***This post as been edited, scroll to the bottom to find out why.***
If you don't care to read this, don't. This is the letter he sent to the Florida judge after losing his latest case against a game named "Bully" made by Take-Two Interactive.
( Jack Thompson's angry letter )I also was looking for an article that stated TV violence versus game violence, but I ended up with
ThisThe reason I was looking for an article on TV vs Video game violence is what Jack Thompson said about TV vs video game violence. This is the thing that I believe is the stupidist and outlandish thing he said having to deal with the actual issue and not what the judge "refused" to do for him.
"Video games don’t come on tapes, Judge, and you don’t watch them. You interactively play them, which is why they are so behavior modifying."While he may be on to something there with interactivity, that is not completely true with video games vs TV. At least I don't believe it is. They both seem to desensitize the same way as the other. TV violence is no more or less harmful than gaming violence. The only difference between the two is on TV you're watching a character beat someone up. In a video game, you're
pushing buttons to beat someone up/stab them/whatever.
The bad side to this is, I can see him in the future condemning Nintendo for training kids how to truely use guns instead of just hitting buttons because of their new controllers, and showing kids how to wield knives and swords and such. I better not give him any more ideas, especially since wielding those weapons in-game with a gyroscope controller is
NOTHING like wielding those weapons in real life situations.
The line in this case study that caugh my attention the most is:
"Differences in observed physical aggression, parent reports of aggressive behavior, and perceptions of a mean and scary world were not statistically significant but favored the intervention group."I've read many case studies on this for a paper I did last fall semester, and many of them came up with this same result. One of the case studies gave an actual percent difference for about 4 different case studies done the same way, and it showed that the difference was between 2 to 5 percent. Not enough to justify that violence comes from watching TV and/or playing video games.
Some of these studies also showed that violent tendancies were very inhernet for at the most a half an hour after watching TV/playing video games, then dwindled back to the normal state of the person at most an hour after playing the game. This shows that TV/video games do not have long term effects
on those they studied (around 16 years of age).
There are other points that must be made with this as well. If you didn't read the case study I posted, here's some of the ideas in it.
-The children were 8 and 9 years of age.
-The intervention group went through a 6 month program for the children to not watch TV, videos or play video games.
-The intervention group did, in fact, decrease aggression.
Taking all of this in, why are these children already very aggressive at this age? I will let you answer that yourself, and I will keep my own opinions to myself.
In defense
(aka against these findings), I will say first, that most of the other tests I speak of are run on people between the ages of 16 and 20. I will also say that due to the way kids are
very impressionable until their teens (hence the TEEN rating on certain things), I believe certain games should not be played by children because they
WILL give a long term effect to them. This is also the reason that daytime TV "doesn't have much violence" (or shouldn't as they say). This doesn't mean to get rid of all games not able to be played by children, it means get the parents and stores to make sure kids cannot buy games that are over their age. This isn't showing fault of the gaming industry, this shows fault to parents, and sometimes game stores (though most places I know do check) for selling anything to kids who's ages are under the proper age restriction for the game title. Then again, the game stores cannot be blamed for this either due to the fact that the ESRB restrictions on titles are not enfored at point of sale, though, as I said, most places I know will check.
To be honest, the only thing I see wrong with this picture is that at point of sale, the restriction doesn't matter. I think that should be changed, and that's it. If it didn't hurt the movie community, it's not gonna hurt the gaming community. All kids have to do is get their parents to buy it for them, really. Hopefully some of them will wise up and realize, oh, my kid can't buy this for a reason. More than likely that won't happen though, but such is this country today, parents not having time to actaully interact with their own children due to their 4 jobs they need to have to support them.
And with that, I'm done.
**This post was edited due to people not understanding words I typed. I put important words to the subject in bold of my own writing, and reworded a few things to make them sound a little more clear to my own thoughts since I apparently was not clear enough.**