Slashdot Mirror
Grand Theft Auto Ban To Be Decided By Courts
Wingchild writes "Haitian civil rights groups in Florida have filed a lawsuit with the circuit court in Palm Beach County, which Rockstar Games has asked to be moved up to a federal court for a final decision on whether or not their game has to be banned from stores. This move happens as the court of media opinion begins weighing in on the subject (facts irrelevant, of course), a fact which Slashdot Games noted a scant two days ago."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Parents should just do their job.
AC
People are getting to dang PC if they can't seperate the goings on within a game to what's actually going on in real life. This does need to be allowed to stay in stores if for nothing else then for free speech. If a particular retailer doesn't want to sell it than so be it, but an all out ban on a game being sold is stupid.
Yet if all of the game's anti-Haitian material was put into a book, people would call it free speech...
True story.
If this issue should be decided anywhere, it should be in the courts.
The thing is this, there is no issue to be decided.
Ergo, this whole thing is just a stupid thing to do. Computer games...free speech...second amendment...it's all getting hazy...
Slashdot: when news breaks, we give you the pieces.
Yet another group sticking its nose into the private business of others, on the basis of "hate speech" censorship. Simply disgusting and contrary to free speech rights.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even just now I was thinking "Damn, maybe I should go buy it just in case..."
HAHA... As usual, this kind of publicity will just sell more copies.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
I don't recall reading anything in the U.S. Constitution saying "The right of the people to not be offended shall not be infringed."
If you don't like the game, DON'T BUY IT!!! Nobody's pointing a gun at you to force you to buy.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
When did parents stop taking responsibility for the games that their children play, the cd's that their children listen to, and the movies that their children watch? In my opinion, a game is free speech, and should therefore be protected under the First Amendment.
To quote the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
My blog
Anyone who is famillar with the florida courts can understand why Rockstar Games wants the lawsuit moved to the federal system.
This case illustrates a deeper problem. The very nature of the legal system lets irate idiots inflict a death of a thousand cuts. There is no barrier to be overcome to bring a lawsuit. No penalty for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Just the sound of society grinding down, under the weight of too many lawyers.
By banning a game loved by gamers everywhere (that isn't about Haitians), a Haitian group will only direct more negative attention to Haitians than the game ever would have.
I would complain and call it stupid, but I wouldn't try to get it banned. That's stupid.
got my copy of GTA:VC from Palm Beach. I live an hour or so away. Its funny that people would make such a fuss about it, as fun as it is to blow up the police car and pick up hookers, its only a game. Parents should teach their children respect for humans and that such games are nothing to be expected of in real life. Its rating implies already it shouldn't be given to young kids, not to mention, doesn't this just start cutting down what America is founded on, freedom? I can understand control to a level, but I do believe the level is met when we have a group that rates games. Mom's need to read the box before buying the game for little johny, not just because he wants it.
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
There's probably way too many copies on the market to make it a rare collectible.
Which makes another interesting point, most people that want the game have it already, banning it isn't going to make it go away, it's just providing more free advertising for it.
Slashdot can REALLY get on my fucking nerves now and then. I think I'm going to have to use a Louisville slugger to beat this point into the editors' and submitters' thick skulls...
The NY Post is NOT a credible news source. The NY Post is a TABLOID RAG that INTENTIONALLY writes up utterly ridiculous bullshit for the sole purpose of entertaining and/or selling magazines (and, it might be noted that the NY Post sells like week old baked horseshit, and for good reason).
I'm in Pennsylvania and they sell the NY Post here. However, they pull a dirty trick - most places put it with the regular newspapers instead of with crap like National Inquirer and Weekly World News. Then, people buy it and mistake it for upstanding journalism with some level of integrity. They wrote the piece to incite people. I mod the entire NY Post staff, and the writer of that article in particular, with -1 Flamebait.
PLEASE stop thinking that the NY Post is a newspaper. It is a tabloid, nothing more. It doesn't represent popular opinion, and, in fact, when they write garbage like that, it doesn't even necessarily represent the NY Post's opinion. It's JUST A TABLOID.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Its lazy parents who can't read a For mature 18+ adults only on the box that make these stupid bans because they can't or won't reign in their children and tell them that they can't have something because they aren't old enough. These cowardly sheeply parents must be stopped.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
The game's very old now. Most people who want it, have it, and there's pleanty of pirated copies running around on the Internet.
so what if it gets banned...Speaking as a native of Florida, we have too many Hatians anyway. They're a major source of crime and decreasing property values because they come over, illegally, can't get jobs, so they break into cars, and steal things.
It's not right, morally or legally, to kill them or shoot at them or any of that, in real life. But, it's a harmless stress reliever to shoot at them in a game -- it's a way to take out frustration at a particular group of people without having to resort to dangerous and inappropriate physical violence.
All this ban would do is make the game look much more interesting to teens. Not everyone has played it now, but if it gets banned EVERYONE will. Yeah, put a sticker on the game box saying "Warning: this game contains lots of violence" so parents can not buy it for their kids. Oh wait! They do that already in some places!
meh
.. they should just wait. The game is old now. By raising all these issues, GTA is going to experience a new wave of interest.
You'd think after what happened with Napster that people in general would learn not to draw extra attention to something you hate so much.
"Derp de derp."
From the NY Post article:
In Tennessee last summer a motorist was killed and his passenger wounded when two boys - aged 14 and 16 - played "Grand Theft Auto" and then decided to go out and take sniper shots at cars, just like in the game.
I find it peverse that GTA is held to blame in this particular case. More to the point, what the fuck were two underage boys doing with access to shotguns?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
You can kill a cop, steal his gun, and then use it to shoot someone else. Or you can pick up a prostitute and have sex with her in the back of your stolen car, then beat her to death - or shoot her, bludgeon her, whatever you want.
I'm just a tiny bit more concerned about these things actually going on in the world -- which they do -- than whether or not someone wants to explore the dark side in digital form.
Desensitizing? Yes. But hell, if we weren't already desensitized to that stuff, everyone would be too disgusted to buy or play the thing. How's it doing on the shelves?
It's just a game! That NYP article about how these types of games rank up there with child molestation and snuff films is a disillusioned mindset to have. How in the hell can you compare a FANTASY WORLD GAME with *fictional* characters, to the ACTUAL defiling of a child?? Futhermore, a snuff film usually involves the ACTUAL killing of a woman after ACTUAL non-consenual sex. those two comparasons NYP made are not only misinformed to the extreme, but also totally wrong.
A well rounded indivudual with decent morals and values wouldn't think of doing the things potrayed in video games. It's not the publisher's fault that the content of their games could further warp a warped person. No more than you could hold Mead responsible for your child stabbing another child with one of their pencils, or hold Ford responsible because you killed someone with their truck.
I'm sick and tired of parents and lawmakers looking to hollywood and game publishers as the sole excuse for their corrupted children. You want to corrupt a kid? Make then watch C-SPAN or CNN and the news every night. Most of the time it's a free-for-all hoopla on who killed who, which politican screwed over who, or how many times can someone be put in and taken off death row. Among other nasty things that are true and actually happening.
Then people say to me "how can you support the mistreatment of women in a game, but yet you don't support it in real life?" It's easy. One is fake the other is real. If someone made a game that blurted the words "kill whitey" and got points for it, so what? Would i be offended, not really, it's a game. If a person of another racial background was going to mug me, and said he played the "kill whitey" game, right before he capped me, would i be cursing the game maker? Why bother? It's not their fault that this guy who's mugging me is a moron, he's the one who's about to cap me, not the game.
On another related note, why must games like these be hounded for their content? I'm sure there are many like myself who enjoy an escape from relatity once in a while. To be able to come home after dealing with annoying customers and have some shoot'em up fun for a little bit will not hurt anyone. This is pretty close to becoming the thought police. People need escapes to stay sane.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
OK, I'm bored, since my office is dead due to the little wind storm going on, so I'll take a long walk of this short intellectual pier for fun...
/.'ers can relate to).
Let me start by saying: (1) Yes, I am a lawyer; (2) yes I think these lawsuits are silly; (3) I don't believe the parents have a very good chance of winning.
Whenever this issue comes up, there is the inevitable deluge of virulent "where were the parents!" and "why weren't you teaching your kids values" type posts/comments/rants. Despite the mind numbing banality of most of these, people seem to continue to harp on about it over and over.
What I find particularly interesting is the attempt to ascribe these types of lawsuits to "liberals" and "the left", and the rabid conservative mantra that liberals have "destroyed personal responsibility." (Like fiscal responsibility? largest deficit in history)
I am wary of these "where were the parents" type simplifications. It seems to me that these are all based on a mythical image of the American Family that is taken straight from 1950's television, and has little (or no) bearing on today's society. Where were the parents? Working two jobs that require 60+ hours a week so they can continue to enjoy the "middle class" life in some suburban development near a semi-decent school. By the time Mom & Dad have come home at 6:00 or 7:00 pm and made dinner, they are probably way too strung out from a 14 hour day to be providing much useful moral guidance.
Don't get me wrong, I support working Mom's and Dads. My family is a two-job deal, but we are lucky in that, because I have a high-priced legal education, we can afford full time child care for our tots. Most parents in the U.S. can't do that.
Meanwhile the kids are sitting around at home from 3pm when schools let out, thanks to shorter school days brought about by reduced budgets. There aren't too many organized, safe after school programs anymore (especially for kids who aren't athletic, or aren't into sports, which I'd be a large number of
Sure, 99% of the people smart enough to read this site were smart enough to separate fact from fancy at a pretty young age. But ask yourself: didn't you do anything stupid at the age of 14 (or 24) that you now look back on and go "whoa...I was an idiot..." The thing maturity brings is an ability to think through the potential consequences of your actions. That's what "learning from experience" is all about. Now, none of us (hopefully) ever decided to shoot at trucks on the highway. But I'll bet a few people here tossed things off an overpass...or put things on the train tracks...or stole a stop sign (guilty)...or any of a hundred things that could have caused serious injury. The kids involved in the GTA case are probably particularly sub-par in the brains department, but they didn't set out to hurt people, they just didn't consider that if you shoot at the side of a truck (a supposedly destructive but not dangerous act) it might have dire consequences if you MISS. (After all, how many of us miss all that often using the sniper rifle in GTA?) So, bad decision on their part.
People are incensed that TakeTwo and Sony are sued. It is descried as evidence of the out of control courts. However, what conservatives never seem to point out is that almost all of these suits are dismissed early on (and if you dig into the ones that aren't, like the infamous McDonald's coffee case, you find the facts aren't as cut-and-dried as you think). In other words, the courts aren't out of control; they are doing exactly what they are designed to do: adjudicate the rights of parties who feel they have been wronged.
One last (semi-random) point. Someone raised a first amendment issue below. That isn't really relevant here. Whether TakeTwo has a right to publish GTAIII is different from whether they can be held responsible for consequences that naturally flow from their decision to do so. (I'm not saying that shooting at trucks is a natural consequence). People's def
Make me your friend; my fans get +1 comment scores.
You know no one is going to listen that kind of thing.
It makes too much sense.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
No, no, no, no. YOU CAN'T OUTLAW STUPID LAWSUITS WITHOUT OUTLAWING LEGITIMATE ONES. A lawsuit is frequently the *only* weapon a consumer or employee has to keep companies from screwing them over. Did you know that California is one of the few (only?) states that make it a felony for an employer to disregard saftey laws and regulations resulting in a workers death? In most places its a misdemenor. If you don't live in California and your brother is killed working on some heavy machinery because they didn't a) shut it down and b) have a spotter, your only recourse is a wrongful death lawsuit. If damages are capped, at say $500,000, the company will merrily keep breaking rules if it saves them money. They'll just write it off as a business expense.
Same thing with consumer products - if one of your family members was killed by one of the Ford Explorers with one of the bad Firestone tires, would you feel their life was worth $500,000? When they knew there was a problem and said nothing, hoping no one would notice? If the damages are capped the company wont feel any pain. Microsoft could be fined 10 billion dollars tomorrow and would write out a check with only a sigh, and keep right on doing what got it that its 40 billion in the first place.
And most of the so called "frivolous" lawsuits that the tort reform people like to site are anything but. Either they didn't exist in the first place (like the guy who supposedly tried to trim his hedge by picking up his lawnmower and accidently cut his foot), or by emmiting significant details. Perfect example: the McDonalds coffee lady. She did not sue and win because she dumped hot coffee on her own damn self. She sued and one because McDonalds had gotten HUNDREDS of complains from both customers and health inspectors about the temperature of their coffee and ignored them, and because she got THIRD DEGREE BURNS REQUIRING 280 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN SURGERY. She. Was. Burned. To. The. Bone. Third degree burns. Skin grafts. And she didn't even want to sue them in the first place, just receive reimbursment for her medical bills. It was after they blew her off that it went to trial. And the final damage award was reduced anyway. What was it in the first place? About $3 million. How much is that to McDonalds? About two days worth of sales. For just coffee.
To recap: you can't ban unreasonable lawsuits without also banning reasonable ones. The best you can hope for is that stupid lawsuits are dismissed early on. Because the alternative is not worth the cost, ever.
That presents a real problem. Guns are very tightly regulated through legal channels. IF you wish to buy a gun from a legit dealer, you must be of proper age (18 for long guns, 21 for hand guns). When you declare your intent to purchase it, they will take your personal information, and call the police with it. The police then use that to do a background check via NICS. If that should return any number of red flags, such as being underage, have a felony conviction, having outstanding warrants, having domestic violence convictions, or having been comitted to a mental health facility, the sale will be denied.
So this means that underage kids have only two real methods of getting guns:
1) Illegal dealers.
2) Their parents.
This was a case of #2. Well then, that would mean that the parents are to blame for permitting their kids to have unsupervised access to firearms. That implies personal responsibility on the part of the parents. That is the one thing the world seems to not be about these days, is responsibility for ones own actions. Parents blame their kids behaviour on videogames or TV. Heck, leaders of dictatorships blame their countries' problem on the US.
Also note that the parents of the kids that did this don't hav a lot of money, not nearly as much as Rockstar Games does. So they are a perfect scapegoat. It's not our (our meaning parents) fault that our kids have no morals and access to weapons, it's those eveil video game companies that, conveniantly, we can try to milk for cash.
Same sort of thing happened with the firearm industry on numerous occasions. People sued firearm manufactures when a death occured and one of their guns were used. The lawsuits were almost universally unsuccessful so the shark lawyers ahve moved onto new targets, by and large, though firearm lawsuits are still tried from time to time.
As a resident of South Florida, this case makes my head ache. Based on the facts of the case as I understand them, the game should not be banned, either by the government or by Walmart.
1) The offensive phrase apparently refers to a competing criminal gang made up of Haitians, not to the Haitian community in general.(?)
2) If incitement to virtual behavior that would be illegal in reality is deemed inappropriate, the entire genre of first person shooters and much of several other genres would be illegal as well.
3) If virtual child porn is legal, how can virtual racism be illegal?
On the other hand, Haitians have to be the most oppressed people in the western hemisphere. First, their home country is a wasteland, then they have to risk life and limb to get here, then (unlike Cubans) they have to hide from immigration because they don't get amnesty just for reaching shore. Finally, if they do get through all that, even African-Americans pick on them. In public HS here "Are you Haitian?" is the same as "Are you stoopid?" (see Disclaimer)
Finally, the parent comment is one of the best balanced discussions of this issue in the whole thread. It doesn't just discuss the specific issue of the lawsuit, but it addresses the broader issues of morality in media consumption.
Disclaimer: The phrase "even African-Americans" is used to indicate that this is a case of black on black racism (or nationalism), it doesn't mean "even the lowly black folks pick on the Haitians".
We are the 198 proof..
because that would introduce the worry that small fries wouldn't even bother to go to court if there was any doubt in their mind they could lose, because they couldn't afford it.
The guy with the bigger wallet could just threatan to run the costs up so high that it's not worth the risk.. and basically bring us full circle to where we are now.
In other words the problem is trickier than that.
Ok, first off, GTA is a kick ass game and I don't care what you're lame-ass uneducated arguments are. If your kids are the type that would go off chucking molotovs at cars just because they were playing a game involving it, then blame yourselves and/or their environment, not the l33t programmers at Rockstar Games.
;) (don't give me a terrorism gripe for that one..I don't wanna go there)...For me, when I'm mad at someone and feel like lettin off steam, I play this game or any other game where violence is ok, because I know that it will help me cool down. Half-Life works just as well, but I don't see any states trying to shutdown Valve or Sierra's creative gaming departments because some nerd with a rich dad attempted to create inter-demensional transports and end up blowing up a city block.
Secondly, as a 15-year-old mostly sane individual owning both games, I can say that this game has never tickled an urge to go off and cap a Haitian, African-American, Mexican, or any other race/individual out there. These games don't inspire hate crimes, violence, or anarchy...they come off as fun, because as we all know, guys like blowin stuff up
Bottom line: These games are fun, honest, and creative attempts at revolutionizing the way games are meant to be played and NOT a call to violent, illegal, and immoral action.
nothing.can.stop.me.now
I did a search on Google ("Haitian civil rights hollywood") and found no such reference. Could you please reply with links?
I mean, what is this? My parents educated my brothers and I very well, and when they said "Don't watch this" or "Don't play this game" because they thought that this material wasn't appropriate for us, we didn't. We learned to obey our parents, to trust their judgement even if sometimes we disagreed with them. I am now 20 years old, I am an adult, they no longer really tell me what to do or what not to do: they know that I am responsible and that I will do what is right.
So instead of asking to ban games, give better parenting lessons to the future mommies and daddies, teach them how to educate their kids, how to make them understand that some things are not for them.
Here we got GTA3 about two years ago. Me an one of my brothers were old enough to play according to my parents, but not our baby brother. It didn't please him that he couldn't play, but as far as I know, he respected our parents' decision until they said that it was okay, that he could play.
Also, once kids obey parents, it's easier to convince them that Vim is the superior editor ;)
It sounds like you and your child are in trouble, because you're not going to be able to protect and coddle him forever. At some point, he will be exposed to this digital menace.
I can only hope that you've taught your child the difference between the real world and the fake television worlds. I hope that your child understands the difference between killing somebody with a video game controller or an illegal shotgun.
If not, I hope you start locking your bedroom door at night because you're obviously raising a little Damien.
I am still stunned that some people fail to make the difference between reality and games.
I happen to enjoy playing GTA3 and violent games in general. Fourtunatly, I have been able to make the crucial difference between games and realty since the age 6 ( Hey! I can't remember exactly when but I'm sure that I understood that Mario wasn't real the first time I played Nintendo ;). However, what scares me is that adults ( theoredicaly mature humans ) fail to see the difference or are too lazy to properly supervise their children, and find nothing better than to blame games and tv.
To me, they are the ones making the damage to society since they do not even care or take the time to raise their kids.
What kind of society do you build with kids that didn't have adequate parenting?
Open your eyes. Take your responsabilities, but please don't blame it on everything else.
I have written this message as a reply to all the people blaming video games and tv. I think it would be a good idea to forward it to the author of the article.
Mr. Byron,
... Haitians" quote and it leads me to wonder how reliable the rest of your reports are and whether you have even played the game. You cite recent allegations against Michael Jackson of child molestation to be preferable behavior to having sex with a willing prostitute or killing a ruthless gangster which makes me wonder how your moral code works and if you were being too off-handed or absurd. The only thing that seemed factual or warranted in your piece for investors was about the pending SEC investigation. It is something to watch with concern, but moralizing and going beyond notifying unknowing parties that some object to the content of Take-Two's video games seems out of place. Perhaps I have been too hard on you and you needed to meet a word count or were just sitting too high atop your perch that day, but a severe clash of ideas has motivated me to write this. If those that would use the court to censor a group engaging in free speech while making a quick buck for some attorneys succeed, then Shakespeare's "kill all the lawyers" quote starts to feel more rational than intended. Alas, that will probably be stricken from the work by then anyway.
Though I fear my effort will be wasted I must take issue with your piece on the New York Post website entitled, "Give Back Take-Two". For several years, I have enjoyed the guilty pleasures offered to me by playing a fictitious character in the Grand Theft Auto genre of games. I have yet to sell drugs, kill everyday people on the street or have sex with prostitutes in real life. Just as the actor playing a villain is allowed to indulge his baser instincts while playing a part on stage, so too have I enjoyed playing my part using a controller on my living room's virtual stage. I use this to counter your assertion that it was merely playing a video game that drove two misguided youths to kill passing motorists. It was the only real correlation you drew between the game and possible ill effects on society. You cite 5 million copies sold and yet only one incidence of wrong doing in possible connection with the game. I would venture to say there would be a bigger case against many works of classic literature and their connection to ill behavior than that. The fact is young people that are disturbed will tend to behave that way. Making a case for attacking youth depression, abuse or pathology more vigorously would be fairer than passing the blame to a modern form of art and performance. Instead, you further the cause of those who would deify all that is pretend. I doubt very many of our fathers who played cops and robbers in the school yard went home with the notion that it was okay to steal or kill cops. Today the imagery is a bit more convincing and the "bang-bang" noises truer to the ear, but the game remains the same. If you indeed lean in favor of disposing with all that could possibly led someone astray you have your work cut out for you. Only when all art, literature, writing (except elitist pseudo-journalism), music and any other form of performance someone might find objectionable is eliminated will the world be safe enough for you? If you are among that sort then I am glad you tend to rank in the minority for now. Speaking of minorities, I think it would also be fitting to mention that anyone that plays GTA will find that it tends to attack all creeds, races and societal sub-types equally and not just Haitians. You make no effort to mention this beyond the "Kill
Sincerely,
Sean Thompson
Maybe somebody can answer me this one.
Does everybody in america need a cause?
Can't you just get up, go to work, come home, relax, spend time with family, and go to sleep?
Believe it or not you do not need a purpose to live, you just need to enjoy YOUR life; let others go about their respective ways
Insanity
Error 407 - No creative sig found
If the Ku Klux Klan has the "right" to march down Skokie (a Chicago suburb that is home to many Holocaust survivors), then Take Two has the "right" to make Grand Theft Auto.
I don't what this game promotes and how it influences some people, but America was created with free speech in mind. Unfortunately, people with poor taste are also allowed free speech.
But then, I'm sure the British thought Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the mighty John Hancock had poor taste and poisonous words that should be silenced.
Besides, people still make the desicion to act violently.
And even in canada A&E brodcasted the entire 50th aniversary edition of playboy, which is availible for anyone who has cable. But it's not even just Porn, there are a lot of shows/movies that contain more and more violence that are getting a rating of PG.
Perhaps parents should look at themselves before blaming the babysitter (video game / TV / Movie)
"After I'm dead, I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." - Cato the Elder, aka Marcu
In other words, we called them at 5pm on New Years Eve, and no one was in the office. But we'd rather make it sound like they have something to hide so they are avoiding us.
Now, in this case, neither party returned a call, so at least this line isn't biased towards one end or another, but all to often the newspaper does things like "So and so demonstrators say that big corporation X has contracted with Satan to increase its bottom line, but representatives of corp X did not return our calls." Here, the language makes it sound as if it was a conscious effort on the company's part to avoid the call, when in most cases, due to publishing deadlines, the reporter can only wait a few hours at most for a call back, and even then the call was probably placed near or after the end of business. You try reaching Bill Gates at 4pm Friday afternoon for a Saturday story that has to be ready for printing by 10pm to make the presses. Heck, even if the company has a PR dept. they are often not allowed to make any comment until it has been reviewed by a legal team. These things take time, and any "attempt" to call that provides the call's recipient less than 1 full business day to respond should not even be mentioned, unless the reporter would like to be accurate and state "there was insufficient time for this reporter to contact a representative of comp X before wiring this story." But you won't ever see that, because that admits sloppy reporting, which is all to prevalent anymore.
Oh, was that my outside voice?