Forums | MacLife

I think you mean this Jack Thompson, Bat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thomp … ttorney%29

Ooh, yummy. Responses from Kotaku and the ESA.

Thompson You Ignorant smurf

Kotaku wrote:

Jack Thompson's lengthy and insulting letter really needed a lengthy and thoughtful reply. Since that is way beyond my error-prone and rambly prose I decided to post up JKL's lengthy reply. Check it:

Ok, as much as I want to just start raving "idiot, idiot, idiot..." I need to address a few points. The ESA and their related organization, the ESRB, do not make an attempt to control content, quality, distribution or consumption of games. They are merely an advisory board, unlike the MPAA, who have their hands in a multitude of facets of the movie industry. Yes, the ESA is now moving on to the anti-piracy bandwagon, which is perfectly fine, but they understand the industry. They understand the legal and proper uses of a .torrent file, so they don't mess with that aspect. I realize it is quite cliche' to compare the movie and games industry, but it's the closest thing we have to make the argument.

There are awful video games out there that achieve an "M" rating that have a much smaller impact on the general populace and the news media as a whole. The problem arises when a decent selling game which happens to have an M rating hits the streets. The popular culprit for lawmakers to pick on is GTA, as they have here. This game, without the "Hot Coffee" mod/exploit possibly could have earned an Adults-Only rating. From the ESRB's website:

Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

As apposed to the M rating:

Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.

Without the "Hot Coffee" mod/exploit, GTA: San Andreas falls easily into BOTH categories.

The only difference you'll see in these two entries is the "prolonged scenes of intense violence" and the word "nudity" in reference to sexual content. You'll also see that the M rating is given to titles that are for those ages 17+ and the AO is for those that are 18+. I'm not a psychologist, and I know the legal definition (in the U.S.) of an adult is 18, but do we really need these two distinctions if the only difference factor is two words? I realize this is moving towards the standard of having one unified "media rating system"
(tv/movie/game/print/internet/etc...) but why must we incorporate the outdated, fairly pointless parts in the new systems?

Why blame the ESA? Take-Two never came out and said "our mission statement is to peddle a pornographic game to little kiddies!" did they? Rockstar/Take-Two has continued to push the envelope of graphic violence and social commentary since GTA3. (See Manhunt, Red Dead Revolver) Their marketing has never targeted anyone but adults though. You won't see an advertisement for GTA: San Andreas on Nickelodeon, but you will see it on Spike TV. You won't see it during the day on Cartoon Network, but you will see it on Adult Swim.

As I write this, it's still undetermined whether or not the mod that sparked this controversy is an actual exploit mini-game that was hidden in the code or an outside modder's attempt to use the in-game models for some dirty, dirty love. There is no way to access this game outside of some (closed-source) coding wizardry, and it was not disclosed to the ESRB or ESA upon their rating of the software. Does Mr. Thompson think it's suddenly Doug Lowenstein's responsibility to scan every line of code in every piece of media that passes through his hands? The MPAA is required to watch every minute of every movie, but this is not a linear piece of media. The estimated GTA:SA content extends into hundreds of hours.

So where's the liability for them? Mr. Thompson takes pot shots at Take-Two's accounting shortcomings, which is completely out of the realm of the actual issue (which seems to be a Hillary Clinton campaign contribution) of video game maker accountability. Mr. Thompson (or as I like to call him- "Thumper", for no other reason than it makes me laugh) calls Lowenstein a person who demonizes critics who point out criminal fraudulent excesses in his industry yet fails to mention anything other than one non-rating or advising related issue.

Why doesn't Thumper take aim at retailers, for God's sake? God forbid this man take a shot at the overblown retail industry! The ESA does not distribute games. (Does he even realize that?) The ESA cannot prevent a game from being released. The ESA is simply an advisory board trying to help the problems prevalent in the industry. This man just doesn't get it. Lowenstein, though not particularly one of my favorite people, has a perfect understanding of the First Amendment. Maybe not the particular verbiage associated and how it is interpreted, or the result of cases brought to the Supreme Court, but the spirit of the constitution itself.

The ESA and Take-Two are extremely responsible on the level that they are required and expected to be. If Tommy Vercetti showed up killing prostitutes in an E rated game with an exploit that was easily accessible by children, I could see where there would be a problem. In the meantime, Thumper, please get your facts straight. People will do bad things no matter what they're exposed to. It's all a product of their brain chemistry mixed with their environment. Bush is partially right when he says blame the parents. This is NOT the industry's problem, and blaming them to score a political favor with a possible presidential candidate
(echhh...) is unforgivable. I really hope this "open-letter" has scarred any chance of credibility on his part.

Anyone who calls the industry fledgling is silly. It's been around for two decades and impacts a large percent of our population. Come on Thumper. Get real.

The ESA Strikes Back

Doug Lowenstein wrote:

The legislation proposed by Senator Clinton is unconstitutional on its face as it amounts to government enacted restrictions on creative and artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. This is not just our view, but the view of every Federal Court which has rendered final judgment on similar laws enacted by states in recent years, including appellate courts in the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, and the Western District United States District Court. So while we understand Senator Clinton