Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-07 10:20:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:delaware, doug lowenstein, first amendment, jack thompson, legislation, louisiana, roy burrell

Louisiana's Looming First Amendment Fight: It's Personal

Let's call this one the "Battle in the Bayou."

Assuming that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco signs Rep. Roy Burrell's video game bill into law, it will, of course, trigger a First Amendment challenge by the video game industry. Nothing new there. We've seen such court cases many times before, in Illinois, Michigan, California and elsewhere.

But this is shaping up as something far more than a court battle. This fight comes equipped with baggage. Lots of baggage.

Controversial Miami attorney and anti-game crusader Jack Thompson wrote Rep. Burrell's bill and testified on its behalf in the Louisiana legislature. Thompson's incessant e-mails are already crowing about yesterday's success in the Louisiana Senate, where the bill passed 35-0

Doug Lowenstein, of course, is the president of the ESA, and the video game industry's point man.

These two do not like each other. In fact, they really don't like each other.

For his part, Thompson says such outrageous and ugly things about Lowenstein that GP wonders why the ESA boss doesn't sue the gadfly attorney for defamation.

The ESA, on the other hand, has placed Thompson on their "ignore" list. They like to pretend he doesn't exist.

Thompson has been issuing frothy assertions about video game violence for years, but 2006 saw his first real foray into the legislative arena. He's been studying past video game rulings, trying to craft a bill that will withstand the inevitable First Amendment challenge. In addition to Louisiana's Burrell, Thompson has been working with Delaware Rep. Helene Keeley (D), although it's unclear whether Keeley's bill will advance.

For his part Lowenstein has guided the industry with a steady hand for more than a decade. The ESA has never lost a constitutional challenge on his watch. Although he's too much of a professional to ever say it, you can bet he's determined not to lose this one. Especially this one.

Stay tuned. This is one fight you won't want to miss.

Update: Jack Thompson commented that he has had some state-level exposure in the past. "I was the chief witness for the Washington State bill two years ago," he said in an e-mail.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...




(50 comments) - (Post a new comment)

I want entertainment...
[info]neosparticus
2006-06-07 03:34 pm UTC (link)
Please, please, PLEASE post some of Jacky Boy's emails about this one. His rantings are an endless source of entertainment for me. ;)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I want entertainment...
[info]dustin1986
2006-06-07 05:34 pm UTC (link)
I don't think that would be in good taste. Besides, it makes him look crazier when you ignore him and he keeps yelling at you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: I want entertainment...
[info]enmitywithin
2006-06-07 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Dennis has said it before, so I'll say it again. NO.

JT had chances to be nice, and he wasn't. he can't post here now, and I say good riddence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]viridiscervus
2006-06-07 03:45 pm UTC (link)
*pulls out popcorn for fight in his own backyard*

Hmm... wonder if anbody will throw a chair...

*waves GO ESRB flag, has big foam finger*

(Reply to this)

WITH REFEREE MILLS LANE
[info]startropics
2006-06-07 03:51 pm UTC (link)
I want a good, clean fight. Now let's get it on!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: WITH REFEREE MILLS LANE
[info]samsoneffect
2006-06-07 07:02 pm UTC (link)
You get a cookie. *cookie*

We also need Michael Buffer as the ring announcer. :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: WITH REFEREE MILLS LANE
[info]curiousthompson
2006-06-08 02:45 am UTC (link)
I was wondering when someone would make a Celeberty Deathmatch reference... In fact, I'm suprised NO ONE made the reference LONG ago during "Web War 3 (Jack Thompson vs the internet)" Hell, why wasn't Celeberty Deathmatch talked about at all even when it WAS made into a bad game... I mean, semi-realistic versions of the celeberties in claymation riping organs out of each other... QUICK! SOMEONE GET MTV AND TELL THEM TO DO AN CD EPISODE OF JACK VS ERIC BAUMAN(Owner of Ebaums world)!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

What e-mails?
[info]duncan_922
2006-06-07 04:32 pm UTC (link)
Is he harrasing you again Dennis?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: What e-mails?
[info]dustin1986
2006-06-07 05:33 pm UTC (link)
Again? He never stopped. He sends him e-mails every other day, and he likely still posts on the comments section daily. He knows that at the very least, Dennis will see his posts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: What e-mails?
[info]jdmdsp911
2006-06-07 05:34 pm UTC (link)
I have a feeling he never stopped harassing Dennis

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: What e-mails?
[info]goliathwins
2006-06-07 06:56 pm UTC (link)
More like he's harassing him STILL.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]finaleve
2006-06-07 05:01 pm UTC (link)
You think HBO should have a fight night special over this one? Just a thoughtful joke there...

"These two do not like each other. In fact, they really don't like each other."
I think that was obvious, i mean, there was a number of usernames he had used that indicated that fact.

"The ESA, on the other hand, has placed Thompson on their "ignore" list. They like to pretend he doesn't exist."
Who honestly wouldn't? If someone like that keeps bashing on many things, he can be legally found as psychotic or hitting that age. Can't let an old man do that to ya, so instead of making a miserable old man realize how miserable he really is, let him be. Best action i think they are doing.

If I had lived in the state, I'd honestly go to this one. I'd even pay money to enter it.

(Reply to this)


[info]crimson_mage
2006-06-07 05:24 pm UTC (link)
While I'd like to just pipe up and say that Thompson can't possibly have done his homework because the bill looks awfully similar to every other Miller-obscenity one that has failed, I'm just gonna play dumb for the sake of my edification and assume that my reading of the law wasn't close enough.

Dennis, what is the big special difference about this law that gives Thompson the confidence to think it'll survive? Or is he just being delusional?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-07 07:58 pm UTC (link)
for one thing it makes no reference to using ESRB rating, which was a common - and surprising - legal failing in a number of bills. You can't use a private standard to create a public law. Also, the bill doesn't try to define violence, but leaves it up to community standards and a judge's review.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Not defining violence means it vague - [info]bigman_k, 2006-06-07 11:50 pm UTC
But Dennis... - [info]brendanthejedi, 2006-06-08 03:32 pm UTC

[info]barfo
2006-06-07 08:26 pm UTC (link)
Well actually I think this is the first one (violence added into the statute using Miller-type language) to get all the way through a legislature and get signed into law (assuming governors signature is a fait accompli at this point), so its not really a matter of thompson not doing his homework by realizing there were other similar bills out there (if you believe him hes the mastermind of all the Miller-type bills), its that he finally gets to take his homework assignment prime-time against the inevitable court review.

I think that Jack even though he knows he cannot win a full victory (14th will likely kill him) is trying to specifically craft bills that will attempt to bring the issue of are video games protected speech to a direct head, under conditions that he likely feels are favourable to him. As ridiculous as it seems to us gamers, all it takes is a few soft rulings (even if they are overall in the industry's favour) to open up a chink in the armor of the first amendment defense (for example if certain games are found to not be proected speech on the basis of content, or if a judge partially buys his "device" or "interactivity" arguments) through which he can ram future attempts. Call me paranoid, but I suspect that the choice of state to get this passed in was at least partly influenced by his feeligns on which Circuit Court would be most favourable to his arguments or something.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bigman_k, 2006-06-07 11:46 pm UTC

[info]pat_trick
2006-06-07 05:51 pm UTC (link)
frankly, it's in the esa's best interest to completely ignore thompson. nothing he says is worth listening to, and to listen to him is to give it implicit credence that it doesn't have.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-07 07:57 pm UTC (link)
yeah, people keep saying that, but his influence is growing, not diminishing. Now he's inside state legislatures writing and passing laws, for goodness' sake.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dustin1986, 2006-06-07 10:30 pm UTC
Hey, GP...
[info]sabin_blitz
2006-06-07 06:49 pm UTC (link)
Call me crazy, but I think I might know why Doug doesn't sue him. I have 2 theories. One, and probably the least likely of the two is that like us, though he does know that the nutjob is a definitely an entity, Mr. Lowenstein finds Jack moderately amusing but more of a minor annoyance. The second, and the one I think is the most likely, is that he knows that even if he sued the lawsuit-happy lawyer and won, Jack would still keep coming back blowing his horn and keeping his ugly legal noisehole pried open with a crowbar. In fact, he'd probably turn around and declare that the suit was proof that he's right and the gaming industry is simply trying a less violent method, a.k.a. not sending in their squad of crack commando gamers trained to perfection on GTA to end his "fight for justice, the children and God", to get him out of the picture. Does this seem at all likely?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Hey, GP...
[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-07 07:56 pm UTC (link)
both scenarios are entirely plausible. Doug obviously has his reasons. I know my thoughts on the matter would run in a different direction than Doug's.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Hey, GP... - [info]dkh, 2006-06-07 08:12 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-06-07 08:27 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]skemodan, 2006-06-07 08:31 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]hilaryduffgta, 2006-06-07 08:53 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]dkh, 2006-06-07 09:41 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]trencher, 2006-06-07 09:42 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-06-07 11:13 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]phantompvp, 2006-06-07 11:41 pm UTC
Re: Hey, GP... - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-06-08 12:19 am UTC

[info]father_time89
2006-06-07 11:36 pm UTC (link)
If/when Jack loses I wonder what he'll try to then?

(Reply to this)

(Deleted post)
Re: I for one want to see the bill passed...
[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-08 12:26 am UTC (link)
I don't know that a First Amendment loss would add up to being "publicly discredited." If that were the case there would be pols in Michigan, Illinois, etc who have been publicly discredited. I think people see that as the typical win-lose that happens on appeals.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Let me look at the tale of the tape here..... - [info]beardoggx, 2006-06-08 02:03 am UTC

[info]dustin1986
2006-06-08 01:01 am UTC (link)
Thank God Jack can't post here anymore! We'd be up to six pages responses arguing with him over this story. I'm sure he's frothing at the mouth right now. Let me guess, Dennis. He's already sent you a few comments about it today hasn't he? Something to the effect of "It's gonna be a big fight, and I'm gonna win and shove it right back in your face!"

A lot of people call Jack a modern day Frederick Wertham (the anti-comic dude), but he's not. Fred had more credibility. I'm amazed that there is such a staggering amount of evidence showing that Jack is wrong.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Actually
[info]jquilty
2006-06-08 05:24 am UTC (link)
I'd say he's more of a Joe McCarthy type. Witch Hunts with no credibilty, claims that were false, and wowing people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]beardoggx
2006-06-08 01:20 am UTC (link)
Jack will be eating plenty of crow in the coming months when this pile of garbage is ruled unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Then he could cry about how crow tastes.

And, like the house vote, it wasn't unanimous either. 35-0, with four either absent or not voting.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Oh and a column about the Columbine internet game I found
[info]beardoggx
2006-06-08 01:51 am UTC (link)
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/14741885.htm

It was in the Times-Picayune today.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Oh and a column about the Columbine internet game I found - [info]hsilman, 2006-06-08 02:22 am UTC
Re: Oh and a column about the Columbine internet game I found - [info]terminator44, 2006-06-08 02:33 am UTC
Re: Oh and a column about the Columbine internet game I found - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-06-08 02:54 am UTC
Re: Oh and a column about the Columbine internet game I found - [info]rich_d7, 2006-06-08 10:11 am UTC

[info]dustin1986
2006-06-08 03:59 am UTC (link)
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/711/711706p1.html

Wow! How does IGN get so many great scoops?


(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-08 08:01 am UTC (link)
LOLers, D86....

More people read GP than we know...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]altoidaddiction
2006-06-08 04:44 am UTC (link)
Anyone that thinks of "discrediting" Jack Thompson through a lawsuit as feasible is missing the point. Videogames are the 'it' when it comes to politicians jumping on petty social issues to push their campaigns. He could be sued successfully ten times over and they would continue to work with him because they need to feign some kind of interest in an area ordinary people feel is tangible to them, where there is a sense of equal footing between us and them, and his name right now is mark of credit, "I've worked with Jack Thompson and various other social leaders on this issue".

The two [Thompson and politicians] are using each other for mutual gain; Jack gets to push his Victorian views on the public and your local representative gets a chance to move up the ranks. We aren't going to find rhyme nor reason in anything to do with games in legislature for a long time to come because of it, and in the end all anyone can really do is deal with it and let the ESA repeatedly beat them in court. None of these are drafted to pass into law, and everyone knows it.

We should actually be thankful that someone as shortsighted and extremist as Jack has come to prominence, as opposed to someone that knows what the hell they're doing and uses his/her position to deface gaming in the public eye. Thompson is either preaching to the choir or converting the ignorant right now, whereas someone with competence would be trying to make gains outside their circle of influence. Most reasonable people laugh him off in the same way they do Ann Coulter; it's actually worse in that sense because Coulter at least inspires national outrage every once in a while. It's all good baby.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-08 08:04 am UTC (link)
It really shouldn't be a matter of "discrediting" Thompson. He's certainly entitled to his opinion, to state his views, and to participate in the political process.



(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-06-08 04:10 pm UTC
SNAKES ON A PLANE.
[info]thevelociraptor
2006-06-08 07:45 am UTC (link)
FIRSTAMENDMENTFIRSTAMENDMENTFIRSTAMENDMENTFIRSTAMENDMENTFIRSTAMENDMENT

Jeez, when will this stop? Once it reaches Supreme Court or whatever, a judge will knock it down.

Oh, and if it is ratified, will I be able to still play GTA or HL2 when I visit my grandmother in Louisiana?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Chilling Effect.
[info]kitsune361
2006-06-08 06:15 pm UTC (link)
The biggest problem I see with that reasoning is that Writs of Certiorari doesn't grow on trees. It can take years for a case to get to the Supreme Court level. Who knows how many people are going to be in prison and/or run out of business while the process occurs? And who wants the trouble of defending themselves vs. a law like this? The lawyer's bill might still run them out of business. Even if it's struck down it'll have the chilling effect JT and Co. want.
Hopefully the appellate court will do the right thing and end this quickly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(50 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…