The similarities between the two men are definitely apparent: They both have a similar look, a staunch ignore-the-facts attitude, and an inexplicable need to limit free speech.  Oh, and did I mention the children?  They are both adamant that their attempts to quash free expression for the good of the children.  How can anyone argue with that?

However, there is one major difference between Thompson and Atkinson: Michael Atkinson is winning.

While Jack Thompson’s attempts to pass laws censoring or limiting the availability of violent video games were consistently foiled by U.S. courts, Atkinson is winning the fight against violent video games by simply refusing to do anything.

You see, Australia currently has a video game rating system that tops out at “MA15+,” which is material classified as not being “suitable for people under 15.”  Anything beyond the MA15+ rating is refused classification by Australia’s Office of Film and Literature Classification (“OFLC”) and, because classification is mandatory, games warranting a rating beyond MA15+ are banned from sale and public exhibition.  In essence, this means that Australian gamers are unable to purchase any games that contain content that would be unsuitable for a 15 year old.  This holds true despite the fact that the average age of Australian gamers is 30.

So, what do shortcomings with the OFLC’s rating system have to do with Atkinson?  Well, Australian gamers and politicians have realized for a long time now that an R18+ rating for video games would allow adult gamers in Australia access to the same mature content that gamers around the world are able to enjoy.  However, in order to make any changes to the OFLC’s rating system, there must be unanimous agreement by the Commonwealth and all state and territory attorneys-general.  Atkinson, Attorney-General of South Australia, is now the sole Attorney-General who opposes the addition of an R18+ classification for video games.  Additionally, Atkinson has blocked the release of a government-sponsored paper that canvasses the opinion of the Australian public on whether or not an R18+ classification should be introduced.  He shows no signs of changing his mind and has even directly challenged gamers:

I am next up for election in March 2010. The state district I represent is called Croydon. I would welcome advocates of R18+ computer games testing public acceptance of my policy by standing a candidate against me.  I think you will find this issue has little traction with my constituents who are more concerned with real-life issues than home entertainment in imaginary worlds.

While I can understand the desire to keep certain materials out of the hands of children, the complete censorship of adult-oriented material is inexcusable.  Worse yet, some more popular franchises seem to “slip in” to Australia’s MA15+ rating despite being universally rated 18+ around the world.  In these circumstances not only does it become easier for children to get their hands on violent material, but it would also seem that large publishing companies are given special consideration beyond what is afforded to smaller developers.

The R18+ debate is sure to rage on, but for now Mr. Atkinson can sleep soundly knowing he is the new villain du jour.

The Internet has been rife with Grand Theft Auto IV stories as of late. It seems as though any website with a merely tangential relationship to video games has mentioned Rockstar’s blockbuster and many gaming-centric sites have turned into little more than Grand Theft Auto RSS feeds. With record-breaking sales, unprecedented critical acclaim, and GTA’s uncanny ability to agitate pundits and parents alike, it is no wonder that people are finding plenty to talk about.

Laws of Play has been laying low and avoiding most of the hype because all that has really happened is a lot of political posturing. Or, at least, that was the case. Yesterday, Reuters reported that Grand Theft Auto publisher Take Two Interactive filed suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”) earlier this week. Take Two alleges that by pulling advertisements for Grand Theft Auto IV from public transportation and bus terminals, the CTA has breeched contract and violated the company’s First Amendment rights. The suit seeks an order for the transit authority to run the ads as well as monetary damages of at least $300,000.

A Fox News broadcast (below) condemning the CTA for promoting the “unapologetically violent” video game is reportedly the cause for the recent action.

What’s interesting is that the CTA is not the only public transportation authority to pull ads for the controversial video game. Late last April the Miami-Dade transit authority similarly pulled GTA IV ads from its buses and stations after attorney Jack Thompson complained about them to Miami Mayor Carlos Alvarez.

There is no word whether Take Two Interactive will pursue any sort of legal action against Miami-Dade Transit. However, GamePolitics conducted a brief interview with Miami-Dade Transit Deputy Director Hugh Chen and Marketing Director Michael DeCossio concerning the pulling of the ads:

[GamePolitics]: The GTA IV ads themselves are inoffensive. Is Miami-Dade Transit making a value judgment as to the underlying product? If so, this judgment is based on…?

[Miami-Dade Transit]: The Miami-Dade County Commission has adopted three resolutions in the last five years dealing with violent video games — R-1447-03, R-248-04 and R-573-06. You may look up all three at www.miamidade.gov/govaction/searchleg.asp?Action=searchleg.

The first resolution specifically condemned the “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” video game for its “hate-filled messages” and for appearing “to encourage or condone violence against ethnic minorities” and called on retailers to remove the game from their shelves. The other two condemned violent video games in general and urged retailers not to make such games available to minors.

Miami-Dade Transit is a department of Miami-Dade County and as such follows the policies set by the Miami-Dade County Commission and Mayor.

After inquiring into the organization’s administrative decision-making process, GamePolitics continued:

GP: Is MDT familiar with Change the Climate vs MBTA, in which the US First Circuit Court ruled that a quasi-governmental transit agency could not restrict ads based on viewpoint?

MDT: Miami-Dade Transit is a department of Miami-Dade County and as such is a unit of County government, not a quasi-governmental transit agency.

As GamePolitics astutely points out, this is a very curious answer. Miami-Dade Transit seems to believe that, as a governmental transit agency, they may be held to a lesser standard than a quasi-governmental transit agency — an odd conclusion when one considers the fact that First Amendment protections are held against state governments and not private parties.

Laws of Play will continue to cover both of these situations as they develop.

I typically don’t post an image without story behind it, but Dennis over at GamePolitics just posted a pretty spectacular picture.

I don’t know what it is, but I can’t help but chuckle when I look at it. Maybe it’s the look of triumph in Jack’s eyes; maybe it’s the laid-back atmosphere the picture is taken in; maybe it’s the fact that the subject line of the email containing the photo was “Evidence.” Whatever the case, I would like to thank GamePolitics for sharing.

Update: Larger (and possibly scarier) picture.

So does the video game industry need an anti-Jack Thompson?

To quote the venerable Reverend Lovejoy, short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but. Yes, if we had a Thompson for our industry, we could have a raving loony who personally attacks his opponents rather than backing a position with facts and legal precedent. Someone who goes on conservative anti-game sites and stirs up the base, making and retracting offers willy-nilly. Unfortunately, this is a position overzealous and reactionary members of our community make all too often. Treating Thompson as a figurehead rather than a parody of the conservative crusader he claims to be gives him far too much credit.

Of course, no one benefits if we end up with a bizarro-Jacko. A “[Jack Thompson] with a beard” would only further hurt the credibility of the industry and gamers as a group. Objectively, Mr. Thompson is indeed a joke. Sure, he is charismatic. Like most “talking heads” in the media, charisma can go a long way towards getting people to hang on your words, regardless of the veracity of fact. The man has had disbarment proceedings filed against him in the state of Florida. In terms of actual legal results (rather than television appearances), he has had little to no success in attacks on video games, running time and time again into that pesky First Amendment. The closest he has come was his settlement with Take-Two in April of last year, which only provides ammunition for those that would charge Jack is fighting for personal and financial gain rather than his “Christian conservative values.” Thompson has also shown repeatedly that he has no interest in engaging in actual debate or discussion with the “ill-mannered and ill-informed” masses of the video game professional and enthusiast communities. This vitriol has surfaced again and again on GamePolitics, Kotaku, and most recently on Destructoid.

However, this is not intended to be another post attacking Mr. Thompson. Changes need to come not only in the way we as a community approach the debate, but how members of the industry, politicians and free speech advocates do as well. As we increase in numbers, age, and sophistication, we need to see gaming advocates in media and popular culture in the same way as our opponents.

First, a few talking points.

We are a nation of gamers.¹ Sixty-nine percent of American heads of households play games. The average gamer isn’t a teen or child, but 33 years old. Buyers of games average about 40. Most have been playing games since the mid-90s. Gamers devote time each week to volunteering in the community, religious activities, creative endeavors, cultural activities, and reading (among other activities). A quick look at the Internet gaming community shows enthusiasts similarly have a wide range in race, age, religion, gender, and other interests. These are all important in arguing a coincidental rather than causal relationship between gamers and violence. While many violent psychopaths have played games in the past, tens of thousands more people play games without ever acting out. Also of note is the fact that the vast majority of games are not played by or marketed to children. Geoff Keighley did a valiant job trying to make this point during his Fox News appearance about Mass Effect.

Games and violence have no connection. Study after study has shown that there is no connection between video games and violence. There is a reason that a study done over 15 years ago is again and again touted as evidence that games increase violent tendencies or encourage violent acts (or are “murder simulators”): Studies have shown again and again that exposure to media violence alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, or even the most important, factor in contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Again, it is crucial to note how massive the game-playing community is. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find someone that has never played a video game. While opponents point to the fact that a violent criminal played a video game, this is completely discounting every other part of their personality. With studies coming out on a nearly annual basis making the point that there is no causal relationship, we have more ammunition in the fight.

Legally, we are in the right. Any legal scholar will tell you the importance of precedent, particularly in the United States. Laws that are meant to restrict free speech by limiting access or development of video games are routinely struck down or killed before even making it out of the Legislature. A 2000 ban in Indianapolis was struck down at the Federal level as restricting free speech. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s ban on the sale of games to minors in 2006 was struck down for the same reason. Michigan and California laws similar to the Illinois ban were deemed unconstitutional as well. Clinton and Lieberman’s Family Entertainment Protection Act died without going to vote, while similar laws were struck down as – you guessed it – violations of the First Amendment. Again and again, judges have agreed at the local, district and Federal level that video games are protected speech, if not fine art. Every opponent of games needs to be reminded of this, and often.

So what can be done, both as a community and as an industry?

Media access. And I don’t mean some kind of public execution like that of Geoff on Fox News. As the members of Destructoid’s Podtoid cast noted, these shows are little more than platforms for the hosts to further their own agenda, and industry advocates are only brought in to give the illusion of balance. No, advocates need to be in the mainstream, on shows like Today and Meet the Press. When given a chance to form a coherent argument and state facts collected by organizations like the ESA, the industry can slowly gain the legitimacy it desires. Of course, appearances would need to be carefully selected to avoid being put up as a straw man for attack. But moving games into the minds of mainstream America – especially as more and more of us participate in the medium – is crucial for legitimacy. Along these same lines, companies need to stand behind their products, marketing and industry. For all the complaints lodged against it, EA made a fantastic statement by calling Fox News on their shoddy reporting. Expecting the community to fight for you (as Bioware suggested) is both cowardly and ineffectual. As cynical as it sounds, the size and (more importantly) money of a behemoth corporation is much more likely to make the media perk up their ears.

Don’t feed the troll. Now, I know that many argue against the idea of “not sinking to the level” of mud-slinging and baseless accusations, and I tend to agree. Simply taking the high ground isn’t going to change the minds of critics of the industry. As people like Jack Thompson have shown, even if we stop giving them attention, someone else will listen to what they have to say. But for the love of God, make an intelligent argument. Suggesting that someone is a “douche” and should “die in a fire”, while entertaining, is immature and pointless on its own. If you’re going to personally attack opponents of games, at least throw in some facts about why their argument is flawed. Even if they don’t listen, other people watching the conflict might.

Lobby. Its worth repeating that a huge amount of the voting age population plays video games. Make your voices heard. Every interest group out there, from environmentalists to free speech advocates to NAMBLA lobbys our government, and can deliver both money and voters. Gamers need to organize in a way that shows politicians what can be gained by courting our demographic. Cynicism showing again here, but money can make and break laws in the US. Reports have come out this year showing how companies have contributed to campaigns and how candidates stand on speech and entertainment issues. While I’m not suggesting voting on a single issue, let politicians know that this medium is important to us. Eventually, politicians who grew up playing video games will be in office. Until then, try to get the current bureaucrats to work with us, rather than against us. The ECA, ESA, and IEMA have done a great job, and deserve our support. Even groups like the ACLU, while not commonly associated with games, have been supportive and filed amicus briefs in cases involving games.

As members of the gaming community, we are obviously enthusiastic about the medium. However, it is important to take real steps to protect the rights that we (at least US readers) have guaranteed in the Constitution. The time that games are considered weird and outside of the mainstream is coming to a close, and it is important to continue to show the merits of the medium and fight back against reactionary rhetoric and lies. Hopefully, some of this is at least a start in this fight.

About the Author: Joshua Christie is a community blogger at Destructoid.com and a resident of Portland, ME.  He holds a degree in political science from the University of Maine.

1. All statistical data in this section is cited from: http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

Following the crushing defeat of his public nuisance claim against Rockstar Games and their title Bully, Jack Thompson is once again filing a public nuisance suit against a video game in Florida. Unhindered by the Bar complaint filed against him in his previous public nuisance suit, Thompson has set his sites on Best Buy, Microsoft, and the blockbuster Halo franchise.

Thompson claims that the Halo series is responsible for corrupting Florida’s public morals and that the games are responsible for training the DC Beltway Snipers back in 2002. Thompson further argues that Microsoft is intentionally advertising the Mature-rated game to teens by placing advertising in venues that are frequented by teens.

Thompson claims the authority for his suit comes from a number of Florida statutes. First, he turns to Florida Statute 823.01, which states:

All nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the second degree…

(emphasis added). Thompson then looks to implicate Best Buy through Florida Statute 823.05, which states:

Whoever shall erect, establish, continue, or maintain, own or lease any building, booth, tent or place which tends to annoy the community or injure the health of the community, or become manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people as described in s. 823.01 … shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance, and the building, erection, place, tent or booth and the furniture, fixtures and contents are declared a nuisance. All such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in ss. 60.05((Florida Statute 60.05 provides the authority for Thompson to bring the suit in the name of Florida and outlines the court’s authority to enjoin various aspects of a public nuisance.)) and 60.06.

For the full text of the complain, click here.