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.
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 was thinking about selling my copies of GTA on ebay. However, if it's going to be banned, it's soon going to be worth a mint.
Maybe I should wait, huh?
AC
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
You can be utterly certain that if some company came out with a Windows game where you had to sneak your character into houses and beat to a bloody pulp the families of anyone using Linux, then /. geeks would be up in arms complaining louder than anyone else.
Hypocrisy
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
There are no details in one article, and the Times' just talks around the facts and about SEC statements.
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.
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.
Last time I checked, the game was rated M. That's what? Like 17 and older? Maybe if people actually paid attention to warning labels, we wouldn't have a problem.
At least the gaming industry's labels have several appropriate categories (unlike the RIAA [EXPLICIT LYRICS] that appears on practically every album...)
True story.
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.
Dear Mr. Byron,
I recently read your business editorial in the December 29 issue of the New York Post. I am glad to see that you are open to letters and responses concerning your rather harsh defamation of Take Two Interactive. Many in your position prefer to hide in semi-anonymity when writing such provocative words, but you rather than do so have included your e-mail address. I do admire your ability to present an argument irrespective of what I hold as my own position.
I am an average man living a rather average life in Toronto, Canada. I was born here, raised here and love living with the freedoms I have. Freedoms my grandfather fought for in the Second World War. I am a professional computer programmer and part-time philosophy major at The University of Toronto. I enjoy writing and reading among my hobbies. I am a very evident pacifist. I deplore guns. I despise violence. I am so against it that I can hardly stand to watch the news.
You may wonder why on Earth I was even reading your editorial at all. Well, the fact is, I am also an avid gamer. As you may have soon realized, as no doubt you have received many similar letters from other video game fans from around the USA and the World at large. A link to your article has been making the rounds through the gaming news world. After all, we are a passionate bunch, with strong views about our favourite hobby and many of us will defend our Right to purchase, play, and discuss video games of all sorts. It seems fair, if you ask me, since we do live in The Free World.
Now discounting the SEC's charges of fraud, of which I cannot really make any sort of argument against, I would like to take a serious posture against what you have said. I take issue with your skewed portrayal of video games, video gamers and the state of Take Two's production values. I am very tired of defending the video game world to obviously ignorant individuals. Not to take it personally against you, after all, you do seem highly educated, but rather misinformed. We must stop riding the Scare Tactics Train to the Media Circus surrounding many recent real-world violent acts through out the World and domestically and start taking a hard look at the real reason that they happen. Video games are not it.
I will grant the accusation that Take Two's Grand Theft Auto series of games depicts violent acts. If I attempted to deny such a fact would be just outrageous and quite impossible to do. Also the fact that much of the line-up of games that they produce for the Playstation 1 and 2, Gameboy, and PC contain some violent content would be equally difficult to ignore as fact. What I do want to say is that this is no different from the equally easily accessible media in the Western world such as movies and television and in books and newspapers.
Each year, from the hallowed studios of Hollywood, billions of dollars are spent on thousands of movies depicting gore, violent acts, sex, drug use, and all manner of objectionable activity that is portrayed in less detail in any of the recent Grand Theft Auto video games. To name only a few such as The Godfather would be an exercise in futility as examples of such films. Yet the same such movie is lauded as one of the all-time greatest movies.
In fact, just checking the heralded internet resource, imdb.com ( http://imdb.com/top_250_films ) names it the greatest by almost 700,000 more votes than its runner-up. In fact, a quick browse of the same list makes it evident that they find violent films to be quite highly regarded. It includes recent action flicks such as The Matrix, adventure films as The Lord of the Rings and older suspense movies such as Psycho and "Ultra-violent" dramas such as A Clockwork Orange. It would be quite arguable that these same movies are not as high quality as we grant them, and they all feature extremely graphic violence and other objectionable acts.
Yes, these movies are all rated R (Restricted) in the USA. The film industry is self-regulating in it's r
Paul K.
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
"Kill these particular Hatians, but treat all other Hatians with dignity and respect!"
My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
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.
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.
So, Rockstar could sell it via their website or catalogs or whatever. Fans would still be able to get the game if they really wanted to and knew where to look. However, there would be a gigantic sales hit if it disappeared from store shelves. Of course, this is only if Rockstar loses the court battle. I would like to point out just as a side note that the original GTA is available FREE at Rockstar's website here. See this ./ article.
Shameless self promotion
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
So, by spending many entertaining hours playing Vice City, all the time aware that this is fantasy and the acts I commit in the game have no bearing on my real-life conduct, I have been committing acts far worse than fucking little boys? Sheesh, I had no idea!
In fact, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the New York Post. It is, of course, another lying gutter publication from Rupert Murdoch, the bloated impotent turd who's attempts to take over the world will hopefully fail when he dies of a extremely-painfull coronary.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
.. 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."
I've been told to kill Germans in tons of World War II games and no one's complained about that...
This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
Looks like video games will all be Tetris and Pong from now on.
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.
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
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!
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!
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.
I help scummy lawyers get their cocaine back, and run it for the Mafia. I often stand on rooftops and snipe at passerby with a rocket launcher. I sometimes will run around city streets with a flamethrower and burn random people.
I like to run into the police station and preceeded by grenades and clean up with a machine gun. I drive on the beach and run over people who are sunbathing.
I beat most hookers with a baseball bat, take their money, and buy guns with it. I can sometimes be found running over moped riders, waiting 'til they get back on, then elbowing them in the throat and stealing their bike.
I drive on the sidewalks. On golf courses. In parks and malls. I run over anyone I see. If I'm on foot, I'll run up to someone and kick them in the head. Sometimes I'll beat them until the blood spreads in a spreading pool.
I blame my parents.
These types of suits are considered a "cost of doing business"
You're only saying that because you're a lawer who makes money on silly lawsuits like this.
The rest of us see this lawsuit for what it is - a pathetic attempt to extort money.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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"
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..
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
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.
No where in this game does it single out Haitians as a target.
1.) If you can't get this thru your thick skull as an adult, you got problems.
2.) If you can't get this thru to your kid as a parent, you're a shitty parent.
Typical American way of always pointing the finger at sports athlete and video games as a source of problem. Race and every other problem in this country comes from lousing parenting in the family. I am sorry but if we really are shooting for a better society, the law should ban divorces first. No reason why you should have 40 kids and 40 divorces in a life time. That fuck things up in this country way worse than GTA + GTA: vice city.
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've heard that the American-Orcish community is protesting the recent LOTR movies and video games. Apparantley it sterotypes Orcs to be ugly, misformed, drooling, fiendish blood drinking monsters.
;-)
Luckily for them, the Orcs are currently in charge of Congress so a ban on anti-Orc material should be forthcoming
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
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
Blatantly stolen via Google:
Alarmed by the unhealthy choices they make every day, more and more Americans are calling on the government to enact legislation that will protect them from their own behavior.
''The government is finally starting to take some responsibility for the effect my behavior has on others,'' said New York City resident Alec Haverchuk, 44, who is prohibited by law from smoking in restaurants and bars. ''But we have a long way to go. I can still light up on city streets and in the privacy of my own home. I mean, legislators acknowledge that my cigarette smoke could give others cancer, but don't they care about me, too?"
''It's not just about Americans eating too many fries or cracking their skulls open when they fall off their bicycles," said Los Angeles resident Rebecca Burnie, 26. ''It's a financial issue, too. I spend all my money on trendy clothes and a nightlife that I can't afford. I'm $23,000 in debt, but the credit-card companies keep letting me spend. It's obscene that the government allows those companies to allow me to do this to myself. Why do I pay my taxes?''
Beginning with seatbelt legislation in the 1970s, concern over dangerous behavior has resulted in increased governmental oversight of private activities. Burnie and Haverchuk are only two of a growing number of citizens who argue that legislation should be enacted to protect them from their own bad habits and poor decisions.
Anita Andelman of the American Citizen Protection Group is at the forefront of the fight for ''greater guardianship for all Americans.''
''Legislation targeting harmful substances like drugs and alcohol is a good start, but that's all it is--a start,'' Andelman said. ''My car automatically puts my seatbelt on me whenever I get into it. There's no chance that I'll make the risky decision to leave it off. So why am I still legally allowed to drink too much caffeine, watch television for seven hours a day, and, in some states, even ride in the back of a pick-up truck? It just isn't right.''
The ACPG has also come out in favor of California's proposed ''soda tax,'' which addresses unhealthy eating habits.
''The legislation, if approved, would establish a tax on sodas and other beverages with minimal nutritional value, and the money would be used to fund programs that address the growing epidemic of childhood obesity,'' Andelman said. ''If our own government doesn't do something to make us get in better shape--or, for that matter, dress a little nicer--who will?''
Rev. Ted Hinson, founder of the Christian activist group Please God Stop Me, said he believes that the government will listen.
''For years, legislators have done an admirable job of listening to constituents who want the dangerous, undesirable behavior of their neighbors regulated,'' Hinson said. ''That is a good sign for those of us who wish for greater protection from ourselves. But you should see the filth I still have access to, just by walking into a store or flipping on my computer. There is still much work to be done if we are going to achieve the ideal nanny-state.''
Bernard Nathansen, an attorney for the Personal Rights Deferred Center in Oakes, Va., is one of many individuals working to promote ''governmental accountability.'' His organization arranges class-action lawsuits on behalf of Americans who have been hurt by the government's negligence, including individuals who suffer health problems related to overexposure to sunlight.
''We can all agree that many choices are too important to be left up to a highly flawed individual,'' Nathansen said. ''Decisions that directly affect our health, or allow us to expose ourselves to potential risks, should be left to the wiser, cooler heads of the government.''
''But things like food and drug labels are half-measures,'' Nathansen said. ''The regulations, however well-intentioned, often all
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.
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
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
A system?
I am sitting in Norway right now where in their version of a Sears catalog they also sell dildos, where last night on broadcast TV there was all sorts of T&A- including an unedited broadcase of Hugh Heffners 50th birthday party.
It seems they have their priorities in line here, where the sexual stuff is permitted, but the violence is not.
For some reason, the US does not make much of a distinction between sex and violence... it is all lumped together- and I do not think that is very healthy. It sends a mixed message that somehow it is all bad. For whatever reasons, parents seem more comfortable selling violence rather than sex, to minors. I have friends who took their 12 year old son to see the movie Kill Bill- because it did not have any nudity or sex in it. If you have not seen the movie it is the most violent film ever?
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
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.
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
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.
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?