like children. Obviously we don't want 6 year olds walking into a store and buying R-rated movies or M-rated games or whatever. But do you honestly think any store clerk, even Alysia of the pierced eyebrow, is going to sell it to them? Hardly. That's a pretty obvious no-brainer. Teenagers, on the other hand, are not 6 year olds. They are a lot more mature than 6 year olds, for one thing. I'd be willing to bet that in many cases, the clerks in question, including Alysia of the pierced eyebrow are either teenagers themselves or not too far from being teenagers. So there's a certain amount of age cohort solidarity there. Of course she didn't give 16yo Jack Jr. a bunch of crap - she's on his side. And honestly, I really don't have a problem with that. I really, truly don't have a problem with teenagers being able to get this stuff, because I truly think that most teenagers are mature enough to handle it. Especially a 15 or 16yo. Again, even here, there is a huge difference between a 15 or 16yo and the 12yo in your example. And I think most clerks would be able to figure that out. So honestly, I don't think this little episode really proves anything at all except that we in the US need to get our collective heads out of our collective rear ends and stop treating teens like children and start treating them like young adults.

And for the record, before anyone goes and accuses me of being biased because I'm young, I'm 37, I'm married, I have a BS in psychology (which I find highly appropriate), and I have two wonderful little boys, ages 6 and 8, who I am homeschooling. I am not a mainstream, goes-along-with-the-crowd parent. I actually do my homework and make informed decisions. So there you go.

Have a nice day. I have a funeral to go to now in a different state, so I probably won't be around for the rest of the weekend. Just so nobody thinks I'm ducking issues or anything.

*the Sourceress*
Motherhood is a Revolutionary Act

"Hey, Dennis McCauley and other gamer nerds, here’s a suggestion:’

Why don’t you call the Best Buy store manager at 305-662-xxxx and ask if Alysia, the store clerk who sold the game in violation of the store’s policy, has been sacked yet? A real journalist would have done that by now.

GameStop, by the way, has promised, through its CEO, that any clerk caught doing this will be fired on the spot, as will any store manager where it occurs.

Hooah! Jack Thompson

PS: Manhunt 2 and GTA IV are next."


*begin sarcasm* Damn and i wanted to buy gta 4 and manhunt and well if Jack says they are next i guess i wont be able to purchase them....

What a shame too i really wanted to purchase those games but i mean i guess they wont be relased now if jack says they are "next" i mean after all look at what happened with bully...

oh wait that did get released and i own it you ignorant pathetic bible thumper....

go to hell jack and get a life

now if u will execuse me im going back to blue dragon


@Sourceress

I look forward to reading more of your posts

Before I start I just want to give my congratz to Sorceress (spl?) for being the kind of parent we need more of in this country. If more parents took on the real responsibility like you have (and my parents did) then this would never have become the hot button topic it is.

As for Jack,
"Why don’t you call the Best Buy store manager at 305-662-xxxx and ask if Alysia, the store clerk who sold the game in violation of the store’s policy, has been sacked yet? A real journalist would have done that by now.

GameStop, by the way, has promised, through its CEO, that any clerk caught doing this will be fired on the spot, as will any store manager where it occurs."

If you're so concerned with getting someone fired maybe you should go to the store that promised it next time, try pulling this at gamestop if you feel that they will fail as well. My guess is that knowing that they promised to fire any employee who did this made you pick somewhere else to shop.

So once again you combined facts from different (sometimes shady and biased) sources in order to make a point you cannot support with valid logic or real evidence. Congratulations you're still a raving baboon.

i have a better idea:

Why don't we all call Dr. Oren Wunderman's office - (305)960-5521.

let's ask how much Jack paid Wunderman to say nice things about him, and then point him to GamePolitics where it is impossible to edit or delete one's jackass comments (and we have confirmation of IP traces that he is who he says he is).

@Sourceress

Well said ma'am, well said.

Because Jacko is making a HUGE leap that his son who used HIS credit card bought a game at Best Buy. Therefore his kid can also go online and purchase Manhunt 2 as well.

Very very weak logic being used here. Looks like Jacko failed logic class. I expected better but then again I have set the bar low when it comes to him.

Ok, time to go. I have enjoyed talking with you guys!

@Jack Thompson, who wrote:

"GameStop, by the way, has promised, through its CEO, that any clerk caught doing this will be fired on the spot, as will any store manager where it occurs."

You should hope the alleged promise from GameStop's CEO wasn't made the same way you promised T2 that you'd abide by the terms of your settlement agreement with them.