Scary Barry, Wacky Jack Continue War On Violent Games

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scary Barry, Wacky Jack Continue War On Violent Games

Posted by simoniker on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:49PM from the oh-dear dept.

Thanks to the Palm Beach Post for its article discussing Florida-based lawyer Jack Thompson's teamup with Barry Silver to continue a war on violent videogames. Thompson's anti-gaming history is well-discussed, and Silver is no less flamboyant during previous lawsuits, since he "had a bikini-clad hot dog vendor deliver a subpoena to Palm Beach County Commissioner Mary McCarty during his well-publicized fight over the vendor's right to sell hot dogs while partly clothed." Thompson says: "You can call us Scary Barry and Wacky Jack", and is helping Silver with the Florida-based lawsuit again GTA developers Take Two, following furore over the alleged depiction of Haitians which is still simmering in North Miami, with a new local law to restrict violent games planned. The article also notes that the two lawyers have a lot in common, commenting: "Both are frustrated politicians - Silver, a former state legislator, and Thompson, a failed Miami-Dade County state attorney candidate. Both love the limelight, take cases that are destined to make headlines and are famous for publicity stunts."

72 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is BS. by DAldredge · 2004-01-20 12:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since when do people have a right not to be offended?
1. Re:This is BS. by wolf- · 2004-01-20 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Think its in the US Bill of Rights next to "right to healthcare", right to "no interest down home loans", right to "everything everyone else has" and right "not to work if I dont want to but you need to help take care of me".
  
  --
  ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
2. Re:This is BS. by DAldredge · 2004-01-20 13:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Don't forget "right to hire highly skilled workers for 3.75 per hour"
3. Re:This is BS. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  "right to hire highly skilled workers for 3.75 per hour"
  You have the right to move to India! It's in the Constitution, I checked ahead of time!!
4. Re:This is BS. by sofakingl · 2004-01-20 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  Some of what you said makes sense, but I call flamebait on "right to healthcare". Many people in this country want to benefit from public healthcare like people in other countries do. The only people who are apposing it are greedy doctors who want to charge as much as they can from poor sick people, and people who's minds are still stuck in the McCarthy era.
  
  And if your last statement is about welfare, statistics say that the majority of people who go on welfare only stay on it for 1 to 2 years. People want to get jobs that pay better than welfare, despite what you may think; they just sometimes get stuck in a situation where they need a little help until they can do so.
5. Re:This is BS. by Pluvius · 2004-01-20 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Many people in this country want to benefit from public healthcare like people in other countries do. The only people who are apposing it are greedy doctors who want to charge as much as they can from poor sick people, and people who's minds are still stuck in the McCarthy era.
  
  And people who realize that it would never work. Do you know how long the waiting lists and lines are for free healthcare in Canada, which has one of the best socialized healthcare systems in the world? Keep in mind that Canada only has a tenth of the population of the US.
  
  Rob (Though, on the other hand, anything would be better than the HMO)
6. Re:This is BS. by AvitarX · 2004-01-20 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think that a solid argument could be made that a right to "life" and in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" includes healthcare.
  
  not saying it is a winning argument, just that a solid one could be made.
  
  Also, I don't think welfare is a right to have people take care of you if you don't want to work.
  
  It is for limited times, or requires you to have real problems and you need to look for jobs a lot of the time.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
7. Re:This is BS. by Senjutsu · 2004-01-20 18:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And people who realize that it would never work. Do you know how long the waiting lists and lines are for free healthcare in Canada, which has one of the best socialized healthcare systems in the world?
  
  Yes, since I happen to live there. And the answer, in case anyone was wondering, is "Not particularly long". I've had relatives in the states wait much longer to have necessary procedures cleared by their profit grubbing insurance companies.
8. Re:This is BS. by Pluvius · 2004-01-20 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, since I happen to live there. And the answer, in case anyone was wondering, is "Not particularly long".
  
  Oh, really?
  
  Rob
9. Re:This is BS. by Senjutsu · 2004-01-20 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  So I'm supposed to believe an article written in another country, which quotes the hyper-archconservative Fraser institute (which has a huge "privatize health care so our wealthy members can make a killing off it" ax to grind) over my own experiences in my own country? Not fuckin' likely, my friend. Note that the article focusses on MRI and CAT waiting lists, which recent studies done by people more reputable than the Fraser institute have found to be largely the result of doctors refering patients to them for non-necessary reasons. The conclussion basically being that increasing the number of MRI machines, instead of decreasing waiting lists, increased them because doctors used them as a crutch instead of using other, less expensive, time tested diagnostic techniques.
  
  Life lesson: Unless you live in a country, you need to do a hell of a lot more research than quoting one source (whose bias it would be very difficult for you to be aware of) before drawing some kind of conclussion. Recommended reading (use google to find copies): the Romanow report.
10. Re:This is BS. by Lemental · 2004-01-20 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Thats funny.
  
  Calling the CSM biased is like calling the Titanic unsinkable.
  
  You may not live in this country, but, the CSM is the most unbiased source of news in this country. I just find it strange you called it biased as most Americans go to thier site to find the unbiased stories.
11. Re:This is BS. by Senjutsu · 2004-01-20 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm not calling the CSM biased; read my post again. The source they cite, the Fraser Institute, is highly biased. Do some research.
12. Re:This is BS. by Ayaress · 2004-01-21 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Michigan. Half the traffic accross the bridges around Detroit is people going into Canada to get health care because it costs $75,000 to get an angioplasty at Covenant Healthcare. The waiting lines aren't all that long. Hell, and ambulance took me over the border when I broke a leg in Cobo hall a few years ago because all the hospitals around Detroit were turning patients away.
13. Re:This is BS. by jargonCCNA · 2004-01-23 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously, you don't live in the Maritimes. I moved to New Brunswick in July and I still don't have a fscking doctor. Have to take advantage of the rare times I return to Ontario to talk to my old doctor.
  
  --
  Matthew G P Coe
  http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
Not much to this... by rhetoric · 2004-01-20 13:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Both are frustrated politicians - Silver, a former state legislator, and Thompson, a failed Miami-Dade County state attorney candidate. Both love the limelight, take cases that are destined to make headlines and are famous for publicity stunts."

And there you have it. This will get them attention, name recognition, and a number of supporters in the right, oh and it will save children from bad parenting... or not. I think political games should be banned, wish I could afford to win that suit...

Aside: I do think the portrayal of Haitians in GTA:Vice City is quite unecessary and in bad taste, even in the context of the game. Whether or not this should be legally relevant is another post.

--

"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
1. Re:Not much to this... by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-01-20 13:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What about the portrayal of Cubans in GTA: VC and what about the portrayal of Italians in GTA III? What about the portrayal of Russians in your average Bond movie? What about the portrayal of white people in the miniseries Roots?
  I mean, honestly, do you want a group of enemies in your games/movies/television shows that are composed of one white guy, one black guy, one gay guy [any race], one Indian, one Canadian, one Asian, etc., etc.? If you do, you might want to check out the Village People, you might enjoy their work.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
2. Re:Not much to this... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah... But if the Haitians are going to be such babies about it, maybe they all should be killed.
3. Re:Not much to this... by rhetoric · 2004-01-20 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  What about the portrayal of Cubans in GTA: VC and what about the portrayal of Italians in GTA III? What about the portrayal of Russians in your average Bond movie? What about the portrayal of white people in the miniseries Roots?
  All of these are examples of innacurate portrayls based on stereotypes, and/or attempting to further stereotypes, and are generally in bad taste. Again, legality is another question.
  
  --
  
  "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
4. Re:Not much to this... by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-01-20 13:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Innacurate portrayals? You're going to tell me that no Cuban has ever been involved in gang violence? Or that no Italians have ever been involved in organized crime? Or that no white people ever beat slaves?
  The fact is that just because you show a black guy stealing a car, doesn't mean that you're trying to tell the world that all black people steal cars. It's people like you who jump to the conclusion that concern me. If I show you 20 Cubans who are in a gang, why does that lead you to believe that all Cubans are in a gang? That's what you're saying it does - by furthering the stereotype.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
5. Re:Not much to this... by rhetoric · 2004-01-20 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Innacurate portrayals? You're going to tell me that no Cuban has ever been involved in gang violence? Or that no Italians have ever been involved in organized crime? Or that no white people ever beat slaves?
  When ALL the Haitians in the game are gang members, or ALL the Italians act like mobsters, etc. yes this is saying exactly that..
  
  --
  
  "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
6. Re:Not much to this... by Danse · 2004-01-20 14:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Umm... ALL the haitians aren't gang members. The gang happens to be called the Haitians, because its members are Haitian. This is what most gangs are like. They consist primarily of a single ethnic group. Again, its people who make moronic leaps of "logic" that are the problem. Just because there is a Haitian gang in the game doesn't mean that the developers are trying to portray all Haitians as gang members. That's just plain stupid and people like the jackasses that are causing all the trouble over this are just trying to get attention with their stupidity.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
7. Re:Not much to this... by rhetoric · 2004-01-20 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Like I said I'm not concerned with the fuss being made over it in regard to MY finding it to be in bad taste. If it's just a gang, why not call it the Latin Kings or something? Or base the name off a real gang anyways.. I mean really what if it was "Kill the Blacks!!" and gangs of "Blacks" walked around and were labeled as such..
  
  --
  
  "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
8. Re:Not much to this... by BrynM · 2004-01-20 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  This will get them attention, name recognition, and a number of supporters in the right, oh and it will save children from bad parenting... or not.
  And here we are about four hours after this was posted on Slashdot and only 16 comments - most of them replying to you. Slashdot damnit! Where there are at least 16 "frist opst" comments for each headline! I think this is an example of how much thinking (an assumption I know) people really care what these two spout. With any luck, this will further push the view of these guys into the "right wing fringe zealot" category that almost nobody pays attention to. Even most conservatives ignore that faction for fear of being lumped in with them.
  
  --
  US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
9. Re:Not much to this... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  The Haitians are more of a singular community. Blacks, while they might divide up, they don't do so neatly. Not anywhere as neatly as Haitians do.
  
  Just as the Japanese are a much larger superset of Zaibatzu, so are blacks a much larger superset of the staff of Def Row Records, encompassing many communities. The haitians not so much. While not all of them are in a gang called the Haitians, that lable is enough specify that gang from all the others that might exist.
  
  The gang isn't about making sure everyone enjoys a Johnson & Johnson life experience especially if they don't play the game, it's not about gang history either. Hence their not called the 13th street posse either.
  
  People should grow up and be big boys and girls. Their convienence and persecution complexes aren't of the upmost concern to everyone. If they demand a world so small, I suggest they move back to a small impoverished island where nothing good ever happenes without the threat of a US invasion. Seriously if all their going to do with their freedom is bitch about all the freedom other people enjoy, they should just eat a fucking bullit and spare us their self-inflicted misery.
10. Re:Not much to this... by Jeffool · 2004-01-20 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Christ Almighty.... I agree with the anti-liberal guy. (Funny sig, by the by.)
  
  So, rhetoric, Friends shows the stupidest group of white people I've ever seen. Ever. Far more stupid than the Senate and House put together. But I don't think it's saying that 'ALL' white folks are this stupid. Otherwise, as a white guy, I wouldn't watch it. Wait... I don't watch it... But that's my point. I have the choice to not watch Friends, and not watch C-Span.
  
  Jeffool.
  Though those C-Span cats can spout a funny line from time to time.
11. Re:Not much to this... by rhetoric · 2004-01-20 14:53 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Fuck karma.. man you are really ignorant, and I'm not posting as AC.
  
  --
  
  "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
12. Re:Not much to this... by DAldredge · 2004-01-20 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't just the right wing. There are quite a few people on the left that wish things like this banned .
13. Re:Not much to this... by Pluvius · 2004-01-20 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  The reason for this is that the gang does not have a black identity, but a Haitian identity. Most other gangs predominately composed of black people are not bonded by a black identity, either, so it wouldn't make sense to even call a generic black gang "The Blacks." Heck, I'm not sure a black identity even exists, considering how different black people can be from each other.
  
  Rob (Oh, BTW, Haitians aren't Latin)
14. Re:Not much to this... by Pluvius · 2004-01-20 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason Joseph Liebermann is a Democrat is because it would be political suicide to run as a Republican this year. As for Tipper Gore... well... she's a woman.
  
  Rob (Who else on the left wants to censor things?)
15. Re:Not much to this... by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-01-20 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny, Joe has been a major member of the Democratic party for quite a number of years. You would have thought that if he were such a Republican, he would have switched parties at some point.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
16. Re:Not much to this... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Go tell that to a gang of Haitians...
17. Re:Not much to this... by DAldredge · 2004-01-20 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the do. While it may not be games/entertainment they wish to censor they are big supporters of censoring what they consider to be non political correct thinking.
18. Re:Not much to this... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 18:11 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, with the right kind of firepower and immunity from prosecution, don't think I wouldn't.
19. Re:Not much to this... by Danse · 2004-01-20 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  If it's just a gang, why not call it the Latin Kings or something? Or base the name off a real gang anyways.. I mean really what if it was "Kill the Blacks!!" and gangs of "Blacks" walked around and were labeled as such..
  
  Because the game takes place in MIAMI!!
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Hope The Judge Gets It Right by MBCook · 2004-01-20 13:19 · Score: 1

I'll just say that they are simply trying to get their name out there and take on an "evil" cause to get votes.
That said, I hope the judge in the case gets things right and PLAYS THE GAME to that point (it's not that far in) so that he can see how it really is portrayed in the game, and not just listen to some lawyer try to make things sound the way he wants. That way maybe he'll see that it's part of the game, and that it's not just anti-hatian speach. This case is like suing movie studios over anti-semetic elements in "Schindler's List" or the racist stuff in "To Kill A Mockingbird". The lawsuit is rediculous.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Yawn by NanoGator · 2004-01-20 13:40 · Score: 1

Every generation that goes by is going to find this controversial issue harder and harder to swallow. "I grew up playing all kinds of games, myself and everybody I know came out fine. What a moron."

Want to know what bothers me most? I don't think these guys genuinely believe in what they're spouting off. I really think their agenda is to villify gaming because it's a blurry issue to a good chunk of the voting public. Afterall, little Johnny couldn't possibly be a bad kid, it's got to be those gosh dern video games he's playin.

I hope you all who are against this are smart enough to not vote for Joe Liberman for President. Do a Google search for him and Mortal Kombat. You'll see what I mean.

--
"Derp de derp."
1. Re:Yawn by Ayaress · 2004-01-21 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  I give is twenty-five more years before people shut up about video games entirely.
  
  In the 17-1800's, they said that the novel was destroying the intellectual youth, and that you could never properly appreciate a story in writing. You had to actually go and see it played out to properly understand its import.
  
  Then, the movie comes along, and they say that that is destroying our intellectual youth, because you can't properly appreciate a story by watching it played out. You have to read it in full prose to fully comprehend it.
  
  I wonder what they'll go after when they've exausted the fight over video games?
2. Re:Yawn by TwistedGreen · 2004-01-21 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  VR Pornos?
3. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  Lieberman doesn't really matter anymore considering that he'll probably drop out of the race in a few weeks. Funny thing is, today, Lieberman actually appaulds the industry when they offer up stuff like more enforcement of the rating system.
"Star Wars" banned in England! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 13:50 · Score: 1, Funny

I'm British-born, living in the US. Getting upset about Vice City is about as stupid as me getting upset that there are a lot of bad guys in American movies that have British accents:

"The Empire commanders are played by British actors and Grand Moff Tarkin blew up Aalderan, committing mass genocide against the rebels, this makes all British people look like thugs, but then the Rebels won in the end and killed all the British people, thus encouraging their genocide. Ban Star Wars before this violence escapes the film and gets onto the streets.. whine, moan, complain."

Yeah, exactly - it would be pretty damn retarded.
1. Re:"Star Wars" banned in England! by Cosmik · 2004-01-20 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I was a lawyer. Then I could sue these 2 idiots because their stunts offended me, undermining my profession.
2. Re:"Star Wars" banned in England! by Ayaress · 2004-01-21 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Either that, or get together enough gamers to be considered a minority interest and then sue them for the same thing.
sue 'em to death by bigbigbison · 2004-01-20 15:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Recently I ran across an interesting posting on Buzzcut.com Apparently, according to the article Thompson recently appeared at U of Colorado. Afterwards, a student emailed him about what he thought should be done. His answer? Laws are nice, but he would rather see lawsuits. So it seems that rather than try to pass laws which would theoretically prevent videogame related violence he would rather wait untill something bad happens where people die and THEN sue to do something about it. Nice. Real compasionate. A cynical person would be tempted to think that he had an alterior motive or something...

--
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
SIMONIKER IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 15:08 · Score: 0

Read about it here
Sweet, Poetic Revenge Plot... by Undefined+Parameter · 2004-01-20 15:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

If any Florida Slashdotters are reading this, do me a favor: get a girl you know (yourself, if applicable) to go each of these guys' offices with a copy of the U.S. Consitution (including the Bill of Rights, #1 being highlighted), a (legal) copy of an "infamous violent video game" (say, Quake 2... something that will work on the likely outdated and underpowered computers of conservative lawyers), and printouts of the following articles: This one and this one.

Also be sure to get the local television crews, and newspaper writers and photographers to follow (and make sure that they're informed of the one lawyer's bikini vendor stunt)... because the whole idea here is to embarass these two ugly fellows using their own tactics, except bolstered by evidence.

The downside is that this will get these two the attention they crave; the upside is that it won't get them positive attention and might just make a laughingstock out of them.

Or just hit them both with a pie in the face at a press conference. (Hey, it worked with Bill Gates for the French!)

~UP

--
Eat the Path.
1. Re:Sweet, Poetic Revenge Plot... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  ...pie in the face....
  
  Yeah, because going to jail for assault is soooo much fun. Hey, Ladies, if you do don the bikini to go for the pie in the face stunt, make sure you hide the video camera up your pooper, because I really love those exploitation flicks like Caged Heat.
The Guardians of Morality by Goo.cc · 2004-01-20 15:13 · Score: 1

I'm so happy that we have a few lawyers and religious people out there who have appointed themselves the guardians of morality. (Maybe this is why I dislike both groups.)
Why cant the industry and the government... by jonwil · 2004-01-20 15:13 · Score: 1

Just aggree on a standard classification system like there is for movies (best solution would be to just use the existing ESRB ratings system) then make that system legally binding on publishers, developers, stores and gamers?

It means that if kids walk into EB or Wal-Mart or whatever and want to buy , they will need to show that they are old enough to play it.

Then, it gives those who think that is too violent a way to complain. All they need to do is to complain to the ESRB that the rating is wrong and if enough people complain, it can be re-evaluated.
1. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by Pluvius · 2004-01-20 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the government should be involved in a censorship issue that a parent has control over. It would be very difficult for a kid to buy and play a game without a parent knowing about it (assuming the parent pays any attention at all).
  
  The only mandatory rating system I support is that of the MPAA (though it does need a complete overhaul) because it's much easier for a minor to watch a movie in a theater without his parents' knowledge than it is for him to buy a video game or watch a show on TV.
  
  Rob
2. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-01-20 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, I hate to break it to you but the MPAA's rating system isn't legally binding. If Tim the Donkey, working at movie theatre X lets young Billy, age 12, into an R rated movie, there is no law that says Tim the Donkey is in big trouble. You might be able to get him on corrupting a child or whatnot but if you're going to use that, it's just as applicable in a situation where a child is sold a MA-rated game.
  The ratings systems for movies and video games is led and policed by the industry, not the government. Don't bring the government into this.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
3. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by Undefined+Parameter · 2004-01-20 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  There are three problems with that: One, most 13 year-olds don't carry legal IDs, two, such a thing would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, and three, the ESRB ratings are not nearly complex enough to use them for any sort of law. They are "guidelines," and not meant to be set in stone.
  
  In order to do what you're proposing, those guidelines would need to be expanded by an order of magnitude; you'd have to have seperate ratings for realistic violence (ie Soldier of Fortune II), cartoon violence (ie Marvel vs Capcom), and "standard" violence (ie CounterStrike). In effect, you'd need to take every descriptor and every current ERSB "rating" and combine them to form however many "ratings" those produced, and then arbitrarily assign them a minimum age level. Each level of morally offensive material (and who is to judge what such a subjective thing should be, when put into objectively-restraining laws?) would need its own rating.
  
  And then you'd need to enforce it all. You would have to require every kid able to hold a controler or move a mouse to have an official ID, just to prove that they are old enough to own or purchase the game. People have a tendency of looking older or younger than they are, so you'd need to "card" everyone who wanted to buy a video or computer game.
  
  Even beyond that, there's still the need to make sure that the vendors are enforcing the law; you need enforcement of the enforcement. That would require more cops or Federal Agents. (Perhaps the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) would be expanded and become the ATFG (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Games).)
  
  By this point, you're talking about expenditures large enough to require a significant tax increase just to cover the initial costs. Even beyond the moral and ideological reasons against enforcing one person's or one group of people's moral views over another's, the logistics and accounting of the concept prove it improbible if not impossible in current society. That's why, even if the two jacks manage to set judicial precident, nothing along the lines of a by-age ratings enforcement system for popular media will work, not what you've presented, nor what anyone else can present... not in today's version of American society, at least.
  
  ~UP
  
  --
  Eat the Path.
4. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by jonwil · 2004-01-20 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  I am just pointing out that if its possible for movies, why not for games?
  
  Are there people who are complaining that should be banned or restricted in ways other than by the self-regulated MPAA rating system (by which the MPAA assigns a rating to every movie and then most theaters seem to enforce that rating)?
  
  The industry should get together with the retailers and the various groups involved in this (including the "violent computer games are bad, ban them" crowd) and come up with a form of self-regulation and self-policing that ensures that minors dont get violent games (or at least that makes it harder for minors to get violent games) and that keeps the "violent computer games are bad" crowd at bay.
  
  There has to be a middle ground between what we have now and "government mandated laws" (which is what these idiots want)
5. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by Undefined+Parameter · 2004-01-20 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  I am just pointing out that if its possible for movies, why not for games?
  
  Well, see, that's the thing... it isn't possible, even with movies. For instance, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was rated PG-13, yet I saw dozens of children well under 13 when I went to see it in the theatre, and that was not an uncommon thing for me to see, even in that particular conservative, small town. Movie theatres have been "supposed" to self-regulate and keep the kids out of movies rated "R," but they don't. As long as the owner makes more money by "bending" or breaking the rules, and as long as it's a major inconvenience for the minimum-wage workers to check the ages of a majority of their young audience members, the movie theatres won't enforce the ratings; not until they are made to do so.
  
  The same goes/will go for video games: So long as the stores keep making money off the younger kids buying games which aren't rated for them, and so long as the clerks will have to work more for the same pay in enforcing the system, it won't happen. Not until it's enforced through anything but "self-regulation."
  
  The industry should get together with the retailers and the various groups involved in this (including the "violent computer games are bad, ban them" crowd) and come up with a form of self-regulation and self-policing that ensures that minors dont get violent games (or at least that makes it harder for minors to get violent games) and that keeps the "violent computer games are bad" crowd at bay.
  
  They already did that, and the product was the ERSB rating system. What you're talking about is caving in and letting the paranoid anti-video game groups push through a law supporting the system. What I'm saying is that it won't happen because of the logistics and cost, and that it shouldn't happen, period.
  
  There has to be a middle ground between what we have now and "government mandated laws" (which is what these idiots want)
  
  One would hope so, and certainly might think so, but I wonder if there is, and if there is, if it will be accepted by the extremists. Perhaps it is the paranoid within me, but I cannot help wondering if there isn't some ulterior motive even within the dedicated anti-video game (violence) groups; something which might go along the lines of, "if we can force them to stop doing what they want to do, maybe we can force them to do what we want them to do!"
  
  I know the difference between the virtual and the real, but it seems to me that those who advocate such censorship don't, that they fear their lack of understanding, and blame their fear on the virtual (electronic games) instead of the real (themselves).
  
  ~UP
  
  --
  Eat the Path.
6. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by Pluvius · 2004-01-20 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, I hate to break it to you but the MPAA's rating system isn't legally binding.
  
  I didn't say that it was, did I? It's still practically mandatory within the industry, and Tim the Donkey will get in trouble with the theater for letting a minor into an R-rated movie without an adult.
  
  Rob
7. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by JET+666 · 2004-01-20 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's what the national identification cards are for :(
  
  --
  De sig boss de sig
8. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-01-21 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  "I didn't say that it was, did I?"
  I was not replying to any comment you made. I find your tone rude and insulting, especially coming from someone who is getting offended when they didn't even make a comment within the thread. I would expect an apology to be forthcoming. Okay Rob?
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
9. Re:Why cant the industry and the government... by Pluvius · 2004-01-21 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  My apology came exactly seven hours before your post. And yes, I did make a comment within this thread.
  
  Rob
mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-20 15:24 · Score: 0

democratic!
Well, shit. by Pluvius · 2004-01-20 18:22 · Score: 1

That's what I get for not making sure that people are actually replying to me before opening my big mouth.

Rob (Score: -1, Idiot)
How would you know? You haven't played the game. by Inoshiro · 2004-01-20 19:26 · Score: 1

"I do think the portrayal of Haitians in GTA:Vice City is quite unecessary and in bad taste,"

This statement proves you have not played the game. Does this make you qualified to make an informed decision about the situation? No, it does not. All it means is that you can make in incorrect statement based on heresay and get modded up for it, because the moderators also haven't taken the time to research the issue.

It's not a crime to have a wrong opinion, but there are laws against slander and libel. I think Take2 Interactive should look into those against the people who instigated the actions that lead people like you, dear misguided comment poster, to such an in incorrect and charged feeling towards the producers of the game.

--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
"a war on violent videogames?" by odorf · 2004-01-21 00:51 · Score: 1

Yes thats just what we need, lets fight fire with fire. Kids... You play those Violent video games and well come in there and BLOW YOUR FREAKIN HEADS OFF!!! MWAHAHAHA. Sounds wonderful.
Re:How would you know? You haven't played the game by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 01:56 · Score: 0

Dude.. I love that fucking game, and it's still unecessary.
Idiots, I say by ooby · 2004-01-21 05:42 · Score: 1

The Palm Beach Post makes these guys out to be ambulance chasers. They pretty much laugh in the lawyers faces.

Also, I would not be totally against stronger enforcement of ESRB guidelines. A lot of these games are just not meant for kids. Maybe a more acceptable sollution is the gaming industry enforcing better policies among retailers.
1. Re:Idiots, I say by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's exactly what they are, ambulance chasers, except for Thompson. Thompson also chases the hearses on the way to the funeral home so he can rape the corpses in front of the families until they take him as their lawyer.
  
  To paraphrase Mick Foley, these two jackoffs would open up the diseased lung of a smoker and say "Oh, by golly, I thought smoking was supposed to be good for you!". They would open up Ted Kennedy's nonfunctioning liver, while he's down on the floor(because he's always on the floor!), and say "Hey, I didn't know that four decades of heavy drinking took this kind of toll!".
  
  I hope they get what they deserve eventually.
Swear to God... by Lord+Kano · 2004-01-21 12:29 · Score: 1

Somebody should carjack an Infernus and run these assholes over.

If you keep saying that violent video games make us violent, I'll fucking kill you!

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Take-Two should follow ___'s lead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 13:39 · Score: 0

Take-Two should follow WWE's lead. In Nov. 2000, WWE sued the Parents Television Council over the Lionel Tate case, among other things, and received $3.5 million and a PUBLIC apology.
Random thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 13:54 · Score: 0

Is it just me or are Silver and Joe Lieberman giving Jewish people a bad name?

If we were to have "The Biggest Douche Of The Universe" awards, These two(Silver & Thompson) would win, with country music singer Darryl Worley a close second for blatantly cashing in on 9/11.

As far as the article goes, the author makes the two look like a couple ignorant fools along with the Haitians, even though the article did not mention that Dustin Lynch pled guilty last month after confessing in blood-stained letters sent to the victim's family(in one, he said that the game had nothing to do with it and he did it for his own enjoyment), and currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

BearDogg
Right..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-21 14:44 · Score: 0

"Scary Barry" and "Wacky Jack", ehh? IMO, they couldn't carry Hawk and Animal's jocks, let alone scare people.