From the Louisiana Governor's office on down, Jack Thompson has ripped a number of high-level officials in the ugly reality show surrounding the court fight over the state's video game law. Now the volatile Miami attorney has added a new target.

In a letter sent yesterday to Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Attorney General Charles Foti, Thompson unleashed a string of criticism upon Federal District Court James Brady, who is hearing the case. Among other comments, Thompson accuses Judge Brady of bias:

"As to Judge Brady, you two (Blanco and Foti), as fellow Democrats, know of his liberal views and his past Chairmanship of the Louisiana Democratic Party. He was nominated by President Clinton because of his liberalism, and with that liberalism goes an absolutist view of the First Amendment that the Founders would not recognize."
( Read more... )

In today's roundup, GamePolitics finds editorial boards around the country weighing in on Louisiana's video game law. Much of the interest appears to have been sparked by the recent preliminary injunction blocking the Jack Thompson-drafted statute from taking effect.

The Prescott Daily Courier (Arizona) supports Judge James Brady's ruling, saying, "Once again, politicians are pretending unsuccessfully to be morally superior to the rest of society."

The paper added, "Judge Brady's decision makes sense... These bans unfairly limit our right to free speech... The entire idea that one type of media increases violence while others don't is hypocritical... And to the judges who continue to protect our constitutional rights, thank you."

Meanwhile, North Carolina's Henderson Dispatch sees things differently:

"...we think the courts have been consistently wrong, or at least wrong-headed. Violence continues to erode the quality of life in the United States... at least the Motion Picture Association of America makes some attempt at self-policing... Games have a rating system, too, but it is a sham and unenforced."
( Read more... )

The strange, contentious situation surrounding the legal defense of Louisiana's video game law has gotten even stranger and more contentious.

Yesterday, Miami attorney Jack Thompson (left) forwarded to GamePolitics a pair of e-mails. The first was from Deputy Louisiana Attorney General Burton Guidry to Thompson, sent late Wednesday afternoon:

"Ok Mr. Thompson, put up or shut up. I need affidavits and other documentation to defeat a motion for summary judgment. If you really want to help just get me the affidavits and some scientific data that can defeat this motion as soon as possible. Time is of the essence since [the game industry's motion] has been filed today. I need the information by Monday in my hands for filing. Can you and will you?"

Guidry is referring to the video game industry's motion for summary judgment, filed with Federal Judge James Brady's court earlier that day.
( Read more... )

As expected, lawyers for the ESA (publishers) and EMA (retailers) filed a motion for summary judgment with Federal Judge James Brady (left) yesterday in Baton Rouge.

The industry is requesting that Brady issue a permanent injunction against Louisiana's video game statute, which was signed into law by Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco in June. If the industry's motion is approved by the judge, it would bring and end to a situation that has become something of an embarrassment to the Louisiana state government.

As reported by GamePolitics, a temporary injunction blocking the law was issued by Judge Brady last week. GP readers can see the industry's memorandum in support of the summary judgment motion here.

For all of GP's recent coverage of the Louisiana video game legislation, click here.

Are lives really at stake in the legal fight over Louisiana's video game law, or has the situation devolved into a finger-pointing battle of bruised egos?

Over the last 18 months GamePolitics has reported extensively on anti-game attorney Jack Thompson's relentless crusade against video game violence. Nowhere during that time has Thompson enjoyed the kind of political success he found recently in Louisiana. Readers will recall that Thompson drafted the state's video game law, testified on its behalf, and basked in its unanimous approval by the legislature.
( Read more... )

Louisiana newspapers are providing additional coverage to the stinging judicial rebuke which a federal judge administered to the state's controversial video game law on Thursday evening.

An AP report out of Baton Rouge quotes Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (pictured) on the judicial reversal:

"I'm calling on all parents to diligently monitor the video games that their children are allowed to play. If the courts can not protect our children, then we need to do it by rejecting the merchant of violence," she said.

The Advocate spoke with a disappointed Rep. Roy Burrell (D), sponsor of the bill.

"If you can train a military-type person using these video games, you can do it to kids," Burrell told the newspaper. He added that courts aren't yet ready to accept that premise.

GP: Maybe the court would pay more attention if Burrell provided some, you know, evidence, rather than the nonsense he put forth during the legislative debate on the bill. Just a thought. Judge Brady took note of this as well when he wrote in Thursday's ruling:

"The evidence that was submitted to the legislature in connection with the bill that became the statute is sparse and could hardly be called in any sense reliable. Much of the 'evidece' presented consisted of newspaper articles on the evils of video games..."
( Read more... )

Jack Thompson's Louisiana video game law was supposedly written as to be immune from constitutional challenges.

But it's not looking that way this morning.

Last evening Federal District Court Judge James Brady ruled in favor of the video game industry's request for a preliminary injunction to keep the law from taking effect. Granting the preliminary injunction indicates that Judge Brady believes the industry is likely to win the case on its merits when a final decision is rendered at some future point.

The judge's 30-page ruling took Thompson's law apart piece-by-piece. Judge Brady wrote, in part:

"The State's argument overlooks a line of cases holding that video games are protected free speech..."

"Defendants (Louisiana) contend that the legislative record contains social science evidence demonstrating that violent video games are harmful. It appears that much of the same evidence has been considered by numerous courts and in each case the connection was found to be tenuous and speculative..."
( Read more... )

Tricky bunch, politicians...

In an article posted at St. Tammany.com, Louisiana State Rep. Steve Scalise (R) discusses his desire to attract video game developers to the Katrina-ravaged state.

"Content production in video is similar to film." Scalise said. "It is a market sector that the state has not tapped into that could generate millions of dollars in revenue. It is mobile, driven by creative talent, is a big growth industry that provides a large number of high paying jobs - it is the kind of business we want to bring to Louisiana."

Scalise told St. Tammany that he and others had reached out to the game industry nearly two years ago, but Katrina "knocked everything back to square one."
( Read more... )

Controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson appears to be burning bridges in Louisiana, the state where he has enjoyed the most success to date in his long-standing crusade against violent video games.

A series of e-mails forwarded to GamePolitics by Thompson detail a rapidly deteriorating relationship with the office of Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti. Foti is a named defendant in ESA/EMA vs. Foti, the video game industry's constitutional challenge to the state's recently-passed video game law.
( Read more... )

In the wake of the video game industry's resounding legal victory in Minnesota, industry lawyers are seeking to file a copy of Judge James Rosenbaum's decision with the Federal District Court considering Louisiana's video game law.

On Tuesday, attorneys representing the ESA and EMA filed a motion with Judge James Brady, hoping to introduce the Minnesota decision into the record.

As of yet, Judge Brady has not ruled on the video game industry's request.

In a terse, one-page ruling, Federal District Court Judge James Brady has refused to permit controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson to file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in the ongoing lawsuit over Louisiana's recently-enacted video game law.

Thompson, of course, was heavily involved in the Louisiana statute, helping Rep. Roy Burrell (D) draft the underlying legislation, HB 1381. The anti-game attorney claimed in his request to the court that Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti, a named defendant in the case, approved of Thompson's amicus motion.

As previously reported here on GamePolitics, Thompson's request to file an amicus brief - if granted - would have permitted the long-time video game industry nemesis to provide information to the court even though he is not a party to the lawsuit.

Shortly after Thompson made his request to the court, game industry lawyers objected to the Miami attorney's participation on a variety of technical grounds. Among these was Thompson's signature on his amicus motion, which lists him as "Defendant and Co-Counsel." The game industry contends that he is neither. For his part, Judge Brady appears to have found the industry's argument convincing.

Thompson's amicus motion (in MS Word format) can be seen here. The industry's objection (pdf) is here. For all GamePolitics coverage of the Thompson amicus issue, click here.

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

Should controversial attorney Jack Thompson be permitted to file a "friend of the court" brief in ESA vs. Foti, the First Amendment battle over Louisiana's recently-enacted video game law?

Lawyers for the video game industry say no. The matter is currently before a Federal District Court judge in Baton Rouge. Legislation upon which the contested law is based was drafted by Thompson earlier this year on behalf of Louisiana Rep. Roy Burrell (D).

As revealed last week on GamePolitics, the anti-game attorney requested permission from Judge James Brady to file an Amicus Curiae, or "friend of the court" brief in the case.

Lawyers representing the game industry, however, have filed a motion to block Thompson's request, citing technical grounds. Among the objections claimed by industry lawyers:

-Thompson has no license to practice before Judge Brady's court, either on a permanent or temporary basis

-Thompson's amicus motion claims that he is filing "on behalf of law enforcement personnel and also on behalf of education groups." However, no such individuals or groups are specified nor is there any indication that any such entities have retained Thompson as counsel in ESA vs. Foti.

-Thompson signs his brief as "Attorney, Defendant & co-counsel." Video game industry lawyers argue that he is not a named defendant in the case. Nor has he been retained by any of the actual defendants as counsel. Actual defendants named in the suit are Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti and East Baton Rouge District Attorney Doug Moreau.

It is unknown when Judge Brady might rule on the Amicus issue. The parties are also awaiting the Judge's ruling on the industry's request for a temporary injunction.

For all of GP's coverage of Louisiana's video game legislation, click here.

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

The ever-controversial Jack Thompson is seeking to file an Amicus Curiae ("friend of the court") brief in ESA/EMA vs. Foti. The constitutional battle between the video game industry and Louisiana over the state's newly-enacted video game sales law is currently before a Federal District Court judge in Baton Rouge.

Aside from the Miami attorney's standard "I've been on the Today Show" bluster, Thompson's motion includes the following:

"Thompson drafted this video game bill, which has now become law, at the request of Representative Roy Burrell."

GP: Rep. Burrell and Thompson are pictured at left during the May 10th session of the Criminal Justice Committee of the Louisiana House. For GamePolitics coverage of the Louisiana law, click here. More from Thompson's motion:

"...Grand Theft Auto: Vice City... is not even speech, let alone 'First Amendment-protected speech.' For example, hand-held controllers... delivers (sic) a jolt back into (players') hands to give them a visceral, pleasurable 'buzz' when a car tire runs over a skull or a machete cuts off the head of a prostitute immediately after intercourse."
( Read more... )

It's Sunday, and once again GP has scoured the far corners of the Internet to bring you editorial opinions on the politics of video games. Today's journey takes us - once again - to Louisiana, where the fate of the infamous Jack Thompson video game law now rests in the hands of a Federal District Court judge.

Dr. Jerald Block, an Oregon psychiatrist and expert on the impact of technology on people - as well as an occasional GP reader - pens an op-ed for the Shreveport Times in which he terms video game laws "sheer lunacy." More from Dr. Block:

"Here in Louisiana, a federal court is examining one such law that could penalize cashiers $2,000 and lock them up for a year in prison, doing hard labor..."

"These laws are nuts on so many levels. To start with, no one has any idea which games are off-limits... Applying a strict reading of Louisiana's law, you can earn jail time by selling "Pac Man" to a 17-year-old..."
( Read more... )

For a law that seems very likely to be enjoined by a Federal judge, perhaps as early as this week, Louisiana's new video game statute has some powerful - and vocal - supporters.

As recently reported by GamePolitics, Louisiana's Attorney General Charles Foti has vowed to appeal the state's video game law to the U.S. Supreme Court should it be overturned on constitutional grounds by Federal District Court Judge James Brady.

Now comes word that State Senator Mike Michot (R) wants to see another video game bill in next year's session should the current law be struck down.
( Read more... )

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."
( Read more... )

Is it back to the drawing board for Jack Thompson?

Based on a breaking news report in the Shreveport Times, a Federal judge today seemed quite critical of Louisiana's new law which seeks to declare video game violence as harmful to minors. Thompson, the Miami attorney and anti-game activist, authored the Louisiana bill while assisting its sponsor, Rep. Roy Burrell.

Judge James Brady extended the temporary restraining order he issued on June 16th while he rules on today's request by the video game industry for an injunction.

According to the Times, Assistant Attorney General Burton Guidry and East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Doug Moreau argued that Louisiana already bans sales of alcohol, tobacco and pornography as items deemed harmful to minors.

"That's not speech," Judge Brady said from the bench. Although he did allow that the violence in some games is "horrible, but it's protected... Where is violence not protected (in the First Amendment)?"
( Read more... )