LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksJack Thompson, the vociferous lawyer who likes attacking video games, has had a bill passed into law in Louisianna...
Read all about it in this slightly depressing Headline.
Jack Thompson, the vociferous lawyer who likes attacking video games, has had a bill passed into law in Louisianna...
Read all about it in this slightly depressing Headline.
Originally Posted by Dareos
So.. lots of "tic-tac-toe" games to be released then?
Like said in the article, certificates are there for a reason.
I wont let my 9 yr old daughter watch certain 12A cert films so why should it be any different for videogames. We bought her a PS2 for Christmas and are limiting the games she has due to content. I dont play anything on the PC at all that isnt suitable for kids whilst they are still up and about and the PC is passworded whilst not in use to stop them from gaining access to some of the games installed.
I personally think that more games should be passed to the BBFC and certified properly instead of just the recommended rating they receive. For example a new Scoby Doo game for the PS2, we know it is going to be suitable for kids but I really feel there should be an enforced certificate on them to back parents up.
I know in video rental stores employees can actually enforce the recommended certificates if they wish to try and make sure minors dont get hold of adult orientated material. If BBFC certificates were on most games at least it has to be enforced by law and should help cut down minors getting hold of titles not intended for them.
Just my personal thoughts on the matter as I have 3 kids myself.
TBH, from the wording of the Hexus article I can't see the big fuss about this. Surely this is just bringing video games into line with films?
You wouldn't want your 12 year old watching a horror film, so why should they play a horror game?
100% agree. I don't have kids, but I think the BBFC ratings work really well. What we also need are shop assistants who do more to either enforce the rating or make it clear to parents what the rating is. I saw a kid who looked about 8 yrs old get an 18 rated game the other day in Game - the kid deliberately covered up the (BBFC) rating with his thumb when showing the box to his dad and the shop assistant didn't say a thing about the rating at any point in the sale.
The fuss is about lawyers like Jack Thompson forcing through unnecessary legislation.
The ESRB already rate games giving clear indications on the cover of the game as to what age group the games are suitable for.
The problem comes in with Jack Thompson, who often sensationlizes a game with outlandish claims, forcing through these laws.
As I said in the article, I agree in principal with the law, but Jack Thompson, given free reign, wouldn't stop there.
This is the guy who has claimed repeatedly that FPS games are 'simulators' which kids use for 'training' before going on a High School shooting spree.
The games he cites as being these 'murder training simulators' include Halo, GTA and he's even had a go at Sims 2 for the nudity mod...
He has been rejected from associatiing himself with notable censorchip lobbying bodies and has even had the parents of a victims of a school shooting publicly denounce his claimed association with them.
iirc, a fund was started with the view to opening up a discussion with him over video games, but the flowers sent to him as a piece offering were forwarded, by Thompson himself, to various industry figures with the message "Discard them along with the decency you discarded long ago. I really don’t care. Grind them up and smoke them if you like."
Have a read of his biog on Wiki
Yep, and we need to educate non-gaming parents too...
It's simply unbelievable the number of parents I know personally that buy an 18 rated game for their kids in the belief that as it's a video game, it's essentially harmless... I even asked a few if they'd buy an 18 rated film for their kids and of course the answer was 'no' but a they see a video game as being less graphic.
This attitude is purely derived from them still thinking games are far less advanced than they actually are.
Still, what might help is Vista, if the parent sets up their child's account properly, it should make access to games rated over the kid's age much more difficult...
Oh, I absolutely agree that Jack Thompson is a donkey phallus and that his methods are sensationalist and underhand.
However, I think the fundamental principle, that children should be protected from 'adult' content, whether they want it or not, should be upheld and that as such this law is necessary.
However, this does raise the question of whether minors will be allowed to sell/hire these games (like booze in the UK - 16 y.o. cashier ringing bell for clearance to sell booze to 85 year old man...). I would imagine that many employees in Louisiana game stores are minors.
thompson is quite severely mentally derranged - his behaviour during his Janet Reno era are pretty clear on that
it's best for the world if everyone ignores him - the problem is that the US government seems to see him as some kind of well-educated visionary rather than a dengerous nut. whilst *we* might ignore him, the lawmakers won't
and the reason that laws like this are bad is that under US law, it seentially marks videogames as inferior - unworthy of protection as "free speech", as they're unable to "convey ideas". "bang a midget 2" is protected speech under the US constitution - if laws like this are allowed to stay, then something like "final fantasy 7" is not
Yup I agree, but that's why I think the shop assistants should do a better job - it's up to them to explain to the parent exactly what they are buying. I don't know, maybe I've got a rose-tinted view of retail, but one of the main advantages of the high street is that you are supposed to have a personal resource in the assistants to help keep you informed - they should be telling you if a game can run on your computer, checking that you know the content of the game if you're clearly buying it for underaged Johnny, and even helping you choose games that you like. They certainly used to 10 years ago
As far as Jack T goes, I confess I can't read the article at work (grr) so forgive me if I'm mis-informed, but as far as I knew, in america ratings are just guidelines, there is no legal requirement to enforce them. In the UK BBFC rated *are* legally enforcable. If he's changing the US guidelines to be more like the UK ones then I'm all for that, as hopefully it will give sellers some accountability.
But I completely don't agree with his other reasonings - infact the above thing about turning a guideline into enforcable rating is probably the only thing I would agree with him on. He is a bit of a nutter, which is a shame as he's probably doing more harm for his cause, some very small elemtnts of which are quite reasonable.
Thing is with my kids is that they look and understand the certificates and ages required on them, its really good that they do. If a game doesn't have an enfoced cert they say they can play it as the ESRB certs arnt as easy for a child to understand.
Another example is Riddick : EFBB, it has a recomended 16+ on it but nothing else. It is quite violent in places and definately not suitable for my 3 kids. I do keep it out the way as I have it on X-Box and PC, but because it doesnt have a proper cert on it one of my 3 would in theory put it on and play as there is nothing there to say they arnt old enough to play it that they recognise.
The law does, in part, enforce the ratings as law, but unlike here, it's a freedom of speech thing as Hex quite rightly pointed out.
Now in Louisianna, a video game has no right to convey a message, of any kind whatsoever.
So something like America's Army, or Barbie Showjumping, or The Sims can now be pulled off the shelves should someone decry them as being harmful to minors... and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
The problem with Jack Thompson is that though he has a valid message, he all too quickly buries it underneath an outpouring of misinformed hyperbole... so much so that even when a serious approach to opening a dialogue is made to him, he aggressively, offensively and unprofessionally rejects it.
He's a worrying individual...
Ahh.. makes me proud to be british, but seriously if you need a bill signed into law, to tell you Doom III has some nasty bits and San Andreas isn't suitable for a 5 year old, then computer games are the last thing you need to protect your children from.
Mary Whitehouse for the American masses. A dangerous mix of a man with strong religious and political views with the added sting of being a lawyer.
He categorises video games depicting any form of violence a training simulator of death!!! ummm....ok! Any rational person can tell the difference. He claimed that the infamous Washington snipers were trained up on Halo and since then he's waged a war on Bill Gates and his "blatent disregard" for Americas youth for not denouncing violent games released on his XBOX platform. Old Mr Thompson didn't start there. Video games are only his latest fad to blight.
In a discraceful act of opportunity he latched onto the case of poor family whos son committed suicide by hanging. Instead of trying to find out the true cause of why, he used the case for his own agenda and instead blamed the TV show South Park and in particular Kenny for the boys death and went about lobbying for Comedy Central to cancel the show. However he trumped himself when the boys parents publically announced their son had never even watched South Park. Oops! Cue one lawyer skulking off into the shadows.
Video games are already categorised and placing the blame in the hands of the publishers is misguided. Banning a game because you get some opportunist lawyer pleading the "video games are to blame for my clients violent attack" line isn't going to work. You don't see them trying to ban religion because some nutter went on a killing spree saying "god told me to do it", do you? Making a movie/TV show/video game a scapegoat only disguises the rooted problem.
Censorship doesn't work that effectively with visual media unless it's backed up by their peers. I mean how many underage kids get to watch movies they shouldn't because their parents don't really care? Responsible parents such as some of the posters on here have the correct attitude and vet what their kids play and watch.
Fair enough. Looks like I'll have to wait till later to read the full article. American law sounds weird with the whole enforcable/free speech thing.
In the end I don't really care about ratings - if we can only ever make U or PG games I won't mind in the slightest - I don't enjoy a game any more just because it has a higher rating, some of my favourite games don't have bbfc classification and low pegi ratings.
That's quite worrying, but doesn't that just mean that they have the right to censor it, just like the BBFC have a right to censor stuff over here? (ok.. I might be able to answer myself better when I've read the article).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
