gamepolitics: Louisiana A.G. Vows to Take Jack Thompson Game Law to Supreme Court

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-07-02 08:55:00

Entry tags:

burton guidry, charles foti, doug moreau, jack thompson, judge brady, legislation, louisiana, supreme court

Louisiana A.G. Vows to Take Jack Thompson Game Law to Supreme Court

The fallout continues from Friday's hearing on the video game industry's challenge to the Louisiana game law drafted by Jack Thompson.

As reported by GamePolitics on Friday, Federal District Court Judge James Brady expressed obvious criticism of the Louisiana law from the bench - a bad sign for the video game legislation sponsored by Rep. Roy Burrell (D) and written by Thompson.

Today's Shreveport Times has more, including Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti's vow, expressed by Assistant Burton Gudiry that, "The office of the attorney general is going to defend this all the way to the (U.S) Supreme Court."

Some of Guidry's remarks at Friday's hearing seemed scripted by Jack Thompson, as when Guidry said that video games "teach a kid how to kill, how to rape, how to defile a person, how to kill an officer. Video (game industry) people hide behind the fact that it's a cartoon."

Guidry represented the state along with East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Doug Moreau. During the proceedings Judge Brady said he was searching for evidence of "a young person watching a video game immediately getting up and going out a committing a violent act."

Although Moreau said there was "plenty of circumstantial evidence," other comments reported by the Shreveport Times indicate that Moreau, a named co-defendant in the video game industry suit, is not impressed by the video game law. As reported by the newspaper:

"The district attorney said he does not like the way the law was constructed because it does not spell out how to enforce it. 'But nobody consulted me.'"

During the hearing, Assistant A.G. Guidry told Judge Brady that some video games feature language so coarse "that if I uttered it in this courtroom, you would have someone drag me out of here."

GP: That's an especially surprising - and pointless - comment from Mr. Guidry of the A.G.'s office. The Louisiana law deals with video game violence. Language, however, is obviously speech. Books, movies, music and even cable T.V. feature profanities that, if uttered in a court of law, would also get one held in contempt. So what's the relevance, counselor?

As far as the Attorney General's vow to take the case to the Supreme Court (pictured) if need be, that's probably a good thing in the long run. Of course, vowing to appeal and doing so are two different things. Gov. Rod Blagojevich promised an appeal of the failed 2005 Illinois video game law, but that never went very far.

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

(42 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Looking for a fight he can never win

yukimurasanada
2006-07-02 01:57 pm UTC (link)

You know, for an AG, he sure seems to be looking for a battle he can't ever win. He should have had the smarts to do his homework first. Maybe then he'd have known better then to take the advice of a Lawyer whose not won a single case in years and was thrown of his last case for misconduct.

To complicate things, Thompsons bill borrowed heavily from others, while also appling the miller test, a method the Supreme court ruled years ago could not be applied to Violence, ergo, the bill was automaticly going against as supreme court ruling. Granted, it's a 30 year old ruling, but still, a supreme court ruling none the less.

Sorry, but the ag might be best served to just drop it and let the bill die quietly. It will only end bad for him in the long run. Hopefully, it ends up worse for thompsons carrer once this bill goes down, but honestly, if the failure of this bill doesn't cause the ESA to pursue legal action against thompson for the slander and libel he's spat over the years, then it most likely won't happen.

Pick Battles you can win. Advice from thompsons book, to bad he never followed it. The industry wins all it's battle, but never goes on the offensive, always playing defense.

Enough of that, it's time to go and take the bite out of this election year BS. The ESA should be making sure the whole USA knows that after all that happens, with the war in iraq, Rita, Katrina, and now the horrible flooding, what are politicans wasting time and money on.

Video games!.

Yeah, that would go over well.

(Reply to this)

	I say go ahead.... bigman_k 2006-07-02 02:30 pm UTC (link)
	Take it to the Supreme Court and then when this bill is struck down as the 100% unconstitutional piece of shit it is, all this retarded anti-gaming legislation will finally end. Then you can go on to the next social ill that is "supposedly" destroying your youth. Politicans = Braindead Retards. (Reply to this)

dreamshade
2006-07-02 02:34 pm UTC (link)

Oh, please, let them get it before the Supreme Court. I would love to see the results of that, and the message it would send to politicians on a national level. If SCOTUS rules against the state, it could curtail such legislation all over the country. If it rules for the state, it could cause a furor with other art forms - namely the movie industry - and threaten to get seriious work done by those industries to oppose future law.

(Reply to this)

	ace_ofspade 2006-07-02 02:52 pm UTC (link)
	Again there is no rape in mainstream videogames and defileing in maybe two games. And again with the "stuff so bad, I can't even prove it to you" dodge. Everyone involved fails at life. (Reply to this)

wedgetalon
2006-07-02 02:56 pm UTC (link)

Guidry said that video games "teach a kid how to kill, how to rape, how to defile a person"

He's absolutely right!

How to kill: First, hold down R1 to lock on. Then press the action button to fire!

How to Rape: Once the minigame beings, move the joystiq up and down really quick!

How to defile: Press the P key!

w00t! I'm such a deviat law-defying machine! Bwahaha!

(Reply to this)

	So, this will mean that Louisiana is the stage of the "final" legal battle ! doggyspew 2006-07-02 02:59 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you Louisiana. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: So, this will mean that Louisiana is the stage of the "final" legal battle ! gatz111085 2006-07-03 12:13 am UTC (link)
	Final Battle FIGHT! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: So, this will mean that Louisiana is the stage of the "final" legal battle ! terminator44 2006-07-03 02:18 am UTC (link)
	I can see it now. Industry wins. Constitution-ality. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: So, this will mean that Louisiana is the stage of the "final" legal battle ! l0que 2006-07-03 04:59 am UTC (link)
	You sir, get one E-cookie (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: So, this will mean that Louisiana is the stage of the "final" legal battle ! terminator44 2006-07-03 08:17 pm UTC (link)
	E-COOKIE! nibbles (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: So, this will mean that Louisiana is the stage of the "final" legal battle ! gatz111085 2006-07-04 01:17 am UTC (link)
	dude somone should so make a mortal combat type fighting game like that. you could have Leeland Yee, Patricia Vance, Jack Thompson, Lieberman and Clinton etc. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: So, this will mean that Louisiana is the stage of the "final" legal battle ! terminator44 2006-07-04 03:48 am UTC (link)
	That's a great idea. Since Midway is looking to end the MK series with the next game, maybe they could start a spin-off franchise. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Do these guys even learn about The Constiution

trenthowell
2006-07-02 03:12 pm UTC (link)

Seriously though, it seems like politicians don't know crap about the Constituion or they simply want to ignore it for their own gains. I want to see this go to the Supreme Court, see it struck down there, and show these anti-gaming douchebags that gaming is classified as free speech and thus protected under the 1st ammendment.

If they are so concerned over violence in gaming, just look no farther than your damn TV. I see blood, violence, drugs, and sex on it ALL THE TIME. Movies, same thing. Blood, violence, drugs, and sex.
Books, they may not be visual but the point still remains. Blood, violence, drugs, and sex. All three are protected under free speech.

Video games: do they have blood yes, but guess what some games have the option of turning it off or changing the color of the blood to something less human. Do they have violence, definently ranging from the comical cartoonish type to the realistic(no different than tv/movies). Drugs, yes and GTA sticks out to mind there, but i find it a rarity in gaming, TV and movies have heavier drug references. Sex, uh yeah. What media form doesnt have sex in it nowadays.

Only difference is that its interactive and some games give the choice to be as violent or as nonviolent as you want. I will guarentee that some kids immitated the Harry Potter books and movies but no one scrutinized them except maybe the religious zealots saying Harry Potter is satanism. But thats still protected under free speech.

Depicting violence in any media form, whether its gaming, movies, TV, or books, ect. Its protected under the 1st ammendment

Commiting an act of violence or crime is not. And anyone that commits a crime because of they wanted to immitate and partiuclar media form, was screwed up long prior to playing/watching/reading whatever they blamed it on.

The AG needs to get his head out of his ass and realize that he can't win this. No one can win this except the gaming industry. The industry has a rock hard defense that can't be broken and if it is broken, then America has truly gone to crap and the Constitution becomes really just that, a piece of paper.

(Reply to this)

Of Parrots and Puppets.

nightwng2000
2006-07-02 03:15 pm UTC (link)

"Some of Guidry's remarks at Friday's hearing seemed scripted by Jack Thompson, as when Guidry said that video games "teach a kid how to kill, how to rape, how to defile a person, how to kill an officer. Video people hide behind the fact that it's a cartoon.""

I believe it has been asked many times before, but never, ever, answered:
What game, sold or rented in a brick and mortar retail store allows the gamer to commit the act of rape against any virtual character (as there are no living characters in video games)?

It always comes down to inflammatory, misleading comments by the opposition.

You'll notice the above quote. "...teach a kid how to kill..." AND "...how to kill an officer..." Let's make it appear that a more horrid act has been commited when it's a VIRTUAL (of course, that word would never be used by the opposition, it would put matters into perspective, can't have that) police officer as opposed to a VIRTUAL citizen.
Or how about during one of the later hearings in Louisiana that IMPLIED the capability of a player to use there virtual character to rape a virtual victim in a game. Of course, they couldn't show the "evidence" (which doesn't exist, but let's make the claim, hit the audience's buttons, and make them not ask for that evidence). Much like from the article "During the hearing, Assistant A.G. Guidry told Judge Brady that some video games feature language so coarse "that if I uttered it in this courtroom, you would have someone drag me out of here."" As pointed out, the language is speech and of the games sold in brick and mortar stores in the US, where is that language any worse than what is written in a fair number of books also sold in brick and mortar stores in the US (and, yes, I am excluding "officially" defined adult material such as Playboy, Hustler, etc. Even books in libraries would have similar content).

Or the ever popular reference to the yet-to-be-released video game Bully being a "murder simulator", though no factual evidence proving that claim has ever existed. But claim is believed, over and over again.

Shell-gamery is a popular pasttime for certain individuals, and those who believe it and repeat it may end up finding such lies and deceit will eventually destroy their arguments. And who will they blame then? It would be more intelligent not to take such things at face value and demand proof. The next intelligent thing, for those who already accepted the lies and deceit, to blame the people who lied to them, rather than try and shift the blame with more lies and deceit. Frankly, if I were them, I'd say it would be in the best interest of the politicians to accuse the originator(s) of such lies and misinformation with sabotage of their legislation. After all, when those repeating the lies and deceit find themselves less trusted, it should be those that lied to them that should pay the price, not making up new lies to defend the old ones.

And once this does hit the Supreme Court, and the issue finally put rest against the opponents, what can they do then? Somebody better start coming up with Plan B to save their careers. Will they continue to be parrots and puppets, or will someone finally wake up and start pointing the finger in the direction of who is truly to blame for their defeat?

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Of Parrots and Puppets.

kyouryuu
2006-07-02 06:04 pm UTC (link)

IIRC, the so-called evidence of games that spread hatred were non-commercial Flash games hate groups put together on the Internet. It's not a stretch to say if they wanted to "prove" the rape component, they could find some random Flash game that depicted the act. That's the thing about politicians. Their knowledge of any subject is superficial, no matter what they claim to be "experts" in. If they are shown a Flash game, which isn't even sold in stores or covered by this bill, they'll believe it. To try to define the difference only invites the "splitting hairs" argument from jokers like Thompson.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Of Parrots and Puppets.

nightwng2000
2006-07-02 10:44 pm UTC (link)

Yes, but the splitting hairs argument is what is needed to destroy the legislation that was passed using the misleading information. After all, the legislation ONLY applies to brick and mortar retailers. Therefore, only materials sold in brick and mortar retailers should be allowed to be referred to as evidence in the creation of the legislation. Any other material is totally irrelevant to the issue of the legislation and therefore proves the use of false "evidence" in an effort to manipulate the audience (citizens and government officals alike) into passing such legislation. In doing so, an act of Fraud could be raised as the goal is a political gain, which is also a gain under the definition of Fraud. See the following legal definition:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=785&bold=||||

Frankly, I've never understood why Fraud has not been charged in cases where false information was used to pass such legislation.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)

enmitywithin
2006-07-02 03:28 pm UTC (link)

The office of the attorney general is going to defend this all the way to the (U.S) Supreme Court. It's not going to curtail the free speech of anybody."

really? what about those 17-year old minors?

"teach a kid how to kill, how to rape, how to defile a person, how to kill an officer. Video people hide behind the fact that it's a cartoon."

if you can show me a game that teaches a kid to rape and kill, I'll show you a game that doesn't exist.

During the proceedings Judge Brady said he was searching for evidence of "a young person watching a video game immediately getting up and going out a committing a violent act."

stop looking, you won't find it.

"The district attorney said he does not like the way the law was constructed because it does not spell out how to enforce it. 'But nobody consulted me.'"

oh snap! your own people are owning you!

Assistant Attorney General Burton Guidry and East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Doug Moreau argued that the state bans the sales of other things to minors, such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography and other things deemed harmful, so it should be allowed to restrict the sale of harmful video games.

like I said before, games are not harmful, they have been proven helpful. if you want to restrict them, be my guest, but you'll be screwed in the long run.

"This is more than speech. This is truly training for violence," Guidry said. "You assume the character of a mass murderer. You go out and kill people as violently as you can because you score more points."

ummmmmm........ what?! LIES AHOY MATEY! there's no "the more violently you kill the more points you get" system in any game.

During the hearing, Assistant A.G. Guidry told Judge Brady that some video games feature language so coarse "that if I uttered it in this courtroom, you would have someone drag me out of here."

that's because those are MATURE rated games.

There is no violence exception in the First Amendment," said Paul Smith, attorney for the Entertainment Software Association, so the state law has to be ruled unconstitutional. "It doesn't even come close to justifying censorship. You can't censor speech because it's going to lead people to do bad things" -- except a provision against incitement.

"Video games are played every day by millions of people who don't go out and commit crimes," Smith said.

He speaks the truth! woo!

I want this to go to the united states supreme court. I really do. that way when it's knocked the hell out we have a precedent.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

gray17
2006-07-02 05:05 pm UTC (link)

During the proceedings Judge Brady said he was searching for evidence of "a young person watching a video game immediately getting up and going out a committing a violent act."

stop looking, you won't find it.

No, we want him to look. To look, and look, and look until he can absolutely safely conclude that he won't find anything. It makes it much easier to slap down those that claim such exists.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	riffraff1138 2006-07-02 10:07 pm UTC (link)
	ummmmmm........ what?! LIES AHOY MATEY! there's no "the more violently you kill the more points you get" system in any game. Manhunt. That's the only one, though. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sqlrob 2006-07-02 11:10 pm UTC (link)
	More than that. I can think of a couple: Carmageddon (style points) Punisher (do the interrogations count?) Nothing else comes to mind, not right now. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	gatz111085 2006-07-03 02:09 am UTC (link)
	In ninja gaiden you can hack at corpses repeatedly after death before they finally disappear in a bloody mess and that gives you a higher combo which = higher points. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	terminator44 2006-07-02 11:54 pm UTC (link)
	You didn't actually get points in that game. You got a better rating for a level if you did get "red" kills, but if you consider that a reward, you've got some pretty low standards. I still find it hilarous that politicians are so out of touch that they think video games still have "points". (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Points? Yeah, they do

akbarthegreat
2006-07-03 12:59 pm UTC (link)

Played an Xbox 360 game lately? Achievement points? Or how about the points in the New Super Mario Brothers... Or Time Crisis (any of them, they all give you a score). Geometry Wars has old school points {and} achievement points.

And anyway, there are alot of games that have a reward system of one form or another (% complete on the Metroid games? Xp/level in RPGs?) that gives you a goal outside of just completing the main story.

Just pointing out (pun intended... sorry) that the spirit of points is still alive and well in games, and in many games these rewards are still even called points.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Points? Yeah, they do terminator44 2006-07-03 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry, I forgot about those. My point was that you don't just get points for bloody kills, not in any game I've ever played. (Reply to this) (Parent)

I hope he does take it to the Supreme Court.

automancer
2006-07-02 04:26 pm UTC (link)

Maybe doing that will put an end to these useless bills once and for all. To get a Supreme Court ruling on this will prevent any future laws like this one. However, he may be saying this to make it seem like he is really supportive of the bill. I'm willing to bet that when the time comes and this bill is struck down, he won't touch it any longer and not do a thing about it. What I keep seeing is blind support for a bill all the way up to the point where it is actually thrown out and then the bill is abandoned by those involved. I don't know, maybe the A.G. will keep his word.

-Auto

(Reply to this)

	What a bunch of crybabies beardoggx 2006-07-02 05:02 pm UTC (link)
	If Foti was really so gung-ho about that bullshit bill and so confident about the bill's chances of passing the court's muster, he would have argued the case himself, instead of relying on a crony. False bravado, anyone? The Supreme Court would rule in the video game industry's favor anyway, if they even decide to hear it(only a handful of cases ever get that far). (Reply to this)

JT in EGM Next Month

dtotheg
2006-07-02 05:10 pm UTC (link)

Maybe he'll talk about this bill?

The preview says:
"Also, we have a powwow with infamous attorney Jack Thompson. Find out how one of the biggest crusaders in the battle against violent videogames went from the courthouse to the nuthouse- only here in EGM"

Maybe he'll drop another juicy soundbyte like "The only people who shoot others in the face are hitmen and gamers" (because those are apparently the only two people who can raise their arms above eye level) or conviently ignoring the fact that crime amongst youths has plummeted in the past few years OR "Japan is committing Pearl Harbor 2 by not selling GTA" (because the Japanese are more interested in Final Fantasy XIIXCVSXCQPLKXARGHHJORBFIFVELOL1, dating sims and Mah-jong titles then shooters that are not vertical)

Ooh! They also have the 50 best original games of the future!

I think the bill should instead force parents to take a test to make sure they don't do anything retarded to their children like drop them on their heads, marry a dumbass who always wears the same wife-beater, or BUY THEM A GAME NAMED AFTER A FIRST DEGREE FELONY.

What? THey make you get a drivers license so you wont crash into other people and disrupt traffic and other stupid crap like talking on your cell phone while eating, leaving you to drive with your knees.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: JT in EGM Next Month gamepolitics 2006-07-02 05:17 pm UTC (link)
	Is there a link on that EGM preview? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: JT in EGM Next Month dtotheg 2006-07-02 05:28 pm UTC (link)
	Nope, sorry. It IS in the back of the July 2006 EGM, which is easy enough to find. I'll post a pic later. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: JT in EGM Next Month gamepolitics 2006-07-02 11:57 pm UTC (link)
	No need to post the pic. I took a look at my copy. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Blarg. terminator44 2006-07-02 08:45 pm UTC (link)
	I don't care how entertaining Jack's statements turn out to be on that article, I won't be reading it if it's on EGM. I still haven't forgiven them for their draconian and horribly biased Serious Sam(Xbox)review: http://egm.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=2005960&did=2 (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: JT in EGM Next Month ianc14 2006-07-02 09:28 pm UTC (link)
	Hehehe, that interview will be great. I just know it. Cant wait to see what he says :D (Reply to this) (Parent)

	majestic_12_x 2006-07-02 05:52 pm UTC (link)
	I guess Mr. Guidry doesn't really like his job at the A.G.'s office. It sure likes he's trying to sink their reputation along with his own. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-07-02 08:31 pm UTC (link)
	well, Guidry was assigned the case. As a lawyer, it's his job to advocate the position. I must say, though, he seems to go at the topic with some amount of relish. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sqlrob 2006-07-02 11:12 pm UTC (link)
	pleasepleaseplease I'd pay money to watch recordings of SCotUS ripping Jack a new one if he was called to testify. (Reply to this)

Guidry...

thabor
2006-07-03 06:28 am UTC (link)

GP,

Not that I support Guidry's side, but the relevance should be obvious. There are clearly cases in society where it is considered acceptable to limit or penalize speech based on the sole fact that other find it objectionable. TV broadcasts with objectionable material are frequently censored or subject to fines. It is easy to be dismissive of the other sides point of view, but it isn't always without some rational basis. Its another step along the path of trading freedom for a false sense of security that we have seen so much of in the past 5 years or so. A large portion of this country seems all to willing to do just that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Guidry...

gamepolitics
2006-07-03 03:09 pm UTC (link)

The Louisiana video game law is based on the premise that violent games should be held to be harmful to minors.

There's nothing in the law about profanity. Profanity is not an issue before the court in this case. It's therefore irrelevant for Guidry to raise it.

His remark smacks almost of desperation, as if he were grasping at straws in order to convince Judge Brady.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Guidry...

thabor
2006-07-03 08:05 pm UTC (link)

I'm not trying to pretend that profanity is the same as violence. And he quite probably is grasping at straws. His remark strikes me as one of someone who's found a contradicition but isn't able to express it. The core issue at stake here isn't this particular law or even violence or profanity. Regardless of Thompson's rethoric games clearly are speech.

For him and others like him to make any traction at all they need to accept that as fact, and start arguing toward the real issue here. The core issue is the extent and appropriateness of government regulation on speech. In spite of our supposed first amendment protections censorship happens on a daily basis. Often it is accepted, and on occasion it may even be justified.

Perhap my interpretation is too charitable, but I don't see that as being irrelevant. If we already limit protected speech with far less potential for harm, why wouldn't we do the same for protected speech that may have a potential for real harm. (Not that I agree games are harmful).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Guidry... gamepolitics 2006-07-03 09:05 pm UTC (link)
	very simply, profanity is not the issue before the court in this matter. It's totally outside the scope of the Louisiana law. There may be a place to debate coarse language in games, but Judge Brady's court is not that place. It's as irrelevant as saying some games have bad graphics. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Where do they keep coming up with rape in a game?

muhammed
2006-07-03 08:16 pm UTC (link)

There's only one game that I can think that can possibly fit this category. There's an arcade game in Taiwan, made by the Japanese, that is about sodomizing people in the arse. The front of the cabinet has a rear end into which you jam a giant finger. The "people" that you choose to punish in the game are all bad folk, rapists, child moslesters, etc., etc. The point of the game was, I guess, to take out your aggression on the ills of society.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Where do they keep coming up with rape in a game? gatz111085 2006-07-04 01:22 am UTC (link)
	well he probly was refering to number of rape flashes put out by anime artists which are not sold in stores. Also the japanese have a number that actual retail games but I don't believ ethey are sold in store, but then again I've never been to Japan. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Where do they keep coming up with rape in a game? terminator44 2006-07-04 03:51 am UTC (link)
	I believe the game was called "Boon-ga, Boon-ga" or something like that. The most horrifing thing about that game? You can get prizes from it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(42 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store