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."
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.
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.
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
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
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