What a collection of jackasses. Jack Thompson rants; Adam Sessler, coked out of his mind, issues blustery straw man retorts and screams at the top of his lungs. Mark Friedler says that the real source of all society's evil is this dang hip-hop music that kids today are listening to, yet at least remains calm and collected.

A lot of other sites are saying that Thompson was destroyed by Sessler and Friedler. I couldn't disagree more, unless you de facto think that people who agree with you argue well. This sort of interview, if viewed by a neutral party, would come across looking like a win for Thompson. Sessler's behavior is frankly an embarrassment; Friedler remains cool, but he doesn't escalate the argument to the larger issues.

Here are some of them: Do Jack Thompson's much referenced "irrefutable" psychological and scientific studies hold up? Why does Thompson discount psychological studies that contradict his claim? Exactly how are violent games more disruptive psychologically to children than violent movies, books or television shows? Why should we take Thompson's arguments seriously when every new form of media — from novels to rock and roll, from jazz to games — has always had a figure like Thompson, quickly forgotten by history, claiming the corruption of America's youth and pointing to scientific studies of the time to back their claim? Yet, in all of these cases, the world has become richer, not poorer, for the corruption. What sort of precedent would outlawing violent games set in regards to our First Amendment rights? And isn't the logical conclusion of outlawing one form of artistic expression total censorship of all forms?

Exactly what is it going to take for someone to put Jack Thompson up against an articulate, level-headed gamer? Not that I'm looking for the job: I'd probably just call him a cunt. Florian Eckhardt