You have got to be kidding me.
Apparently even Jack Thompson wants in on the Halo 3 marketing blitz.
Honestly, after his attack against BioShock, an attack on Halo 3 probably shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. Fortunately for me, GamePolitics posted the official complaint Thompson issued to the Florida Bar, so let's get right into it.
Before even getting into the document, I think the most amusing thing is just how far off the deep end this man has gone. As I'm sure everyone remembers, this is the exact same thing that Jack tried to do with Bully. What did that get him? An official complaint filed with the Florida Bar and a psychiatric evaluation, to say nothing of the fact that the game came out anyway. Does he really expect the exact same complaint to work with a different game?
The first ridiculous thing is the date of the complaint. It was filed today, Friday, September 21, 2007. For those keeping track, Halo 3 is set to launch this coming Tuesday and all copies of the game are already in the hands of retailers. Is he expecting to be granted a hearing and successfully convince the court to block sale of the game in three days?
It gets better from there. He lists the complaint as being from "John B. Thompson on behalf of the state of Florida." Wow, this complaint really has merit. He's got everyone in the state of Florida behind him! Being a bit presumptuous Jack?
Next comes the legal jargon. Apparently Jack's problem is the future sale of Halo 3 to individuals under the age of 17. So what, he's Nostradamus now too? Even more amazing is that he cites the law he's invoking against Halo 3 and for the life of me I can't see where it mentions video games anywhere.
"...tend[s] to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals...any house or place of prostitution, assignation, lewdness or any place or building where games of chance (i.e. gambling) are engaged in violation of law or any place where any law of the state is violated, shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance..."
Oh yeah, illegal gambling and prostitution. I can totally see a video game connection there.
The following section is easily the most amusing. In a section called "THE FACTS", Jack outlines all of the reasons that Halo 3 should be banned as a nuisance and swears, "so help [him] God" that they're all true. Well Jack, you're going to be needing a a lot of the big guy's help.
Thompson starts his list in grand fashion by being wrong from the get go, claiming that Microsoft and Best Buy (they're the only retail outlet selling the game apparently) are preparing to sell Halo 3 on October 25, 2007. Hm, maybe that's why he issued this today, he thinks he still has a month to block the game.
Jack's next line has got to be my favorite. "Halo 3 is a video game that allows the virtual reality player to rehearse violent acts resulting in the death of one's virtual victims", or for the less pretentious among us, "You kill people in this game." Wow, way to describe 99% of all video games. I love how he describes the gameplay as the rehearsal of violent acts that result in death. Yeah, I find whenever I'm faced with the task of killing hordes of invading aliens a video game is the best way to prepare.
Immediately following this he jumps right to the insanity we all know him for. He cites the DC Beltway Shootings and claims that Lee Boyd Malvo used Halo to train himself to fire a sniper rifle. In addition, Malvo's partner, John Muhammad, knew how effective Halo was at training killers as the army in which he served used the gam...er, "murder simulator" to train snipers to kill. First of all Jack, Halo had nothing to do with those attacks. Malvo was also found to have a scrap of paper referencing The Matrix in his pocket, that doesn't mean he shot those people in the name of Zion. Yeah, Malvo may have played Halo, a lot of us have, but that doesn't mean we all know how to fire sniper rifles. Also, if Muhammad truly was trained to snipe using Halo then that must have been one sorry excuse for an army. Personally, I have no idea how to operate a sniper rifle but I can guarantee you it isn't "Push the right analog stick and then press the right trigger." He tries to bring credibility to this claim by saying that the Halo connection was reported on NBC news. Yeah, and Jack reported the video game connection to the VTech shootings on the news before the killer was even identified. That doesn't change the fact that there was no connection.
Jack then proceeds to try and prove his claim using questionable studies, speculation, and outright nonsense. He then claims that the ESRB's existence is the industry acknowledging that violent games are harmful. Whatever you say Jack.
Lastly, he claims that last time he was chasing after Best Buy's ambulance they agreed to ID anyone when selling a Mature rated video game. In what he calls a "sting", Jack sent his own 15-year-old son to Best Buy to buy a copy of BioShock (I assume the concept of irony is lost on him), which he was able to do. Based on the fact that one person was able to buy an M rated game without being IDed Jack was successfully able to conclude that Best Buy is never going to ask for ID from anyone when selling an M rated game. Ever.
He then goes on to complain about how Microsoft is aggressively advertising the game to "teen boys" to ensure that it becomes "the best-selling video game of all time". I didn't know Microsoft was trying to beat Super Mario Bros. sales record. He goes on but honestly I'm getting sick just reading this dreck.
Seriously, Jack, man, get a hobby or something (one that isn't trying to censor any video game you deem worthy of censorship). This is yet another instance in which Jack shows us all that he isn't out for the good of the people. No, he's out for his own gain. How do I know this? Jack consistently only targets popular violent games, not just violent games. Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, BioShock, Halo, all huge names that are well known in the public eye but they're hardly the only violent games. What about Persona 3, where you have to shoot yourself in the head (though not with a real gun) to unleash your power? What about Sega's Yakuza series, where they drop more f-bombs than anyone ought to and where your means of disposing of your foes is through bloody and brutal hand to hand combat?
Seriously though, he's after Halo of all games. I've always referred to Halo as an M rated game that doesn try to live up to its rating. By that I mean that Halo's goal isn't to be ultraviolent and gory and thus achieve an M. No, Halo's only M rated offense is that when shot or otherwise dispatched, enemies bleed for the sake of realism. It's not even that violent. If you get a headshot with a sniper rifle does your Covenant foe's head explode into chunks of skull and brains? No, there's just a splatter of blood and he falls over dead. What about when you kill someone with a grenade? Do they get blown into bloody pieces that fly every which way? Once again no. They simply bleed, go rag-doll and fly through the air before hitting the ground. To top it all off, throughout the entire single player campaign you are never "rehearsing violent acts against" other humans. The enemies in all three of the games have been non-human aliens. Even though it has never been proven that violent games turn kids into killers, at least with Grand Theft Auto and its ilk you can argue that the game simulates reality at least a little. Halo has you take control of a genetically and cybernetically enhanced soldier fighting aliens. Even when you're in multiplayer you're fighting aliens or other cyborg soldiers. To top it all off, you're never going to find a real gun that operates using analog sticks.
So in closing, go ahead and file your complaint Jack. No one will care, the world will keep on spinning, and Halo fans everywhere, including fans from the state you submitted this complaint "on behalf of", Florida, will still be playing the game this Tuesday when it's officially released.
Comment Response 1: Ah yes, I knew I was going to get at least one supporter of Doug Lowensetin's Jack Thompson Theory. For those of you unfamiliar with Doug's remarks, he claimed that the only reason Jack has any credibility is because we gamers won't shut up about him. He argued that any time Jack attacks the industry we should basically stick our fingers in our ears and go "La la la, we can't hear you." Obviously, be it as I'm talking about him, I disagree with Lowenstein and his supporters. I think Jamaius said it best down in the comments. He said that though Jack has minimal influence his power could easily snowball if he were to gather a large group of supporters. You know what would make that really easy for him? If we just ignored him and said nothing about his endless assault on our hobby of choice. I know that his "facts" from his Halo 3 complaint are ridiculous, you guys know it and most gamers know it. You know who probably doesn't know? The large majority of middle America, that's who. History has shown that it's typically left up to gamers to defend ourselves when the industry comes under attack. So what happens if we stop speaking up? Jack keeps spewing out these ludicrous attacks of his and every "Won't somebody think of the children?" soccer mom in the country rallies behind him and we just sit there and say nothing? Honestly, I think if that's our plan of action we may as well just come out and agree with whatever he says if we're not going to bother to refute it. EDIT: OK, I didn't say it at first but MuscleCarMan alluded to it in the comments so I'll insert my original argument for why "Ignore it and it will go away" doesn't work. The majority of Europe and America both thought that if they ignored Hitler and the Nazis they'd eventually go away too. I'm sure you all know how well that worked.
Honestly though, do people just expect Jack to fade into a cloud of vapor if we stop talking about him? He's been doing these kind of things his entire "career." He's attacked the music industry, the porn industry, and now the video game industry. Though many people think he's just doing it for attention, he really isn't. He's come out before and said, and I quote that "God put [him] on this earth to fight violent video games." The man thinks he's on a bloody mission from GOD to stop violent video games. Regardless of what that psychiatric evaluation said there's obviously something wrong with the man. If we go silent he'll simply think to himself that he's beaten us.
Lastly, I don't understand how gamers are giving him any shred of credibility. Yeah, we may talk about him a lot, but it's not like when we do we're all hiding behind our controllers and saying "Man, I wish that Thompson guy would shut up. People are going to find out the truth and take our murder simulators away." Far from it. Any time we mention Jack Thompson we're either questioning his sanity, baffled as to how he ever became a lawyer, or writing overly long blog entries that debunk his legal complaints piece by piece. That's acknowledging him as a threat? Sounds more like acknowledging him as a joke.
Comment Response 2: Binarynova brings up a good point and I would have to agree that gamers bashing Thompson and threatening him in forums (by the way, to those if you in the "I want to kill Jack Thompson" crowd, I shouldn't have to point out the foolishness of threatening to kill someone when they claim that video games make people violent) help to portray the negative gamer stereotypes. However, this was not what Lowenstein was referring to. Lowenstein claimed that no one should give any press at all to the man, and that would include my article here, the GamePolitics article that inspired it, and any others like them.
Comment Reponse 3: Wow, these just keep coming. Anyway, there's two comments I want to mention.
First, sdcazares1980, you say you see what I'm saying but I'm not really sure that you do and I also think you don't have all your facts straight. I think my Hitler metaphor sent the wrong message. I am in no way comparing Jack Thompson to Adolf Hitler The Hitler reference was merely an extreme metaphor saying that ignoring something and hoping it will go away isn't a good solution to a problem. You go on to say that Thompson has been discredited numerous times and held in contempt of court as well. Not everyone knows that and even if they do it isn't a guarantee that people won't listen to him. Also, how do you think he keeps getting discredited (hint: this article and the one it references might be good places to look)? I think the point of the article got lost somewhere as well. This article's purpose, as its title would lead you to believe, is to discuss Jack Thompson and his complaint with Halo 3, not the whole game industry and its attackers. Speaking of which, you mention Hilary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. Do you know that earlier this year both of them voiced their support for the ESRB and have made no major attacks on the industry since? You also reference Arnold and I have to say he doesn't worry me at the moment. Why? His law was already thrown out and he is currently in the process of wasting Californian taxpayers' money trying to appeal it. Ultimately the law will be thrown out again and the people of California will have to cover the cost just like every other time some misguided politician has tried to challenge the Constitution. One thing you said really worries me though. You claim that R-rated movies can't be sold to kids and that you don't see why there shouldn't be a law making the sale of M rated video games to kids illegal and that's where you're wrong. There is NO law restricting the sale of R-rated moves to children. Movies are rated the same way games are rated, by a committee selected by the industry that reviews the content. It is then left up to theaters and retailers to enforce the ratings. It would be a complete double standard to have such a law exist for video games. I'm all for such a law if they're going to make it illegal to sell R-rated movies and Parental Advisory CDs to kids too, but that isn't going to happen.
Second, RaohTheKenoh, I'd have to agree. Thompson does make one or two good points every now and again but they're always so enshrouded in stark-raving lunacy that they're impossible to take seriously. Yeah, children probably shoudln't play M-rated games or watch R-rated movies but that isn't for Thompson or anyone else but the parents to decide. I personally wouldn't let a child play Grand Theft Auto but once again, that's not my call. That's what the ESRB is for, to inform parents and help them make the decision on their own. If a parent allows their child to watch an R-rated movie then they'd probably allow the child to play an M-rated game as well. Thompson and many others want the government to step in and life the responsibility of parenting from the shoulders of parents.
As far as carding goes, the industry has been steadily improving in that regard. Sure, not 100% of retailers do it, but there are many theaters and retailers that don't card for movies 100% of the time either. Once again, it's a double standard levied against games. I have a little story about carding. I was up at the mall with my friends one night and they wanted to buy cigarettes (we were all 18 at the time). Though they were both 18, my friends could have easily been younger and one of them didn't even look 18. They walked up to the counter and my younger looking friend hands money to my other friend at the counter and he buys the cigarettes without so much as a single request for ID. Later on, we went over to the Best Buy nearby and I bought a copy of The Warriors for the Xbox and I got carded. Not requesting ID is not a video game specific problem and you have to ask yourself which is more dangerous: not carding for a game or not carding for cancer inducing cigarettes?
Thompson's complaint is also ridiculous in the fact that he isn't simply requesting that all shoppers be carded. He is trying to have a video game declared a public nuisance. That's insanity. You agree with me that learning to snipe from Halo is ridiculous, but go on to say that I can't deny that violent games have an effect on the human mind, and I can't. As you said, violent games cause a small increase in aggression levels in players and studies have confirmed this. What these studies have also confirmed is that this increase is temporary. So yeah, video games give you a slightly heightened agression level for a short time after playing. You know what else does that? Any other violent media or even sports for that matter. Do you think that people don't get aggressive playing American Football? I can guarantee you no one is going to try and get Football declared a public nuisance. You claim that we have to be more vigilant about ratings in order to claim Thompson has no grounds and I disagree. If the world wants to hold gaming to some picture perfect standard then all other forms of media should be held to the same standard.
The last thing you said worries me and is essentially the essence of censorship. You claim that most of us are alright with violent media but for some people (perhaps mentaly unstable) that the constant violence could send them over the edge. This is true, but it doesn't have to be a game. If someone is mentally unstable it could be any kind of violent media. A violent movie, a song with violent lyrics, a violent comic book, any of these images could make these people snap. Denying all of the stable people access to these things because a select few people could be negatively affected is ludicrous. In the words of Mark Twain:
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
I don't buy into the whole "interactive vs passive" nonsense either. As I stated, you agree that holding a controller has no correlation to real world violence. So why is it that pressing a button and watching a guy get shot is so much worse than just watching the guy get shot? If you were watching a movie and you had to press a button on your remote every time someone was going to get shot would that turn it into some horrible murder simulator? No, you'd still just be pushing a button.
Lastly, I got a call a few hours ago from GameStop about their Halo 3 midnight launch. Anyone want to guess what a certain piece of information from that message was?
"GameStop will begin selling Halo 3 to shoppers 17 years of age or older at Midnight on Tuesday."