Well, as a UK citizen, I wouldn't get involved in a law that didn't specifically target Video Games, i.e. something that covered all Media, Films, TV etc (though they would fail under the First Amendment, it's still between the American Public and its government). My complain about Thompson was his habit of attacking only video games because it was the newest, and therefore most vulnerable, form of media. And also his complete and total lack of ability to be professional, or even civil, whilst debating it.
I think in many ways, despite his somewhat 'good' intentions, Thompson has ruined any chance of others succeeding, since he's single handedly managed to reduce a real topic into a 'Harry Potter encourages Satanism' type debate. I also think the main fact that a lot of people aren't aware of is that it isn't just computer games that work on a voluntary rating system in the US, so do Movies etc, but courts ARE aware of it, and that will always be a major stumbling block for censors.
Even the interactivity argument falls on its face when you consider that dancing to modern music was considered unhealthy 45 years ago(remember how Elvis' hips allegedly promoted promiscuity?)
The bigger concerns are people like Leland Yee or Schwarzenegger, they are the ones who are more of a risk to the market than Thompson, who's almost certainly generated more sales than he has stopped.
My argument is always this:
Almost everyone has heard of 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', do you think that was because it was a good movie?
