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."

39 of 758 comments (clear)

  1. A Game Is Freedom of Speech by BoldAC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by CSZeus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not as easy as all that. I'd imagine that all sorts of issues get involved, from racial/ethnical issues ("Kill the Haitians!") to obscenity (which, according to the Supreme Court, is not protected by the Freedom of Speech clause).
      It'll be interesting to see how they play the cards.

      (and yes, putting all the legalities aside, I rather agree with you - if the parents don't like it, they should just keep their kids from playing it. Doesn't mean they don't have a case, though.)

    2. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by AntiOrganic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First off, where do you get off that everyone defending the Constitution and the rights enumerated therein is a "liberal?" It seems like it's almost trendy these days to refer to the Constitution like it's some antiquated relic preventing this country from being run the way it ought to be. I happen to consider myself a centrist on most issues, leaning slightly to the right on economic issues and slightly to the left on social ones. Though, the broad-stroked brush with which you paint everyone with opposing ideals ought to say enough about you without even needing to go into detail concerning your actual views.

      A video game is a form of expression, a work of art, just like a movie or music. I'm not trying to imply a "slippery slope" chronology here, which has been all too cliched recently, but legally, to permit a "ban" of this game would set a legal precedent permitting songs with racist lyrics or movies deemed "politically incorrect" to be banned just for insensitivity to certain cultures. You don't see anything wrong with that?

      Haven't we lost enough of our civil liberties in the last two and a half years?

    3. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by DarthWiggle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A game is absolutely not freedom of speech. And I'm a liberal (well, mostly). A game is a (usually) commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets through software. It's a device from which we derive pleasure and which, in turn, provides pleasure to the shareholders of the software company which produced it, or to the members of the open source community which did the same, whether through simple good karma or through positive uptick in the value of the company.

      It is not a politically expressive act protected by the First Amendment, though it may contain protected speech within it.

      Here's the thing that gives me trouble. I've played GTA:VC, and I've enjoyed it. It's fun. It's funny. It's very, very well-produced and the voice acting is some of the best I've seen in a game (hell, with that cast, I'd hope so). And it's really no worse than Scarface, Miami Vice, the Sopranos, or any other pop culture creation based in drugs and organized crime.

      The difference is that you /watch/ Scarface, but you /participate in/ Vice City. You don't watch the fictional leader bash in someone's head with a baseball bat (switching movies), you choose to do it yourself, and that's where the battle-line is: Do we allow or prohibit people from living out fantasies inside a computer game? Do we say that "Kill the Hatians!" is as wrong inside a computer game as an incitement to violence as it would be in the real world? What about a fictionalized non-participatory movie about Hatians in Miami which contained the line "Kill the Hatians!"? Would that pass muster because it doesn't contain the participatory aspect of a game like Vice City?

      I don't know, and really the only thing that this whole debate has caused for me is a lot of soul searching about why I should derive pleasure from killing virtual Hatians and stealing virtual cars. Great game, great gameplay, bad context.

      Then again, chess simulates war.

      This will indeed be an interesting case to watch. The requested damages are so small ($15k?) that it hardly seems like a frivolous lawsuit. I guess the decision will come down to whether games are considered to be passive entertainment (in the same way that a play that requires audience participation might be), or an active extension of the real world, where an incitement to kill in the virtual world may carry over into the real.

      One last thought: the Supreme Court tossed out a case against Hustler magazine which had published a parody ad which, basically, said that Jerry Falwell had done incredibly bad things to his mother. The grounds? That nobody could possibly believe that the ad was serious.

      Who knows.

    4. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Comen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This game is as much Free Speech as any work of ART or any Movie, Song etc...

      This is game is no worse than allot of movies, I am 32 years old and I love the game,
      I personally think its wrong that someone else can tell me what I can not watch or
      play. If other go out and kill someone after playing a video game that their problem,
      and sure as hell is! covered by the Constitution, you people cant pick and choose
      what is cover and isn't covered, any form of communication between people should
      be covered.

      I personally love playing videos games, and like the content to mature content just
      like movies I might watch. These conservative fucks think they can tell me what
      music I can listen to movies I can watch and now games I can play, F! Them!

      That New york post article is total crap

      Ill end this rant with a quote from Public Enemy
      "New York Post, aint worth the paper its printed on, founded in 1801 by Alexander
      Hamilton, That's 190 years of continuous fucked up news!"

    5. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by runlvl0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Next thing you know, you'll be telling us to think for ourselves!

      If someone tells me to thinks for myself, and I do it, then did I?

      --

      Carthago delenda est!
    6. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by DarthWiggle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't even get me started about America's Army. (And, just to get this cleared up right away, I'm on your side.) To me, America's Army blurs the dividing line that GTA:VC does not. It's very clear to me that GTA:VC is, at worst, a way to live out a terrible fantasy (mindless, consequence-free killing). America's Army seems to want to channel that killing instinct and desire into something that is very, very close to the real world and, in fact, should ideally result in people signing up to do it for real.

      No, you're absolutely right. I addressed this in another reply, but I was merely drawing the distinction between the game as speech and the game's contents as speech. To me, no, a game isn't speech.

      But you're absolutely right to bring up America's Army because it is so insidiously evil. Getting inside the heads of kids with a giveaway that depicts realistic combat, and using that as a recruiting tool? Hell, if that's not incitement to violence I don't know what is. I support the US military and the men and women who serve, but, to me, America's Army is a desperate and wrong-headed tool completely against the principles on which I thought the military was based (preventing war by being strong, considering war as the last alternative -- also, note I'm talking about the military here, not their political masters).

      No, Comen, I agree. I completely agree. But we need to think very, very clearly about what it is that we're defending here. If too many people get it in their heads that free speech = killing Hatians, then free speech may fall in popularity.

    7. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Major_Small · · Score: 4, Insightful

      once again the supreme court says the constitution isn't what it is... IMO, if our government is going to be based on the constitution, we should have a court that respects it most of the time, and only uses the "times have changed" BS when something really has changed. just because some people are offended, the court shouldn't fold and create a new law throwing a few more of our rights out the window...

    8. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Daimaou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, let me make sure I have all this straight.

      Source code is not free speech.

      Religion is not free speech.

      Anti religious speech is free speech.

      Politics ARE free speech, except prior to an election, where anybody caught speaking at all will be run through with a spoon.

      Pornography is free speech.

      Pro gay speech is free speech.

      Anti gay speech is not free speech.

      Games depicting white people in futuristic battle gear, aliens, robots, skeletons, and other obvious "bad" people being killed are free speech.

      Games depicting gay, athiest, Hatian politicians, turning tricks with alien robots, and then being killed with a sharpened religious symbol are not free speech.

      The definition of freedom seems to be escaping me.

    9. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Ryan+C. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty frustrating, AntiOrganic, isn't it?

      Apparently in the USA, you have two choices, fascist and liberal. Forget centrist, you can't even be conservative, green, pro-business, or libertarian any more. Nope, if you're anti-fascist you're a dirty liberal, and if you're against unthinking socialism, you're a fascist. Get used to it, that's all the political subtlety the media and those force-fed by it can handle nowadays.

      --
      -Ryan C.
    10. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like you're attempting for the (Score: 5, inflammatory) rating. In the real world things aren't black and white like you're portraying them. It gets sticky when you get in the details.

      Source code is free speech as long as it doesn't violate the DMCA. And then it's not.

      Speaking about religion is still free speech as long as you're doing it on your own dime. I've got 3 religious stations on my cable feed, and they can say all they want about God, the pope, Tammy Fay's makeup, etc.

      Anti-Religious speech is free speech as long as you're not, say, making threats to kill the pope.

      Politics ARE free speech. Proof: Rush Limbaugh is still on the air. When he gets taken off for political speech then it's not. (It doesn't count if he gets taken off for following his own personal prescription drug plan).

      Pornography is free speech as long as the DOJ isn't coming after you for things like showing simulated rape scenes, fisting, interracial sex, etc. (see: extreme associates) You might find it funny that four fingers in a vagina is okay but five apparently is not.

      Pro-gay speech is free speech, as long as you're not making threats against, say, heterosexuals.

      Anti gay speech ia also free speech. The tactics of the anti-gay crowd leave a lot to be desired, but as long as they're not making threats, it's okay. (see also: kkk, ccc, and the 700 club. All anti-gay but yet still exist. The 700 club has their own station)

      Games have always been free speech, because, I think most people think of them as fictional works, or a simulation at best. Should MS flight Simulator be banned because it let's you fly a 747 into the WTC?

      The courts will rule like they have before, and dismiss the suit, since afterall it's a simulation, and not a real threat.

      Yippi Ki Yi Yay.

    11. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dont care if the game says flat out "KILL ALL FUCKING NIGGERS" It doesnt matter. Its free speech. FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH. "ALL fucking niggers must hang" A line from Full Metal Jacket... A film considered a classic. GTA is a game that is considered a classic.... I dont care what HATIANS think. Honestly. This is a free speech issue and the fact that a group of them are offended... means NOTHING. Look i have Psoriasis. Do i protest and want to rip down the bill of rights and the freedoms of this country everytime i hear a joke about it on tv? No. Do i hate having a disease in a world where life is cruel enough? SURE... But thats life. Things are offensive. Someone's going to look at me and say something... and i have every right to tell them to go fuck themselves. Its AMERICA... We have the right to do, and say what we want, live how we want... etc. Sure there are limits... But offending people is not the limit my friends. I'm offended by our governments over abuse of power, the rich upper class folks who live like kings while others cant afford healthcare... Those things offend me.. But they exist. Should we outlaw government? Wealth.... Should we outlaw Jesus.. he offends me... What do we outlaw? BOO FUCKING HOO.. HATIANS... WELCOME TO THE WORLD where EVERYONE gets SHIT ON... YOUR TURN TO SIT IN THE TOILET. Sorry if i offended any hatians... Then again i'm not really that sorry. Its MY point that we're all going to be offended. Generally we'll all play nice and try not to hurt each other.. But when the shit hits the fan.. You're stepping over the next guy to get ahead in this world.... So you're all just as guilty. Its the nature of life. LIFE IS OFFENSIVE. Dont like it? Take the easy way out.

    12. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by spiritraveller · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > Religion is not free speech.
      >
      >Why would you think that?

      Because he doesn't understand the difference between exercising free speech and using the government to endorse his own religion.

      It's a particularly ignorant statement, since religion doesn't even need to be free speech. The "free exercise" of religion gets its own specific protection, even if it only involves meditating by yourself (which would be neither speech nor expression).

    13. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just want to add that i have nothing against hatians , blacks, gays, or whatever any of you happen to be. If the feds do ban GTA... America is a failed experiment. The BILL OF RIGHTS folks... jeez i cant stand how easily people neglect them and try to widdle down the rights of humans EVERY DAY... Its just said. I'm what you call a liberally pissed off person who stands for civil rights above all else. I dont care if a small group of hatians are offended. The game GTA games (VC and GTA3) sold over 20million copies. 20 million people voted folks... The game is a classic. Many offensive films are classics... how about "Fuck the police" by NWA? If the FEDS ban this game, i will laugh and simply give up on this country because these fucking babies dont deserve it. Yes it's sad that they were offended. I do sympathize.. but really its not my problem, its not your problem. Its their problem. Its not RockStar Games problem. 20million bought the GTA games (atleast, and i've seen the figures from video buisness magazine) surely atleast 50% of that 20mil are black... Most people dont care. Most black people worship songs about getting rich, shooting each other and partying... Most of blacks love GTA.. As do i. Its a classic, just like "Fuck the police" and Full Metal Jacket. A small group of hatians being offended... does not warrant pissing on the bill of rights. All comedy is offensive, ALL SPEECH IS OFFENSIVE... LIFE IS OFFENSIVE... Just look at it, listen and take your pick.. anything can be deemed offensive. Trying to ban a game is offensive... EVEN MORE OFFENSIVE...

    14. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by gangien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your view is radical, antiliberty and downright unamerican.

      While I aggree with your post, i wish people wouls stop using this phrase. The only way I can think of to be un american is to wish for America's demise. Expressing your viewpoint, despite being not popular opinion is damned american.

    15. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A game is absolutely not freedom of speech. And I'm a liberal (well, mostly). A game is a (usually) commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets through software.

      A book is (usually) a commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets, through ... paper.

      A newspaper is (usually) a commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets, through... well paper again.

      A song is (usually) a commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets through lyrics and musical sounds (or sometimes not so musical if you've ever heard any power noise)

      Do you get my drift or shall I continue?

      The difference is that you /watch/ Scarface, but you /participate in/ Vice City. You don't watch the fictional leader bash in someone's head with a baseball bat (switching movies), you choose to do it yourself, and that's where the battle-line is: Do we allow or prohibit people from living out fantasies inside a computer game?

      I participate in books. I read them and I have to imagine what the world looks like and what the characters do. I can live out my fantasies in books, or even in television. I mean who wouldn't like to go ride around on the Starship Enterprise and almost kill people because to actually kill them would violate some principal or something.

      There is no facet of life where we ever prohibit people from engaging in fantasy, and every indication is that it's a necessary part of the human mind. We act out an agression fantasy in a video game, or by reading fight club, or by watching fight club. We do this to get out the urge to really go kill people in the real world.

      I have killed virtual hatians. I have derived enjoyment from killing virtual hatians. I don't hate hatians, or much of anybody in fact, but in the context of the GAME, it's quite fun. I go around and see how many cops I can kill before they get me, and it's a hoot. We have friends over and take turns going on violent rampages. And then we go home and sleep peacefully without ever a thought of grabbing a samurai sword and decapitating random passers by. I see nothing immoral in this act because IT IS A GAME.

      There is zero scientific evidence to suggest conclusively that there is a link between people playing violent video games or watching violent movies and then being lead to commit those acts. Yes, some people, already posessing of violent tendancies will go and commit various acts inspired by these media. But it's never been proven to be the cause, it's always the symptom, and more often than not it's just a cheap legal excuse to try to get a lighter sentance (the game made me do it; how can you put me in jail for life?)

      Before video games existed some of the greatest attrocities in human history were committed. People read Catcher in the Rye and decided to assassinate presidents. There's no sign that the violence in these games is hurting anybody, and it may in fact be helping. I know that logging on to a game and blowing the crap out of people for an hour or two is stress relieving. I do that and then I don't feel any urge to take my anger out on my wife or my pets.

      So, relax and go kill some virtual hatians. It'll all be okay.

      --
      This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    16. Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Of course. The concept of innocent until proven guilty only makes logical and ethical sense based on nationality. You see, American citizens have this special property, called Corbomite, that makes them special and deserving of the presumption of innocence.

      And, of course, "enemy combatant" refers to anyone the American government thinks is guilty of a crime against Americans. So, if the government thinks they are guilty, they are guilty until proven innocent. If the government thinks they are innocent, then they get protection of innocence until proven guilty. It only makes logical sense. Vote Quimby!

  2. It's just a game..... by mike300zx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. 0th3r m3d14 by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet if all of the game's anti-Haitian material was put into a book, people would call it free speech...

    --
    True story.
    1. Re:0th3r m3d14 by -kertrats- · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this was put into a book, no one would be saying anything at all. You've got to realize, the morons that try to sue over things like these are illiterate.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Sigh... by meldroc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  6. Huh? by jmt9581 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  7. Why Tort Reform is neccesesary by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Banned? by badfrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Argh! NYPost Is Not Credible! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Argh! NYPost Is Not Credible! by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Tabliod" in a technical sense is any newspaper that appears in the smaller format used by the NY Post, NY Daily News, Boston Hearld, San Francisco Examiner, and may other newspapers. It's the opposite of being "broadsheet" which is the size used by the New York Times, Boston Globe, USA Today and Wall Street Journal.

      Most "tabloids" in the newspaper business aren't intentionally inacurate like the Weekly World News or The Onion are, but they are using the tabloid paper shape to try to make themselves more attractive to riders on trains and buses, and other people on the go. As a result, most tabloids also tend to go for the "stories that move newspapers" more than stories that are of "news value" that broadsheet newspapers seem to prefer. Like it or not, more common New Yorkers will spend their subway rides talking about the story that is on the front page of the Post than the Times on any day that the two papers disagree on the top story. Nobody admits to caring about J-Lo, but somehow if you put a picture of her on the front page the newspaper does sell more copies...

      The NY Times gets caught printing all sorts of inaccurate information all of the time, just read their corrections and retractions if you want proof. It's not really a matter of the credibilty of the Post so much as it is the story selection.

      The fact is, nearly every media outlet in the world is trying their best to be unbiased and credible (and those who aren't really easy to detect, such as Weekly World News and The Onion) yet most end up failing because the opinion of the editors and reporters almost always shows up in the story selection and placement. There will always be complants from people with views on the extreme sides of the scale that every popular media outlet will is biased against them for allowing the opposite side from them to speak. A news outlet is doing its job properly when it's getting roughly equal complaints from both sides.

      You can't just toss a news artcle out just because it appeared in the Post. Their telling of the story might be a little more sensationalized, but that alone doesn't make it untrue.

  10. Regulate, not ban by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In most places, you have to be 18 to buy this game. If you are young enough to be mentally scarred by a video game, no matter how graphic or violent, then parents should know better than to buy it for their young children.

    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.
  11. Re:This is very simple. by AntiOrganic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If this issue should be decided anywhere, it should be in the courts.

    If this issue should be decided anywhere, it should be in the marketplace, not the courts. Capitalism is a democracy in and of itself in that if something is too racist to be sold, no one will buy it and the company will either change its tactics or be put out of business. And the marketplace, unlike the courtroom or legislature, is a place where every person can cast their vote individually. Special interest lobby groups have no undue influence on the open market.
  12. Hmmm by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  13. Welcome to reality by dandelion_wine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  14. Ahh but you see by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Heartburn (Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech) by bwcbwc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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..
  16. Re:Tort Reform by Xzzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Hollywood? by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I did a search on Google ("Haitian civil rights hollywood") and found no such reference. Could you please reply with links?

  18. How about a parent rating system instead? by GnuVince · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Instead of banning a game to make up for the incompetance of many parents to correctly educate their children, why don't we simply ban bad parents instead?

    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 ;)

  19. Games vs. Reality by Prozzaks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. From Ku Klux Klan rallies to Grand Theft Auto... by btakita · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:wtf? Is this purely american? by forkboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem isn't necessarily that everyone needs a cause here...it's that their causes are self-serving and inane. Very few take of the cause of, say, ousting corrupt politicians or punishing dishonest corporate offices. For some reason they take on causes like banning a video game or a book because it offends their sensibilities. (Yet somehow being taken advantage of by those in power doesnt offend them) I'm not sure exactly why this is.

    But yes, you're right on the money. If folks would mind their own damn business, half this countries problems would go away. Imagine it, Political correctness and frivolous lawsuits could be a thing of the past!

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.