Bully Gets In Trouble With School

The Miami Dade school district is moving to pressure Rockstar games over its upcoming game Bully. From the Next Generation article: "Last Thursday, a board committee unanimously approved the resolution. A full board vote is expected this Wednesday. Rockstar issued a written statement to the Herald, which said, 'We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers.'"

Comments

This makes a lot of sense...

[DarkNemesis618]

So instead of fighting the bully problem within their own school district, they're fighting a video game company?

Re:This makes a lot of sense...

[jythie]

Because it is fairly typical and a relativly safe assupmtion? Not always the case I agree, but to put it bluntly, I've found that most schools would rather the victims shut up and let themselves be put in place by thier betters (since often the worst bullies are favoriates of the community in the first place) then actually do anything to curb the problem. Personally, I think the reason this game is really getting so much outrage is in the game, the victims actually get to fight back rather then simply curl up into little balls and hope that they are rescued by adults.

Re:First amendment...

[Anonymous Coward]

What will it take to make sure the First Amendment is no longer trampled here and there???? Here, the school district is acting like a bully...

So you want to take away the first amendment rights of the school board and members of the community instead? They aren't trying to prevent Rockstar from making titles, they are just exercising their rights as Americans and consumers to deal with something that they don't deem appropriate.

This reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon when Dilbert accuses Dogbert of being insensitive. Dogbert replies "you are obviously insensitive to my insensitivity".

Easy answers?

[Rob T Firefly]

'We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers.'

So is war, but that hasn't stopped people from playing games based on war for at least thousands of years.

Chess, anyone?

I beg to differ

[Just Some Guy]

The bottom line is fighting back against bullies is not nearly as good an idea as it sounds.

I disagree wholeheartedly. My son (and other kids) were being bullied by a kid in his school. I tried talking to the teachers, but they said that their punishments weren't having much effect and the kid's parents weren't interested.

So, I taught my son three rules:

1. Aim for the nose
2. Swing hard
3. He'd never get in trouble from me for hitting back.

I also directly informed the teachers about our plan (their one-word reaction: "good!").

That was two months ago, and after two good smacks in the snout (and one miss - my son missed and nailed him in the eye), the bully is no more. My son wasn't the only one to benefit, either: the other kids realized that this worked pretty well.

I made it clear to my boy that I never, ever condone him starting fights. However, neither will I ever punish him for defending himself.

Re:First amendment...

[Columcille]

I fail to see the legal aspect of this. I do see citizens banding together to voice strong concern and opposition to problems they see. This is how a democracy works. Citizens have the right to express their views and yes, they even have the right to organize boycotts. It amazes me how people who shout, "You are removing their rights!" are essentially saying people shouldn't have the right to decide where money goes. A community decides they don't want violent games promoted within their community so they pressure local businesses to avoid the violent games. Local businesses, recognizing it makes good economic sense to avoid the games, do so. In these cases businesses continue to have the right to sell such games, but through the free exercise of democracy they have realized that they will do better if they do not carry the games.

But let's have a quick lesson in rights. Rights do not give you permission to do what you wish, and to hell with everyone else! Rights are given equally to everyone and one person's rights do not supercede someone else's rights. We work in balance as a free society. Many of our laws reflect the balancing of rights. Speed limits exist to protect everyone, slowing down those who would claim that it is their right to go as fast as they wish. Many drug laws, while recognizing the harm drugs can do an individual, often pay more emphasis to the effect drugs have on community. Your rights do not mean you can do anything you want without regard for its effect on society. From that basis, I'm among those who would not oppose actual legislation to limit the amount of violence in games, movies, and yes even music. No rational thinker has any doubt that there is a causative link between media violence (those of you who will quickly shout out about correlation and causation can see which category I place you in). A society fixated on fantasy violence will become a society enacting more and more violence. There are many factors at work that are completely sabotaging our society, violence in media is just one aspect. It is not the only problem that should be addressed, but it is a problem and it does need to be addressed.

People might cry out to allow any human action, defending their cries with some appeal to human rights. Their actions accomplish the opposite. Rights are about community, not simply about an individual. It's a perspective that says, "Everyone in our nation has these rights" rather than "each person has these rights". It's a subtle difference, I admit, but the former perspective works to balance rights so that rights actually mean something, and the latter simply creates anarchy when ultimately there will be just one dictator rising above them all, asserting his own right to domination.