Xbox Live 360.com. Games and Games.

This week's LGJ gets into a recent US Supreme Court decision and how it may offer a glimpse of how the court could potentially treat similar issues in games, future interactive broadcast TV, and even a bit about potential new justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Read on!

GamePolitics has run a number of stories on the rumor, later squashed, of a Jack Thompson debate at the GDC, in addition to the debate that already occurred. In fact, GP's recent poll is on this very topic. I'd like to voice an opinion that really hasn't surfaced in any of the gaming media on this topic.

The Jack Thompson Debate at GDC would be a waste of time and have no real benefit for the industry.

I'm sure more than a few readers may be outraged by this statement, but I have four specific reasons for my position.

1. It won't change Jack's position.
It has become readily apparent that no amount of reason, logic, or factual evidence, much less the vocal and emotional pleas from fans, will sway Mr. Thompson. He will, in all likelyhood, hold the same stance from now until his death in the distant future. And in the mean time, he will use every waking moment to fight what he considers the "good fight." Mr. Thompson is the definition of a zealot, and although another debate will likely serve point 4, it won't change Mr. Thompson's mind. In fact, I doubt his mind would change if he soundly lost a million debates.

2. It won't reach the mainstream media.
Ultimately, this whole issue is about the perception of the video game in the main stream media and in the main stream American's mind. A debate at a conference of game developers won't make it on CNN or FoxNews or MSNBC. At best, it will make its rounds through the game fan circles, the game media, and maybe the technology media crowd, who are already overwhelmingly opposed to Mr. Thompson's position. The impact on society at large would more than likely be negligible.

3. It gives Jack more free press and attention.
I know my mother always told me to ignore a bully. By bringing in Mr. Thompson for a debate, it will make him the center of attention. And, when asked about the event, I'm sure he will spin his take on the event to his benefit, no matter the outcome. It's another line for his resume that we don't need to provide.

4. Jack would lose, but the only benefit would be an ego boost to people in the industry.
Here's the one benefit, if you can consider it that. Essentially, no matter how large or small the loss, the industry will be happy. And perhaps a video of the event might make its rounds into more mainstream parts of society. But ultimately, it's an ego boost without an impact to the mainstream. We all need ego boosts sometime, but I really think the net benefit here is fairly minimal.

I must admit I am relieved to see that, so far, the GDC has not arranged for this debate to actually occur. To me, the circus that would follow the debate would detract from the conference, and ultimately prove to have little or no benefit to the anti-game censorship cause. However, that is just my opinion, and so feel free to disagree.

I'm certain many of you, the readers, have seen the latest Jack Thompson coverage on Game Politics found here and here. Dennis was quick to point out the FTC provision about credit card ownership being adequate proof of age for online transactions, and the FoxNews contributor was quick to play the free speech card. However, there's an elephant in the room I'd like to address.

Everything Mr. Thompson has said about games applies to movies on DVD.

Anyone with a credit card can go to Amazon.com and pick up Saw I, II, or III (unrated, meaning the more violent cut than the theatrical one) just as easily as you can order Manhunt 2. The same applies to Best Buy, Circuit City, or whatever other entertainment online store you'd like to site. To the same ends, in-store id checks are equally lacking on these (and other) movie titles. While I haven't played Manhunt 2, I can only imagine the graphic content is probably on par with the Saw series, which is exceptionally brutal if you haven't seen the movies. Given that the research on the impact of media is mixed, and that movies have been found to affect young people like games by some studies, why ignore the movie industry?

There can only be a few answers:
1. Mr. Thompson is afraid of the people in the movie industry, as they would likely be viewed as "more powerful" than the game industry.
2. Mr. Thompson is giving undue weight to the unproven link between interactivity and a heightened impact.
3. Mr. Thompson has an unhealthy fixation on and unequivocal bias toward games, which cannot easily be explained.
4. Mr. Thompson's logic is flawed, for some other unexplained reason, so that he either ignores or actually favors violent movies. (Perhaps he is a Saw fan.)

The simple point being: If you would like to go on a crusade against the media, go on a crusade against the media, not one medium.

Ultimately, the decision should still be left to the parents, and the tools are in place for the parents to make those decisions. It is not up to the government, or Mr. Thompson, to make those decisions for society, parents who are failing to perform their duties as parents, or parents who are actively monitoring their child's media consumption. And if anyone is to be held responsible, it should be the inadequate parents, not the game manufacturers, game retailers, or game raters. I can only hope that the news media will tire of this issue soon, or that the American people will begin to realize that playing the "For the Children" card has reached a point where it should be accompanied by automatic scrutiny, as it is rarely actually being used to help the children anymore.

The Video Game Industry can now add Oklahoma to their list of victories against game laws, as an opinion was released today in Entertainment Merchants Association v. Henry, Case No. 5:06-cv-00675 (W.D. Okla.). The opinion grants the plaintiff's request to have the enforcement of the act permanently enjoined.

The opinion makes it quite clear that there is no grounds to support this law. For those unfamiliar, the Oklahoma version of the law placed a $1,000 fine on any dissemination of video games with "inappropriate violence" to minors. This language even included a parent giving a game to a minor. The opinion made a few distinct points on the issues at hand:

1. Video games are protected speech. No particular peculiarities of the medium nor amount of user control can change this legal fact.

2. Regulating violence is a content based restriction on free speech, and therefore presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny. Violence, unlike sexual content, is not regulating obscenity.

3. Video game violence does not compel youth to commit violent acts, nor is there "substantial evidence" of a link between video game violence and youth violence. To quote the opinion on the latter, "Beyond Defendants’ generalized statements, there is a complete dearth of legislative findings, scientific studies, or other rationale in the record to support the passage of the Act. Defendants’ argument that “common sense” dictates that playing violent video games “is not good for children,” and that the onus is on Plaintiffs to prove otherwise, completely fails. (See Defs.’ Resp. at 9.) The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions based on “common sense.” See Kendrick, 244 F.3d at 578; Granholm, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 663-64."

4. The standard on violence in this act was so very vague that it was fatal to the act itself, in addition to the numerous other flaws pointed out. "The Act “does not satisfy the rigorous constitutional standards that apply when government attempts to regulate expression. Where First Amendment freedoms are at stake . . . precision of drafting and clarity of purpose are essential. These prerequisites are absent
here.” Erznoznik, 422 U.S. at 217-18."

The question from here is whether the government officials in Oklahoma see fit to continue to waste taxpayer money and the court's time in addressing this issue, as California seems determined to do. I have long supported the proposition that parents should be controlling their children's media consumption, not the government, and this seems to be another step in the right direction.