Slashdot Mirror
Columbine Video-Games Suit Dismissed
Dr_LHA writes: "This story on Yahoo! reports that the federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the influence of video games and movies where what caused the Columbine High School massacre. Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense."
One more scapegoat for bad parenting taken away.
Now lets work on the rest. All we have to do is wait for some money hungry family to start suing.
-------------------------------------------------
Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense.
What the hell are you talking about? It's well-documented that no murders or school violence took place before Magnavox created the first videogame system thirty years ago.
I wholeheartedly agree. Those parents are just trying to shift the focus of blame off of them, and onto something else, like media. It's a typical move. They portray the illusion that, somehow, society has failed them by not helping them raise their children. It's wrong, so very wrong.
There is nothing quite like the feeling of having 16-on-16 in a good CounterStrike game.
It's just like Itchy & Scratchy Industries president Roger Meyers Jr. said in that Simpsons episode...
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing... There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent Brockman: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent Brockman: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
Replace "cartoons" with "video games" and add a hearty "get bent" to the censors.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning
Let me tell you that urge is getting harder and harder. Thank God I don't have access to Rocket Launchers, M16's and Uzi's.
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
I agree with your point, but not your example. See Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case for more info. The basic deal is that McDonald's has been serving coffee at an arbitrary high temperature, knew that over the years there had been a number (~700) of injuries due to this, and did nothing to reduce the chance that these injuries would occur. So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's. Should spilling coffee in your lap make you feel stupid, damp, and very warm? Yes. Should it give you third-degree burns in three seconds? Considering that there's no advantage to serving coffee at that temperature, I would say no.
I agree with your point about personal responsibility, though - a video game doesn't make someone kill; if those kids were killers then it was because of something else that had already made them like that. Perhaps the fact that they could plan the whole thing in a parent's garage without the parent knowing is a good indication of where the problem may lie.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I see quite a few posts already saying that this decision helps to place the blame where it "belongs" -- on the parents.
But what about parents who do a good job? Parents who read Dr. Spock, have family dinners, spend a night a week with no TV but playing games and talking to their children, and yet STILL have children who grow up to be Charles Manson?
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
We, as a society, are very quick to (1) Assume that someone "must" be responsible for anything that goes wrong, and (2) sue the crap out of whomever is currently assigned blame for #1.
For a while it was ADHD and Ritalin. It's often lousy teachers. Then it was rap music and/or video games. Sprinkled in there occasionally are parents, teachers, and school administrators (not to mention on-site security officers or the bus driver).
Hasn't anyone thought to blame the people who actually commit the crimes?
We as a society have to get used to the fact that you don't always know why, that there isn't always someone who has the power to stop things, and that we aren't always entitled to restitution.
Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."
Many people simultaneously believe that:
1) Behaviour Can Be Learned
2) Video Games Can Be Educational
3) Video Games Cannot Teach Negative Behaviour
Does this belief make sense? Children take their cues from all aspects of life, including the games they play. No, I don't believe violent video games should be banned - but I believe they should be rated, and those ratings enforced. 18+ for games like Quake. "Let's see some ID kid. No? Well, I can't sell you this game - I'd risk a fine or revocation of my business licence."
The parent could still buy it for their child, but at least they'd be forced to accept their responsibility as a parent.
Columbine happened right smack in the middle of a time period when we are witnessing the breakdown of the basic family unit, and the collapse of parental responsibility.
Video games are not the direct cause, but neither are they unrelated or innocent. They are one contributing factor in the fabric of society.
About a new possible Bill in the State of Michigan regarding the sale and rental of video games that have violent content in them.
I am going to find out who this idiot is and ask him why he believes that parents are incapable of raising their children.
I was also going to point out that a law similiar to this was passed and then reveresed in court, in the city of Indianapolis recently.
Parents do not need additional laws that give them even more reason to shirk their duties in raising their children. If they do, then they really shouldn't be parents. Work a few less hours and frikkin' raise your children. I know that when I have children, I or my wife, whomever is making less, will stay home and raise the children.
Again, those children in Columbine, including most of the "Copy-cat" children, were all on some kind of psycotropic medication, had two parents that worked more hours than they spent with their kids and probably barely knew what their kids were doing, thinking or planning.
That never happened to me, because my parents were there. Sure, sometimes they seemed annoying, but for the most part, they spent time with me and my siblings. They took us places, explained the actual difference between right and wrong and helped us become the good citizens that we are today.
Today's children don't have parents, they have lax animal trainers that are barely there to feed and change, let alone train the children they bore. Get a grip people, stop supporting these silly laws and start supporting your children.
Another thing, your children are growing up. If you don't teach them about the REAL WORLD, then they are going to learn all the dangers on their own. If that means they get pregnant at 15, then that is really your fault for choosing not to talk to them about sex. If they end up whacked out on drugs, again, you should have talked to them about drugs.
My parents did that for me and yours may have done that for you. If you turned out okay and actually had parents there to raise you. What makes you think that your children will be okay without parents?
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I think in earlier times, it was easier to work out this rage, either fighting was more accepted (my parent's time), or you had to actively hunt for food (grandparent's time), or by 13 or 14, you were out fighting [i]real[/i] wars.
I don't think I was an atypical teen, but I had a lot of anger and angst I needed to work out. Luckily I had an outlet for that. I don't think it was unhealthy, most of my angst was about things I couldn't control and didn't have the emotional maturity to deal with yet. Adolescence is a very hard time to deal with. Mine was made better knowing that someone felt the same way I did (or at least did at one time) and there were outlets for my irrational rage and aggression.
Unfortunately, I see many parents trying to take away every one of these outlets, on the idea that they somehow cause violence. They'd like to ban everything from football to video games to violent television, because they aren't comfortable with the violent aspect of them. Somehow, they think if you just take these things away, people will somehow stop being "animals". It doesn't work that way. Man is violent by nature, and I'm sure that's part of the reason we survived to build society. You don't breed that out in a generation or get rid of it by legislation. And, the more you close off the places to get rid of this aggression safely, you will encourage more and more school shootings.
-------------------------------------------------
I think the personal responsibility of the person involved should be a mitigating factor with regards to damages.
It was. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but this amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also found that Liebeck was 20% at fault for the spill. The massive $2.7 million punitive damages award was, well, punitive, and likely had a helluva lot to do with the 700 claims McDonald's had settled since 1982 involving people scalded by its coffee, was aware that its coffee could cause and had caused serious burns, and was utterly unrepentant of that fact.
McDonald's knew its coffee burned people, and did nothing about it. A quality enforcement manager at McDonald's testified before the court that the coffee was required to be held in the pot at 185 degrees, +/- 5 degrees, and admitted that this would cause burns, but also that McDonald's had no intentions of reducing that holding temperature.
The judge reduced punitive damages to three times the compensatory damages, and called McDonald's conduct "reckless," "callous," and "willful."
It is entirely another thing to have a cup of potentially-scalding hot coffee wedged between your legs while driving.
It is, indeed. But that's not what this woman did. This woman wasn't even driving the goddamned car. She was a passenger. Her son was driving, and he stopped the car at her request so she could take the lid off the coffee and add cream and sugar. She held the coffee between her legs to pry the lid off, at which point it spilled.
She was not driving. She was not holding the coffee between her legs while she was driving. The car was not even MOVING when this incident occurred.
if you aren't assuming that hot coffee can burn you, you are being stupid
Do you routinely assume that beverages served to you for your consumption are capable of inflicting full-thickness third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds should they touch your skin? I'm aware that I should treat my coffee as if it were a hot beverage, not as if it were hydrocholoric fucking acid.
I'm sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm sick and fucking tired of how people who are ignorant of the fundamental facts of this case feel qualified to pronounce judgement upon it.