Dear Mr. Gates:

On Monday, April 16, at 3:10 pm, I was a guest, as I often have been in the past, on the Fox News Channel. News anchor Bill Hemmer asked me to profile the Virginia Tech rampage killer. I did so, noting that until that day the worst school massacre in world history was at the hands of Robert Steinhaeuser, who literally trained on the Microsoft on-line, hyper-violent shooter game, Counterstrike. I mentioned your company’s game by name. I explained that the rehearsal for such a massacre is key to being able to pull it off, as efficiently as Cho, whose name we didn’t even know at the time. Cho and Steinhaeuser were able to do what they did the first time because it was not the first time. This is why the military uses this same virtual reality simulation to train soldiers to want to kill and how to kill calmly, as the witnesses of Cho said he did. The letter ends thusly:

Mr. Gates, pull the plug on Counterstrike today, or do we need more dead to convince you? "Virginia Tech" was the 9-11 of school shootings, and it appears Microsoft is in the middle of it, in more ways than one.

Regards, Jack Thompson

First of all, notice how the first thing he mentions is how he was on TV; if you think this guy gets off on attention, just wait. The interesting thing about Jack's letter is that its entire point is to blame Microsoft chairman Bill Gates for Counter-Strike and how much death it's caused. This is interesting because, of course, Microsoft has nothing to do with Counter-Strike! The game is developed by Valve and published by Vivendi. The Washington Post writer forgot to fact check before publishing, and Jack Thompson composed this entire ooh-look-at-me letter to Microsoft without first making sure that Microsoft actually has any kind of connection to the game in question.

Soon after this, Thompson sent another open letter to the Virginia Police Department Chief. You can read the whole letter here, but here are the important bits:

Dear Chief Flinchum:

I went on the Fox News Channel Monday and even identified the game, Counterstrike, obsessively played by Cho, which was also used by Robert Steinhaeuser to author what is now the second worst school shooting in world history in Erfurt, Germany, which he also concluded by killing himself. These are not coincidences; these are patterns.

Once again, he starts off by mentioning that he was on Fox News. He also says that Cho "obsessively played" Counter-Strike, which is completely unfounded.

Thompson also implores the Virginia Police Chief, "If your Department really wants to get to the bottom of this, you need to talk to me now."
While the Virginia Police Department tries to pick up the pieces of this tragedy, deal with potential copy-cat killers, and try to investigate Cho's threat and motives, Jack Thompson wants to waste their time with his God-like delusions of authority. He wants to show them the truth, that it all boils down to "murder simulators." Jack Thompson should be ashamed of himself.

Never mind that, according to a search warrant (pdf) filed by the Virginia State Police, Cho Seung-Hui had no video games in his school dorm. Never mind also that when MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed one of Cho's suite-mates, he said that he never once saw Cho playing any video games.

Jack Thompson doesn't mind, because he still maintains that Cho trained on Counter-Strike. He even went on Hardball with Chris Matthews and tried to spout his theories again. Matthews wasn't having any of it, as you can see in this video from Kotaku.

MATTHEWS: How does the game prepare or drill him in the execution of 32 people?

THOMPSON: It drills you and gives you scenarios on how to kill them. It gets you to kill with your heart rate lower…

MATTHEWS: I know it is a theory. And it is a theory in this case. When was the most recent testimony, and when is it applied to, that he was involved with “Counter-Strike,” the video game, that Cho was?

THOMPSON: Cho? His high school friends. And, typically, when…

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, he is a fourth-year student at Virginia Tech...

As I said before, in the wake of a tragedy like this we are all looking for answers. We want to know how a person could do something so horrendous, we want to have some kind of rationalization for an irrational act. This is a natural reaction and is part of coping. I doubt we'll ever know what exactly was going on inside Cho's mind in the time before the shootings, and honestly I don't think we ever should.

But what Jack Thompson is doing isn't helping anybody. He doesn't want to explain Cho's motivations, he just wants to rationalize his own personal vendetta against the gaming industry. Thirty-two people have died senselessly, and instead of helping the afflicted or promoting counseling for depressed teenagers, Thompson just wants to spew his hatred.

Any time anybody under the age of thirty does anything violent, Thompson is on TV ready to blame the games. What has he ever accomplished, though? In my tenure as a games journalist I've seen Thompson call all gamers pot-heads, threaten to sue Wikipedia, sue the Florida bar, prey upon the families of countless family members of violence victims to increase his exposure, offer $10,000 to charity and then refuse to pay, and claim that the Beltway Sniper trained on Halo just for starters, but this is by far the worst.

If there was any evidence to support the fact that the Virginia Tech shooter played Counter-Strike, or even played any video game, I could accept Thompson's crusading as a mis-interpretation of facts. But, for the lack of such evidence, Thompson just pretends that there is evidence. Just to clarify, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Cho Seung-Hai has played any video games in the last 5 years, but Jack Thompson maintains that that Counter-Strike is the cause.

Jack Thompson is delusional. He is an immature, hallow, self-centered little man who will leave no corpse unexploited to further his cause. America has experienced the worst shooting in history. This is a time for encouragement, for empowerment, and for reflection. This is definitely not a time for hatred, but hatred is all Thompson is capable of. He has an unrelenting, unmitigated hatred for video games and all people who play them and he is willing to exploit even a national tragedy to spread his hateful message.

There is no way to argue that video games had anything to do with this shooting. But, just for the sake of prosperity, could they?

To be perfectly honest, in my lifetime of playing video games I have probably killed over a billion imaginary people, robots, monsters, vampires, and zombies. I can recognize most widely-produced pistols, rifles, assault rifles, and machine guns by sight now, thanks primarily to their use in video games. I know military and counter-terrorism movement strategies, techniques, and equipment; again, mostly because of video games. As far as I know, however, I haven't killed any real people. I've never committed a felony, I've never threatened anybody with violence, and in the few situations when I've been around real weapons I've behaved as responsibly as I could imagine would be possible. Most of my friends are in the same situation.

The connecting fibers between school shooters is not that they play video games, it's that they play video games and shoot people. A person who plays video games and then goes on a shooting rampage can no more blame the games for the rampage than he could the brand of toothpaste he used that morning.

If video games did not exist, those who crave violence would simply find it elsewhere. It's important to remember that violence is not a recent phenomenon, while video games are. People have been killing each other since the dawn of man, not because they learned how to in books or cave paintings, but because there is something wrong with them.

I too would love to find a single thing to blame the violence at Virginia Tech on. If there was a single thing we could point out as the cause and lock up, ban, or outlaw, I'd love it. If somebody could suitably convince me that banning video games on a global scale would prevent any more violence of the scale of what we saw on Monday, I would gladly throw all my games into the trash. Anybody can see that it would be impossible to come to such a conclusion, however. There will always be crazy people in this world. There will also always be old people who don't understand the media of the young. Cho Seung-Hui was no more driven to murder by video games than he was by rap music, rock and roll, or baggy pants.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, a subcommittee of the US House or Representatives, held a hearing titled (why do these things need titles?), "Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents and Protecting Children."

As you may have heard, the outcome of this event was not entirely in the best interest of gaming as a whole. The gist of their conclusion, after questioning the head of the ESA, the President of the ESRB, the Director of the FTC's Consumer Protection bureau, Wal-Mart's VP of merchandising, and three game/health experts, was that violent videogames are akin to pornography in their harm for children and that the ESRB is at fault for letting something like Hot Coffee (which was a terribly isolated incident that would be nearly impossible to reproduce) defile our children.

I watched most of the hearing live, before the video feed suddenly cut out once things started getting good, and throughout the whole hour and a half of viewing I was consistently flabbergasted by the ignorance and misinformation that the Senators conducting the hearing were dealing with.

It is extremely apparent that these people, the ones wielding the power of the entire Legislative branch of our government, have little to no experience in the actual "world" of game playing. Every bit of evidence or material they used in their favor was misrepresentative, illogical, or flat-out wrong.
Congressman Stearns

Take, for example, the video clips that the Senators showed after each of the attending introduced themselves. Congressman Cliff Stearns (R. Florida) prefaced the video with something to the tune of, "this should give you an example of the type of material found videogames today." A series of clips then played, mostly from various Grand Theft Auto games, one from San Andreas where the player flew a plane into a building, another from the same game where the player stood on a street corner and shot civilians from a distance with a sniper rifle (even, gasp, police officers), and then a cutscene from Vice City where the main characters complete a drug transaction in a comically farcical way.

What they failed to mention was that all the footage of "acts of violence" they showed were all completely player-choice. The game does not require or even reward you for crashing planes into buildings or sniping police officers; it means that whoever recorded that clip decided on his own volition to see how violent he could be. A player could go through any Grant Theft Auto game and never harm any person who did not attack him first; any violent acts taken out upon strangers or non-combatants is entirely the player's choice.

And the clip of the drug deal, come on... you can watch real drug deals on The Discovery Channel, and there is fictional drug trading in many movies and television shows.

Much more misinformation was bartered in regard to the "Hot Coffee" element of GTA: San Andreas that most people don't even understand.

What People Believe About "Hot Coffee"

In the game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, you can enter in a secret code (most people believe that code to be "hot coffee") and you enter a secret level where you engage in scenes of sex and rape. Any person can buy a copy of San Andreas and enter this code to unlock the illicit material. Because this fully explicit material exists in a game rated M (Mature; 17+), the ESRB made a grave mistake by not discovering this material and giving the game an AO rating.

What REALLY Happened With "Hot Coffee"

When Rockstar was creating San Andreas, they planned to include in the actual course of the game this scene where CJ (the player's character) and a woman engage in consensual sexual intercourse at the woman's request, even. Rockstar (wisely) decided late into the development cycle that this material would be offensive and cause too much trouble. This scene’s programming was already integrated into the game's architecture and would therefore be very time-costly to actually remove, so they unlinked all triggers in the game that would cue the scene. In the game as it shipped, there was absolutely no way that this scene could ever be triggered. You could play the game ten thousand times and the sex scene would never show.

Later, some software crackers discovered this content in the PC version of San Andreas and created a software patch that would hack the game files and make it so this scene could be viewed in-game.

To unlock this scene, a player would have to go onto the Internet and find this very complicated unlock patch and apply it himself. This is the only way the "hot coffee" scene could ever be viewed in the game.

While the player was online looking for this patch he could also have downloaded all the illegal child pornography he wanted, but this is not what concerns these Senators. They are concerned for our children's safety because someone could buy a $50 piece of software, play it for at least six hours to get to the part of the game where the sexual content takes place, and manually install an (illegal, according to the DMCA) patch to play a humorous sex minigame.

Nevertheless, almost immediately after "hot coffee" was discovered, the ESRB changed the game's rating to AO (Adults Only) and every single copy of the game on store shelves was recalled and sent back to the manufacturer until a version could be authored where it would be completely impossible to unlock the scene. That part, nobody seems to know about.

Senator Stearns, addressing the representative from Wal-Mart, said, "All a child would have to do to buy this game on your website would be to click this, 'I agree that I am over 18' button and he could buy the game and then enter the 'hot coffee' code to view sexual materials." One of Stearns' assistants leaned in and whispered something in his ear then, most likely something to the tune of, "they fixed the game so you can't view that scene anymore," but Stearns continued, "Ok.. but a child could have just clicked that button to get the game!"

Right, and he'd also need a credit card. Not to mention, even the most law-abiding and child-protecting pornography websites on the Internet can only verify that a customer is over 18 by requiring a credit card and asking that he click a button to confirm that he's over 18. If it's good enough for porno, it should be good enough to make sure nobody buys a videogame who isn't supposed to be.

And if children are using their parents’ credit cards to make online purchases at Wal-Mart willy-nilly, should we blame Wal-Mart or maybe the parents not paying attention? Obviously the Senators want to protect the parents from having to become responsible for their own children.

The real loser in this subcommittee hearing was the ESRB. Patricia Vance, the President of the ESRB, was there for questioning but was obviously unprepared for this last-minute hearing and was too-easily flustered by the Senator's too-easy questions.

The ESRB, for the uninitiated, is an independent foundation started by the ESA that assigns age ratings to every videogame sold at any retail store. They do so by asking game developers to provide a thorough list of all mechanics of the gameplay and any material (in context) that would be offensive, and to include gameplay videos of certain scenes. It's in the publishers' best interest that they be honest, as the rating of their game defines what stores will sell it and how many parents will allow their children to play it.

Senator Stearns got hung up on the notion that it's called the Entertainment Software Rating Board and it's not an actual Board of people who sit around a conference table and discuss all 1,100 games that are released each year. The games themselves are reviewed by volunteers who have no ties to any game publisher, developer, or company.
Dr. Kim Thompson; kook.

Dr. Kimberly Thompson, a shrill-voiced professor of "Risk Analysis and Decision Science" at Harvard's School of Public Health, has a definite grudge against the ESRB. She and her researchers do their own ratings of certain games and chides the ESRB for how "inaccurate they are." For an example of how this woman's mind works, she has stated before that the gameplay of Pac-Man is "64% violent" and at this very hearing tried to denounce the ESRB's ratings by saying that "60% of games rated E (age six and up) by the ESRB reward players for 'injuring other characters." Yes, this includes Mario, for he jumps on turtles which apparently incites youngsters into fits of carnal rage.

The conclusion of the whole hearing, which was decided before it started, was that the ESRB is doing a poor job and should change the way it reviews games – including a serious suggestion that they play every game they review, instead of relying on publisher-provided details.

The fact that anybody could say this with a straight face demonstrates how little these people even consider gaming. One senator who agreed with this idea stated earlier that he liked to play Civilization IV and after many hours still hadn't mastered it. By a generous estimate, it would take over 100 hours to see everything the game Civilization has to offer. A game that you can beat in under five hours is considered to be "too short" by us reviewers, and even a game that you could beat in five hours would take another five hours just to see every corner of the game; and consider then that some games unlock new content only after you've beaten the game a certain number of times. Consider also a game like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas where the gameplay is, aside from the scripted missions, entirely open ended – so it would take an infinite amount of time to see "everything" in the game because what happens is up to you. Consider still that as the ESRB would be reviewing the games for content and not speeding through like the average player, the ESRB reviewers would be forced to play very slowly and deliberately and to take notes for each event.

If the ESRB spent a generous 10 hours on each of the 1,100 games that release in a year, it would take over a year to review a year's worth of games. Also, the ESRB would have to receive completed copies of the games in order to review them, so if they received a too-high score they would have to spend months and months just removing one scene/weapon/character and bug-testing for any errors that removal might have caused. In short, forcing the ESRB to play every game through to completion, if not entirely impossible, would cripple the game development process and would (like the government loves to do) stifle creativity.

The ESA's Doug Lowenstein said two very powerful things that were completely ignored. "Defining this industry based on its most controversial titles would be like defining the film industry based on Kill Bill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Natural Born Killers," and "Our research shows that the average gamer now is 33 years old. These are not kids."

That doesn’t matter when Congress is on a vendetta and will allow no facts, logic, or sense of decency to stop them from protecting these imaginary children who will go completely bonkers if they see a woman's breast.

The ESRB is not the culprit here. Wal-Mart, or any retailer, is not the culprit here. The developers making violent or sexual content aren't the culprit here. The culprits are these old cronies who refuse to understand the basic principles of the matter. Trying to condemn videogames based on a few acts of player-motivated violence is akin to condemning books based on the fact that if you rearrange letters and words, you get satanic rituals and descriptions of rape. Chiding a store for allowing a child to circumvent their safety policies is akin to blaming Borders if a child buys a mystery novel that includes scenes of murder or sex. Blaming the gaming industry for Hot Coffee is akin to blaming a book publisher if someone draws a penis on a page from a book with a magic marker.

I'm using books for that metaphor because books are something people understand. You can learn to make bombs from books, you can read about how to burn down a house for the insurance money, you can learn what was going through Charles Manson's head in the 1960s, and you can read the hate-filled words of zealots, dictators, racists, bigots, murders, rapists, and extremists, but nobody cares because they're books. We hope that parents would keep children from reading harmful books, but we don't chide everybody but the parents if they don’t.

Late last month, Texas politician and gubernatorial candidate Star Locke proposed a $10,000 per-abortion tax on medical clinics and a 50 percent tax on soda that "contains added glucose, fructose, and sucrose." Likewise, Locke suggested a 50 percent "grease tax" on "all food prepared by deep-frying or cooking in any form of oil or grease for human consumption." Locke justified his radical tariffs, stating to the Amarillo Globe: "I take the position that the founding fathers took: that the power to tax is the power to destroy."

One can only imagine the ensuing riots at speculation of a $9 quarter-pounder, but though Locke's levies are illogical (if not unconstitutional), one final suggestion topped the cake: to pass a 100 percent sales tax on violent videogames into law.

While gamers shouldn't fret about paying $100 for the next Halo or Grand Theft Auto update, they should worry that Locke's "solution" is indicative of a growing trend in American politics - more than ever, legislators are pushing for laws that illegalize the sale of violent and mature videogames to minors.

Pro-regulation figureheads like Jack Thompson would have us believe that games are mental intoxications – that each time I pop Killzone or Resident Evil into my console, I’m subjecting myself to content that will ultimately brainwash me into a volatile, aggressive sociopath. In a January 8 article published this year on The News Tribune, Thompson claims: "Teens […] have a neurobiological developmental deficit that can, in the worst case, turn them into "Manchurian Candidate" killing machines."

Thompson’s pseudo-scientific indictment of the gaming industry is remindful of the language used in prescription medication ads: "…side effects of playing Counter-Strike may include nausea, dizziness, or assaulting your friends and family against your will." …Perhaps we should consult the Surgeon General as well.

Are there games that are inappropriate for minors? Absolutely. Does it mean that every 17-year-old should be prohibited from buying games because they haven’t sufficiently “matured” enough to handle certain content? Is a generalized, age-based ban an appropriate and effective way to protect our children from violent games?

Unfortunately, one reason these questions remain is the fact that our legislators are largely ignorant of video games as a medium, and are instead informed by a few highly-specified and over-dramatized examples. Titles like Manhunt and Mortal Kombat, while clearly members of the "mature" category, have redeeming artistic qualities, but are construed as typifying an industry-wide epidemic.

Of course, it hasn't helped that the gaming industry has grown so quickly. Not 20 years ago, having consoles and personal computers in the household was a radically new idea; in 2004, the gaming industry posted revenues of $10 billion – more than Hollywood. Culturally and otherwise, gaming's footprint hasn't quite been measured by society, and it’s part of the reason we’re seeing unrealistic regulations.

But if we reflect, the recipe seems familiar: new technologies, new forms of expression, and new ways of perceiving reality have a predictable way of muddling anyone we elect into office. Film, television, and radio represent some of our most highly-regulated businesses; and politicians would rather attack industries that subjectively “pollute” our minds than the ones that pollute the very air we breathe.

If the term "scapegoat" seems too harsh, examine an excerpt from the Baxter Bulletin, an Arkansas newspaper. In an article about Jacob Robida, the recently-accused offender in an attack at a gay bar in Massachusetts that killed a police officer, the paper published this quote from Massachusetts Prosecuting Attorney Paul Walsh: "My look at the search warrant (for Robida's home) was that the investigators turned up no video games. […] From the information we have here, there is no proof video games were involved."

Thank goodness that Robida’s PlayStation or Xbox weren’t accomplices to his hateful act. But who suggested a game-crime connection to police? None other than Jack Thompson, the Miami attorney that seems to involve himself in national investigations when it suits his interests.

Inexplicably, videogames have become society’s insanity plea for murder, violence, and other crimes. Will increased game-regulation really attenuate these problems? Likely not, but it begs a more important question - how do we strike a balance between allowing freedom of expression and understanding a medium for what it is, but also aiding parents in choosing what their child should or shouldn’t be exposed to?

Ultimately, parents’ and law-makers’ understanding of video games has to mature. Politicians seem under the impression that each time Joe twelve-year-old blows away some poor virtual soul in Halo, they’re going to take it into the streets. But the way people interact and are affected by video games isn’t that simple.

Individuals that commit crimes "inspired" by video games have more deeply rooted problems - an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. While games with violent content could serve as an impetus for troubled youths, they ignore the "bigger picture;" the fact that ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions.

More generally, society needs to take the initiative to hold a view that recognizes videogames as a legitimate form of communication and entertainment, not a system designed to drill teenagers on the intricacies of executing a drive-by shooting. People seem unwilling to accept the idea that society's ills are rooted in more significant problems than computer-rendered characters engaging in a virtual firefight.