Thompson's (Mostly) Polite Interview

Pluvius writes "For the past few weeks, gaming website Netjak has corresponded with infamous anti-video-game lawyer Jack Thompson in reference to his well-publicized proposal to donate money to a charity if someone created a violent game in which a grieving father murdered members of the video-game industry. This has culminated in an interview in which the unusually cordial attorney gives surprisingly viable reasons for not following through on his donation after such a game was created. Unfortunately, Thompson doesn't quite make it to the end of the interview without taking at least one cheap shot towards gamers: '[P]ut down the controller and get a life. Video gaming is an escapist activity and you're being exploited by these companies. It's not healthy; I worry about someone who would play Grand Theft Auto for ten hours a day. It's a masturbatory activity, and it would be better if people put down the controller and went outside.'"

Comments

Interesting . . .

[dlharper]

. . . however, it was MORE interesting two days ago, when I submitted it. I've been reading Slasdot since 96? 97? Talk about going down hill. Old news for Nerds. Hey Taco, fuck you, your editors suck, no matter how much you try to spin it. Bye

Re:Interesting . . .

[drinkypoo]

Note that pluvius has three accepted submissions, and dlharper zero. How can anyone claim that slashdot editors don't play favorites? (ObDisclaimer: I am not backing either slashdot user discussed in this comment.)

Republican Logic

[hambonewilkins]

"Jack Thompson: Game Informer already has published screen shots of the game, and has done a brief write-up of what's going to be in the game. Nobody can claim that they haven't gone into the game's content; it's already out there. We don't need to play the game; it's irrelevant to the subject. It's going in there, and children shouldn't be playing it."

Isn't this the same kind of logic that took us to Iraq? We don't need proof of WMDs; it's irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean this as a troll, I mean that it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Let's say I'm a huge anti-nudist. I see screen shots of Schindler's List that have naked women. Do I protest Schnindler's List - without having seen the movie - because it has nudity? The context might, just might be important.