Slashdot Mirror
Game Violence Lawsuit Hits Take Two, Sony, Wal-Mart
oDDmON oUT writes "According to TBO/AP, $246 million is being sought from hardware manufacturer Sony, game publisher Take Two, and retailer Wal-Mart, by the families of victims killed by two teenagers supposedly inspired by Grand Theft Auto. The suit was initiated by Miami lawyer, Jack Thompson, and is not the first time that Thompson has attempted to sue game makers. His crusade to implicate video games in violent incidents has led to countless media appearances, but his 1997 efforts to implicate id and others in a $33 million dollar suit stemming from a school shooting ultimately failed, when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, writing that: 'We find that it is simply too far a leap from shooting characters on a video screen to shooting people in a classroom.'" This looks to be an extension of the lawsuit filed last month.
"from the famous-radiohead-song dept"
Which famous radiohead song are we talking about?
In any case, this is just dumb. This guy just keeps taking pot shots in the hopes that he will one day find the judge who agrees with him?
I hate when people try to legislate morality.
I hate it more when criminals (or their families) try to sue someone else for "causing them to be criminals" - the game companies should sue the kids and their families for slandering their game or something. Just to highlight the absurdity.
I fear this will only accelerate the trend of removing violent and /or adult content from games and other entertainment carried by major retailers.
I was really looking forward to experiencing the dark side of RPG with Temple of Elemental Evil. Unfortunately, it looks like the brothel story line from the original PnP modules was removed. Apparently, it was removed in order to have Wal-Mart carry the game.
I am an adult. I enjoy content that is not appropriate for everyone. If Wal-Mart will not carry what I want, I will buy it where I can. I just wonder if Wal-Mart's influence will mean that the content will no longer even be produced.
John
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. jya.com/ap.htm
It seems to me that we can really consider Rockstar/Take Two as among one of the most influential game designers in the world. Honestly, how many people get to say they went the same route as Id?
On a serious note, I can definitely see this as a cop out for major game distribution stores (Walmart, EB Games) to stop selling "questionable" games. I have been playing violent games since I was about 8 years old, and I'm not violent in the least.
People like this need to take a breather, and actually think for once. If someone will kill someone because of a video game - they were probably mentally unstable enough to kill them from watching a movie, listening to a song, or having a conversation about Barney; That doesn't make the responsibility fall on anyone other than him/herself.
You're just mad because the voices in your head talk to me.
Take Two and Sony should not be sued -- they did their part by putting a MA rating on the game.
Wal*Mart on the other hand, should be sued because they allegedly sold the game to kids who are under the age of the MA rating. If their parents bought the game, then Wal*Mart should not be sued, but rather their parents should.
This is an easy case to close IMO.
Phil
This guy is just another Ambulance Chasing(tm) Lawyer; blaming everybody but the actual criminal for the crime.
When the hell are we going to see tort reform that puts these guys out of business?
People instinctively assess the danger of something by how familiar they are with it. That is to say that it is completely normal for a person to feel no danger while driving recklessly without a seatbelt, yet be afraid of flying if he is not used to it . If a law suit like this is going to succeed, it's goign to be with a jury that is completely unfamiliar with video games and/or movies. No matter what the evidence, if they are fairly normal non-gamer, a game like Grand Theft Auto will make them very uncomfortable, no matter how little merit the suit may have.
I personally don't think that the courts or the government should be involved in judging media for this reason.
That said, I'll take what is likely to be an unpopular position here and say I believe that games like GTA are probably a bad thing. For one thing, the game reinforces the perception of the city as a frightening place populated by predators and victims. For another thing I worry that it might blunt empathy for people who are victims of violence. Of course it's ridiculous to think a normal person would go on a rampage after playing a videogame - it's too far from normal behavior. But being able to dismiss the suffering of people who are remote or easy to objectify is very close to normal behavior. I just don't think it's an appropriate subject for lighthearted fun.
This may strike many as political correctness, so let me make it clear I consider it a personal choice that I do not play games like GTA and nor let my kids play or watch others play them. I realize that reasonable people may differ, that the gamers who play this game are normal people who are on the whole decent to their fellow human beings. So I have no desire to impose this choice on others.
I suppose, though, that an amoral game like GTA is probably worlds better than a game that wraps violence in moral approval.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Was the people behind the Three Stooges ever sued? What about Warner Brothers for their Wile E. Coyote cartoons? Superman? Tom and Jerry?
When you kill somebody in GTA, they die. Run over somebody, they die. Beat a granny to death, she dies. On top of all that, the cops chase you. When they chase you, it gets a LOT harder to finish the game. They don't stop until they get you.
So, GTA teaches you that shooting somebody kills them, and that it must be wrong because the police come after you. But Bugs Bunny teaches us that a duck can get hit in the face with a shotgun blast, and all that'll happen is his beak will be shifted to the opposite side of his head.
Getting back to the case at hand here. There's no possible way that those kids could have shot at cars without realizing that a.) They were doing something wrong and b.) that by firing the gun, they were aiming to kill. Both of these lessons are learned when playing any of the GTA games.
So, if they were inspired by GTA, then they intentionally set out to commit murder. Pity, GTA warned them what would happen.
I wonder how many kids were in the hospital due to frying-pan-in-the-face injuries during Tom and Jerry's prime.
"Derp de derp."