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."
Why the heck would they want to ban GTA while I see worse things every day when I go to my local CompUSA. I mean Duke Nukem 3d had women flashing or pole dancing in it, and I still see that on the shelf when I go to CompUSA. In GTA3, at most, with women, you see a van shaking back and forth. What is this world coming to ?
This signature was left intentionally blank.
I just have to wonder, especially since I did't read the whole linkage, but isn't it up to the users to use some sort of brainwork for themselves???
I think that very often in the US you just HAVE to exclude ANY possibility to act stupid, and in ADVANCE at that. So, no cats in the microwave and McCoffee is hot and so on. So if some game makes you act stupid, as someone claims, is it the game that is stupid or the player?
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
There are no details in one article, and the Times' just talks around the facts and about SEC statements.
I should be suing the HBO for the soprano's, I should sue MGM for the Godfather, I should sue tristar for Goodfellas.
Every time some idiot hears that i'm italian, suddenly they start thinking i'm some stupid mafia goomba, and they start doing the whole Robert Di Nero accent when they talk to me. Fact is, I was raised in California, and so many of my family members were trying to hard to be "American" that most of them talked like John Wayne.
But I do enjoy afformentioned films and shows, as well as GTA. It's not like rockstar made a game that promotes Haitian genocide. They just did the whole voodoo momma stereotype(which *IS* a part of Haitian culture, just like the Mafia is part of my heritige)
I think these people need to get a life. It's a game, liven up.
A quick search on Google shows that Haitian civil rights groups are being paid by hollywood to lobby against video games. We all know that the old boys club on the west coast can't handle competition in entertainment industry. They need more kids to rent violent movies and less kids to rent violent video games.
Interesting, but hardly supprising considering that revenue for the combined US videogames market exceeded revenue for the combined US film and television production market.
Also it's fairly interesting that the games that get the most flack from the media and politicians are the ones made and marketed by independent game publishers rather than the major entertainment companies software publishing arms.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Mod Parent Up.
Illiterate, and devoid of any real moral compass. The morons trying to sue are likely made up in part of specific reasons why the Haitian denizens of Miami are generally distrusted.
I don't think Haitians as a group SHOULD be distrusted, but there are some SERIOUSLY fucking bad eggs in that shithole of a city that make things bad for their compatriots. (not that they're the only group, I wouldn't go near Miami at the moment for any amount of cash)
Hint to the Haitians that want to be part of society: Alienate, persecute and police the criminals among you, or you will continue to be branded as a group. It's not right, it's not cool, but it's the way things are, and you'd do us all a service by purging the scum that have tainted your image before Joe Bubba the Ignorant.
Thugs are Thugs and should be treated as such. Just because they are part of your ethnic group doesn't make them heros.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
First off, the SC doesn't protect actions as much as it does pure speech and secondly, commercial speech (they are selling a video game) can be highly regulated. It's not as much as a slam dunk as you think. I'm with you though, just leave them alone and let the market decide!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Why is a video game not free speech, but a book is? Or a television program, radio program, painting, song, sculpture, etc.
What is so different about a videogame that suddenly makes it non-speech? Is it that it's on a TV? no, can't be that because TV programs are on TV.
Is it that it is interactive (i.e. the end user can change the outcome)? No, it can't be that because I read several books as a child where one could change the outcome. And books are protected speech.
Is it that videogames are relatively new, and didn't exist at the time of the framing of the Constitution? No, it can't be that because TV and radio didn't exist then either.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
Actually, I bet it would be banned for short periods of time in some regions but then would later be considered a classic and all high school students would be required to read it.
....
That's how I assume they picked the reading material for my English classes... not that I read any of it.
E.g. "Catcher in the Rye" -- possibly even "Naked Lunch". But these are minority cases: an enormous volume of hardcore porn, for example, has been published; but you won't find any of it in school.
Now, here's a weird story. I once noticed two students in a university medical library watching a video of a woman masturbating -- evidently required viewing for a human sexuality course. I'm not against porn, but in the context of a medical library, with lots of students and teachers in the area, I found the video strangely disturbing
-kgj
-kgj
One might well ask where you get off denying Alexander Hamilton's (a "conservative" Federalist) admonition that the Bill of Rights is not to be interpreted as in any way being a restriction on the rights of the people and pointing out that even in the absence of the Bill of Rights the Constitution gives Congress no authority to pass laws that would violate the rights enumerated in it?
The Constitution overtly restricts the government, not the people, and your post is exactly the sort of thing he warned an explict Bill of Rights would lead to.
Your view is radical, antiliberty and downright unamerican.
From your tone one might surmise you consider yourself a conservative. Well sir, I am a conservative. As an American that also makes me a liberal, as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are overtly liberal documents. I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and you sir, are an enemy of the Constitution.
KFG
PLEASE stop thinking that the NY Post is a newspaper. It is a tabloid, nothing more.
As opposed to what? I have a hard time identifying much distinction in journalistic integrity among any of the major newspapers and television networks. Maybe in the old days your argument mattered.
Meantime, Take-Two is milking this product for all it is worth: Next year the company will even be introducing a Gameboy version of the thing, so that kids can carry it around with them wherever they go. This way they'll be able to get re-stimulated, whenever necessary, with some of the most menacing messages known to civilized man.
Gameboy version? When??? I have resisted buying the GB-SP, but this would be a reason to get one NOW. I'd like to thank the NY Post for letting me know I will be able to get this!
No, this case is not about equating free speech with killing Haitians. It's about allowing someone to say "Kill the Haitians" -- and to say it within the context of fiction, what's more.
If freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it requires that government regulation of speech, when it occurs, be entirely content neutral. People are going to raise the "fighting words" and "fire in a theatre" exceptions, because people don't understand the extreme limitations that those "exceptions" labor under. The Court has been very clear that bans based on what someone said will almost never pass constitutional muster.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Gah. Are you saying that something must be explicitly uttered to be "speech"? So songs are out, since you sing songs and don't "speak" them. Even explicitly political songs (like Tom Lerher or 1960s folk songs) would be unprotected.
Or, and so would written copies of speeches that were given -- since the written copy is not itself spoken, so it's not "speech". And don't go trying to hide behind freedom of the press -- a handwritten copy or handmade poster isn't printed on a "press", so your logic demands that it be unprotected. So is anything that comes off a laser printer or an inkjet printer, since neither is a "press". By the same token, TV news is not covered by the First Amendment either -- at least, not the graphic parts, since they are "spoken" and they aren't printed in a "press".
It astonishes me how many self-described (and ill-described) "conservatives" want to overturn 200 years of established constitutional law, usually just to score some transient points.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I feel that a large part of the issue here is that all the parents of children who do these things is that the parents don't get involved in their lives, so in a somewhat desperate cry for attention, or perhaps to lash out at what they perceive to be a society that carries no love for them they act out the one thing that brings them comfort; a violent video game. While I don't think that the games are entirely to blame, I'm sure that with access to firearms and other weapons they would be quite capable of finding source material in movies or TV, the issue at the heart of all of this is parental involvement, moreso the appalling lack thereof which has come to be the norm in todays society.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
That's (part of) what conservative means.
Just because "Republican" has meant "conservative" for several generations doesn't mean they are now. Political parties change beliefs from time to time. The Republican party used to be the progressive/liberal party, if you recall.
Conservatives are stil Conservatives. Our Republican adminstration, however, isn't ver Conservative at all. Bush has a very large government that has sought to increase federal and executive power at every turn.
People need to dissociate their political beliefs from political parties. The party that used to represent what you personally believe may change to represent that which you abhor.
The downside is you don't get to vote in primaries. The updside is you can remain true to your actual beliefs, instead of subverting them to the cause of someone else.
Anyone who isn't an indepenent is a tool, or someone who wishes to wield tools.
The enemies of Democracy are
First off, I have a problem with this game. It may be beautifully rendered in gory blood, guts and all, and it may have some of the best voice acting in a video game ever, that does not change the fact that the main character (which is usually a hero and should be a hero) is a drug dealer and he has to murder, cheat, steal kill cops or whatever just to achieve the objective of the game is horrible. This is not a heroic action. Some might say what is the difference in this and in a game such as America's Army or other games that can be considered violent and I say a whole lot of difference. The character of the game is immoral in the first place. In the second place, he commits many many sins to achieve the goal of the game. There's a bit of difference in this game then there is in Doom, Quake, or whatever. In Doom or Quake, your typically killing demons and other monsters. Not innocents or even opposite gang members. Some may say there's no difference but there is a distinct one.
Unforunately, as despicable a game this is, I have to agree with some of the fans taht are defending it. The Government shoud only try to keep the extremely immoral stuff off the market. For example, if there was a game that every person, even a Slashdotting gamer says is so horrific it makes them vomit, well, that should not be on the market. It would take a heck of a game to produce the effect strong enough that the SC should ban. The game in question, while violent, it's really no more violent then other games on the market. As immoral as the game is, it doesn't matter. The government shouldn't ban it. This is a consequence of freedom of speech. The SAD thing is that there is a section of society that thinks a game like this is great. THAT'S what' wrong about the game. People that are raising their kids by PS2, XBOX and Gamecube are the real problem. I have chosen not to buy a game such as this because I portend to be a moral person. I ain't a saint, but I do try to do what is right. But because I still want to be able to preach the gospel, praise Jesus in public and other activities befitting a Christian I have to let others say what they want to as well. Banning any speech is a bad thing. It does not let the person in question make their own decisions. This does not stop me from speaking against the game(as you can't stifle any speech...even if it's against what you believe in). I would stop short of asking kindly old Uncle Sam doing something about it and would go the direction of trying to convince others that they should not be messing with this game. Some may say this is brain washing but I disagree. If I convince enough people that this game is immoral and rubbish and not a good game to buy, then it won't be profitable for companies to make a game like this so they will make other games that will sell. IE, the market decides. There are enough people in this country that think this way to have the desired affect, but again, they are letting the game magazines and others guide them in their game purchase. Also, parents are just buying the game for thier kids instead of checking it out themselves first. If the PARENTS did their job (scoped out the M rating and or other items concerning the game), the GTA games would not have done as well as they did. If the parents did the job, the game would not be where it is today. So, in closing, the game is horribly immoral, but because I want the right to say what I want, I have to let them say what they want.
Gorkman
At what point do video games become so life like that it is difficult to differentiate between reality and the game (at least on a subconscious level)? I have heard they successfully use virtual reality to help cure phobias such as fear of heights... this is proof that technology can change human behavior. At what point does GTA stop being a video game and turn into a simulator for crime?
You rest your case?
On what logical ground can you rest your case?
You sayin' you are actually supportive of a societal swing in the direction of Corporatism, Authoritarianism, or Theocracy?
They have a name for "men" like you: ENEMY.
"Lord" Kano?
That name is a bit big for your britches, ain't it son?
To: cbyron@nypost.com
:you're in the minority if you'd r
Subject: Vice City
From: me
Mr. Byron,
It was with bewilderment and sadness that I read your article "Give Back Take-Two" [1]. It seems to me that your opinion is that somehow consenting adults looking for entertainment are unfit to choose how they busy themselves. As if they are still children on their mothers' apron-strings, you presume to tell them that Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is somehow bad for them, that playing a video game---pushing buttons and reacting to pixels on their television---is akin to the "glorification of mass murder."
You compare GTA:VC to child pornography, cock fighting, and dwarf throwing. Your comparison falls short, however, because you fail to acknowledge the real reason for banning kiddie porn et al: they _victimize_. A child can't give consent to sexual acts, so any such acts are illegal. Cock fighting is cruel to the animals involved. Dwarf throwing is presumably only illegal in the case that the dwarf doesn't want to participate---after all, if a guy asks me to throw him across the room, I'm fairly certain I can comply without running afoul of the law. Unlike child pornography, cock fighting, and dwarf throwing, playing GTA:VC is simply a matter of sitting in my living room pushing some buttons.
You employ a classic argument in your tirade against GTA:VC: "violent video games cause violent behavior." Having done research in the primary literature on studies attempting to link violent video games to violent behavior, I can assure you (or, if you'd prefer, provide a bibliography that supports my claims) that there is no conclusive scientific answer to the question of whether violent video games are causally linked to violent behavior. Your anecdotal evidence---the two teens playing a video game and then using real guns to shoot at real people---doesn't pass muster. Finding causality in a case like this is a question of analyzing massive amounts of data, and unfortunately the two Tennessee teens are by themselves statistically insignificant.
Another claim in your article is that an age limit is unenforceable and useless. First of all, I have my doubts that you can substantiate the claim that such a limit is unenforceable, which is presumably why you appeal to the tired litany, "everyone knows it." I can remember quite vividly being refused video games when I was 16 years old, and as far as I know every store at which I have ever purchased video games enforces the age limits. Hell, when I shave I'm still often asked for my ID when purchasing a mature video game.
Your other claim, that the age limit is useless, is a very curious one. Mr. Byron, do you drink alcohol? If not this might be unfamiliar territory, but otherwise consider that once someone in the US turns 21 they suddenly become able to drink alcohol legally. Is this a statement of some intangible quality possessed by those over 21 years of age? Of course not---it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction made in the name of codifying the requirement that those who drink alcohol must be mature enough to handle it. In the same way, requiring those who purchase GTA:VC to be 17 years old is a way of admitting that those under 17 might not be mature enough to handle it---or, at the very least, that it might make their parents uncomfortable. In effect, by rating the game "M for Mature," Rock Star is putting control where it should be---in the hands of people mature enough to make decisions for themselves and/or their children.
Mr. Byron, you actually go so far as to claim that pushing buttons on a controller in response to pixels on a television screen is "10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to that little boy." Well, either everyone has started thinking Jacko is innocent, or you're seriously confused. As far as I can tell, non-consentual sodomy with someone who's under age beats brainless button-mashing hands down. Consider it this way, Mr. Byron
This is idiotic. What is "The Godfather" trying to express? How 'bout Barber's "Adagio for Strings"? Beethoven's 9th Symphony? "Fight Club"? Hard to answer, isn't it? You can't deny that they are works of art, but I'm sure you can't figure out why. You have no idea what Art actually is. There is Constitutional protection for video games, and it's only a matter of time until they are recognized.
But to answer your question: The concepts represented in GTA:VC are numerous. As examples, it expresses against Greed and Apathy. The main character will kill, steal, do anything to gain money and power. And no one cares unless you do something directly to them (Steal a car and only the owner gives a damn.). If you kill someone, no one cares, they just run. The cops will only chase you for a little bit and then lose interest unless you do something really bad. If you can't see the game's objection to Materialism, then I'd have no choice but to assume you don't know what the word means.
Don't think it does? Then, you must admit "The Godfather" and "Scarface" also have no artistic value and shouldn't be protected.
I'm the only one that remembers all the media exposure that Carmageddon got back then?... and I remember they said they were going to ban that game too... It never happened.
:: Andrea
Anime Wallpapers
due process is for citizens accused of crimes, not enemy combatants.
People throw out "think for yourself" when what they often mean is "listen to me -- disagree with the view I am railing against".
A good test of the sincerity of that sentiment is when you choose to agree with whomever it is you are supposed to be thinking for yourself about. Do the people screaming "think for yourself" acknowledge this or blow you off as some sort of mindless hack?
Case in point: most of the comments modded up above this one (I haven't read further below yet) are ones that blast any notion that GTA might have crossed the line with the "Kill the Haitians" comment, even to the point of factual inaccuracies about what the responsibilities of the courts are and what they are capable of doing (courts do not MAKE laws!). There are even responses to other posts that, from what is written in those responses, indicate the reference post was in favor of the legal action being taken. However, the pro-legal-action posts haven't been modded up.
I guess by agreeing they aren't thinking for themselves and, therefore, aren't all that interesting or insightful.
Not true. Federal law prohibits the distribution of obscene material as well. If GTA were to be found "obscene" from the legal standpoint, Rockstar (as well as, perhaps, stores that sell GTA) could be brought up on federal felony charges. Since the threat of terrorism has been solved and the Justice department has nothing better to do, Reichsfurher Ashcroft has already started pursuing his own anti-obscenity agenda. Pretty scary stuff...
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Burning a church is handily covered under arson laws -- laws which prohibit the burning of buildings regardless of political "content". That is, it is illegal to burn down any building; therefore, it is illegal to burn down a church. On the other hand, the case in FL does not propose to ban all videogames -- only those that don't conform to someone's idea of what "should" be allowed.
I don't care if racism "blames" someone for something that they cannot choose. That's utterly irrelevant. What matters is that racism is an expression of personal beliefs (as wrong-headed as they might be) and the state must NEVER take up the business of deciding "correct" belief. The odds are simply too great that the state -- or those in charge in the state -- will eventually choose self-centered or even evil beliefs to support and will suppress legitimate or even vital minority opinions.
Living in an actual free society is hard, because you must suspends your own certainty and your belief in your own moral infallibility, and allow things you cannot stomach to persist. "Winners" should be picked by the citizenry, and that can only happen when the citizenry has to opportunity to hear any viewpoint in the free marketplace of ideas -- without some other small fraction of the citizenry choosing what is "appropriate".
Do you honestly feel that racism is best countered by suppression, by driving people underground, by handing down edicts? That isn't how the US made what strides we have. The civil rights movement in the United States flourished in the 1960s because people were allowed to speak -- because the evil and ugliness of racism was shown. It was allowed to compete in the market of ideas and it lost -- because civil rights advocates were able to show the inconsistency of the existing law with the higher ideals that Americans claim to live by. That could only be accomplished by facing the forces of racism head-on -- not by pushing them into dark corners where they could fester unseen.
Free speech means free speech for everyone and every ideology -- elsewise, it isn't free speech at all.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Like Jose Padilla? Oh, wait, which one is he again?
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -