If you haven't heard by now, the U.K. is up in arms over a recent murder. The thing that draws attention to this murder though, is that the blame is being placed on Rockstar for their violent games. Mainly Manhunt. Evidently some 17 year old kid killed a 14 year old kid.
Of course, the parents don't want to take the blame for not raising their son properly, so the victim's mother has contacted and hired U.S. attorney Jack Thompson.
Jack Thompson is a fairly well known attorney. He has sued such people as 2 live crew over their lyrics, Howard Stern for his degrading segments, and has protested against video game companies in the past.
He recently did a couple interviews, one on game daily, and one on IGN.
You can find them here
http://biz.gamedaily.com/features_new/jack_thompson/ And here
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/536/536062p1.html I sent an e-mail to this fool after reading his interviews. Here is what I had to say. WARNING! It's long.
Dear Mr. Thompson,
I've just finished reading your "interview" that was posted on IGN.com. I use the term "interview" in quotation marks for the reason that I feel it was not an interview at all. You managed to lay out some mighty big claims during that discussion, but, I found it humorous that you were unable to back them up with any sources. One example I will point out is when you were asked what comic books have ads for violent video games. To which you willingly answered "I don't know". Did I read that correctly? You lay out a claim like that and are unable to back that claim by citing a specific example? If you were serious about your movement to ban violent video games, you would treat every interview as if you were preparing to show a jury "Exhibit: A". Not to mention the fact that many, many adults do read and collect comics. Comics are not only for kids. I am also willing to bet that if you did a study on the subject, you would find that adult males account for most of the comic book industries sales. You also fail to mention that R rated movies are also advertised in comics.
Many of the points you made are NOT fact, no matter how much you want them to be. Case in point: I am twenty-one years of age. I have been playing video games since I was five years of age. I have played just about every violent video game that has received mainstream media attention because of it's violence. Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Mortal Kombat, Riddick, Doom, Wolfenstein, you name it and chances are, I have played it. And even with all of this, I have never once been in a fight, I have no police record, and I have never even gotten a traffic ticket. So my question to you is, if video games have such a negative impact on those who have played them since a young age, why am I, and many others, not effected by it?
Would you like me to answer this for you? The answer is quite simple. Human beings have varying personalities, varying psyches, and varying levels of emotion. What may make one person mad, may make another cry. What may make one person happy, may disgust another. What may be acceptable to one person, may not be to another. Now, with this in mind I would like to take this time to firmly agree with PART of your message. Yes, violent video games CAN have a negative effect on somebody. The part I will disagree with however, is that it is the gaming industries fault for this tragic murder that happened.
The premise of such things is simple. Different people react differently to different things. It is the PARENTS responsibility to know what their child can and can not handle. It is the PARENTS responsibility to know whether or not their child can distinguish between fantasy and reality. And it is the PARENTS responsibility to be involved enough in their childs life to know what kind of things they are exposed to. It is not the video game industries responsibility to determine what a child can or can not handle. Because, as I said, different people react differently to different things. That is a proven fact, and should even be common sense.
The Nintendo ad which you pointed out holds no ground either. Like I said, different people take things a different way. You take that ad, "You are what you play", as a kid playing a game, then going out and imitating it. What it actually means, is that you can immerse yourself in the game. You can play a story and get wrapped up in it, just like when some people read a book. This ad does not promote anything in the nature of going out and imitating actions found within the games.
For you to say that the rating system is a joke, is also a farce. I can give testimony to the fact that I have been carded plenty of times by such stores as Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Gamestop, Babbages, Target, and Toys R' Us. Just because one store in the UK sold a game to a minor, does not mean that every store in the world does that. But then again, there are plenty of movie theaters across America that do not card for an R rated movie. I do not see you protesting against them though now do I?
And I would like to go back to the parents for a moment if I could. Let us face another fact. No kid can order online without a credit card. And no kid can legally hold a credit card unless they are of eighteen years of age anyway. So your whole point about online stores not checking for ID's is all a smoke screen. Where did they get that credit card? I'm willing to guarantee that mommy and daddy bought that violent game for them. And no "kid" has the money to buy video games either. Do you think a fourteen year old holds a job? They can't buy that game without mommy and daddy's money. But the gaming industry is the only one guilty here? Did they put the game in the kids hand?
I have a kid brother who is now thirteen. And yes, there was a time when I kept him away from overly violent movies and games. But I don't anymore. Do you know why? Because I know that he is mentally able to handle such things. He knows the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality. What it all boils down to, is what I stated earlier. It is the PARENTS responsibility to know what their kid can handle, not the gaming companies.
You will not win your case against Rockstar. And I will tell you why. Movies are considered an art form. They are protected under the constitution of the United States of America. Video games are interactive movies. They allow you to make the choices that you want to make in this "movie". A game creator is no different than a director of a film. They both have a vision, they work with other people to see their vision come to life, they both have the freedom to express whatever views and thoughts that they wish to. And most importantly, they do not subject their products to an audience that does not want to see them. It is all a matter of choice. Nobody forces you, or anyone else, to sit down and play a game or watch a movie. Video games are an art form, they are a digital art form. And that is why you will not be able to touch Rockstar.
Video games are properly rated just like movies. Your time should be better spent trying to slap fines on stores that do not card minors while purchasing M rated games. I fully embrace and support the rating system, and have seen it work first hand. I fully believe that any store that sells an M rated game to a minor should be fined. This way, you have nothing to complain about. It's not Rockstar's fault that this game fell into the hands of a seventeen year old. The parents of this murderer have no one to blame but themselves. Perhaps they could of taken the time to be involved with what their child was being exposed to? But we don't think about that do we? No, we don't. Parents point the finger at everyone and everything except themselves. But instead of taking responsibility for not taking the time to learn about such things, you and everyone else point to the maker of a violent game. How this even holds water is beyond me. If some kid gets his hands on some beer, then gets behind the wheel of a car and kills somebody, do we blame Budwesier? No, we blame the kid and the parents. And that's how it should be. It's not Budweiser's fault the kid got a hold of the beer.
Now, I'm sure once you are in the court room and attacking Rockstar, my E-mail here will never see the light of day. And it should because I have offered several examples that prove that it is not the Video games that corrupt the kids. It's the parents who either, A) Can't or won't take the time to learn what their kids are exposed to. B) Refuse to take responsibility for their own short comings. And C) Probably bought the game for them in the first place. And since you could not even offer a credible source to your comic book comment, I certainly have no faith at all that you would take this E-mail and use it in court. Why? Because all of my points are valid. They hurt your case. If you were to put me on the stand then Rockstar would get away without so much as a fine. I am the exact opposite of what you say video games create.
Take my advice, work on having stores strictly enforce the carding policy. I want this more than anything. That way, when another kid kills some other kid because of a video game, you have no one to blame but the parents for buying it for them. And I will say good luck in your case, because you have none against Rockstar.
Sincerely,
Josh F.
