Thompson Vs. Lanning on Game Violence 50
This past weekend Lorne Lanning (of Oddworld fame) and notorious anti-games lawyer Jack Thompson took the stage at the Philadelphia Convention Center to debate the issue of videogame violence. Joystiq has a blow-by-blow liveblog of the event, while Wired offers up a considered synopsis of the event. From that piece: "Lanning laid into Thompson for having a 'business plan' that cashed in on the grief of victim's families, a point he would make throughout the rest of the debate. Thompson seemed both offended and confused by the suggestion, asking how exactly he was making money off his efforts, a point Lanning never really did answer. At one point, Thompson said 'no one in their right mind would say that a videogame by itself would turn an angel into a demon,' but seemed to be splitting his message."
Stop Arguing With Him (Score:5, Insightful)
Thompson, the anti-games lawyer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop Arguing With Him (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like /. was there in the crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
angels and demons (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but that first clause about being on one's right mind is a real sticky wicket, ain't it, Jack?
In seriousness, he's been acting a lot more rational these days. Maybe the disciplinary hearing before the Florida Bar that he's facing this month has sobered him up?
Re:Stop Arguing With Him (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like /. was there in the crowd (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as anyone is free to say whatever they want, the world at large is free to call them a crazy fucking moron for saying it.
Re:Sounds like /. was there in the crowd (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only the truly ridiculous who depend on a persecution complex -- Jack Thompson and the KKK being two examples that spring immediately to mind -- who seem to think that the 1st Amendment means that not only can they say whatever they want, we must also take what they say seriously and respectfully and not repeat what they say in a high-pitched mocking tone while pointing and laughing.
This is wrong. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it suggest that you should be free to say what you want without having people judge you based on your words to be an idiot and to treat you accordingly.
I'm not arguing about the strategic value of trying to look like a bigger ass than JT. I'm saying bringing in the 1st Amendment as if he was in any way denied his rights is stupid.
Re:Stop Arguing With Him (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time the gaming community ignored Jack, he got an interview on Fox News. Someone has to speak out or he'll have a free soapbox on the Mainstream Media with no one questioning his logic.
Re:Sounds like /. was there in the crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not mocking his right to use it, we're mocking the words that come out of his mouth during his use of it. Where's our first amendment right to mock idiots? This is exactly what I'm saying -- the issue of respecting someone's First Amendment Rights to speak has nothing at all to do with respecting what they say.
I say the better plan for that debate would be to ask him questions to which we know he'll give answers that contradict his case. From the sounds of it, he won this debate hands down against both Lanning and the crowd.
Maybe, maybe not. You "lose" a debate with JT just by giving him the attention. I think the best strategy is not to engage him in debate at all, because he's at his self-destructive best when given free reign to explain his unique way of thinking.
Re:Stop Arguing With Him (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but neither does Jack Thompson. Then again, the people who have to be taught to ignore him are the media wonks. But in JT, they have a "source" that will make newsy-opiniony noises on cue, and they never like giving those up.