Slashdot Mirror


Miami Court Orders Take Two to Hand Over Bully

Jabrwock writes "GamePolitics.com reports that a judge in Miami ruled that Take Two Interactive, makers of the controversial title Bully, must hand over a copy of the soon to be released game to the court within 24 hours. Jack Thompson, the plaintiff, called the ruling a 'huge victory against the violent video game industry', although Take Two can still appeal the order. Thompson filed a lawsuit asking the court to label Bully a 'public nuisance' and restrict its October 17 release in Florida."

349 comments

  1. Are they actually restricting sales of the game? by rdwald · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?

  2. the bully getting bullied? by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    the bully getting bullied?

  3. Ahh Jack... by kypper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You won't stop until someone who's played GTA actually kills you, will you?

    Honestly, we all want you to die not because we're violent, sadistic bastards, but because you just won't stop wasting our tax dollars on this horse-shit.

    1. Re:Ahh Jack... by kypper · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahh Jack...
      (Score:1, Flamebait)
      by kypper (446750) on 20:26 Wednesday 11 October 2006 (#16402245)
      (http://slashdot.org/)


      Hey, I didn't know Jack Thompson got mod points!

    2. Re:Ahh Jack... by jackbird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tax dollars? Jack Thompson is a private asshat, not a public servant.

    3. Re:Ahh Jack... by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, he's a private asshat who spends a lot of time persuading public servants (like the judge in question) to spend their time on his pet issues.

    4. Re:Ahh Jack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think pays for the judge's time, retard?

    5. Re:Ahh Jack... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      But they're public courts whose time he continues to waste.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:Ahh Jack... by jackbird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree, and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.

    7. Re:Ahh Jack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that. What the hell, on no, you pull a fire alarm in a game and that's going to make someone pull one in real life. Who gives a crap.

    8. Re:Ahh Jack... by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      The court system is publicly funded. And I think judges would do better to spend their time keeping innocent people out of jail, than looking at litigation from hyper lawyers with grudges against a computer industry.

    9. Re:Ahh Jack... by Jackass+Thompson · · Score: 5, Funny

      That'a a threat. Stop Threatening me. -- Are you threatening me? I am the Great Jackholio.

      --
      Are you threatening me?
    10. Re:Ahh Jack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG MOD THE PARENT FUNNY

    11. Re:Ahh Jack... by FreyarHunter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who is he representing? I'm not a lawyer myself but I thought you can only bring up a case if you have been directly affected by an incident, or had an immeidate family member affected.

      No one can really be effected by Bully as it hasn't been released so why are judges even hearing these cases?

      --
      Empathetic-- 94% You tend to walk in someone else's shoes a hundred miles before pointing a finger.
    12. Re:Ahh Jack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree, and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.


      Um, duh. But it's not in the public good for asshats to use the judicial process to sue over the same issue over and over again trying to use different laws or jurisdictions each time to achieve the same result whether our system makes that possible or not.

      I mean, it's a public good for 911 to respond seriously to every call. That doesn't mean it's a public good when people crank call 911 dozens of times.
    13. Re:Ahh Jack... by Babbster · · Score: 1

      You might have a point if this was a non-lawyer acting without counsel, but JT is a lawyer who is supposed to know better and not file frivolous, baseless lawsuits. [Insert usual disclaimer] but this seems to me an attempt at "prior restraint." Unless somehow this videogame is a threat to "national security" (e.g., containing top-secret material as opposed to containing potentially, morally objectionable material) then until Bully is actually on store shelves there shouldn't be any reasonable legal case regarding its content. The fact that the judge is even entertaining JT's frivolity is just a damn shame and makes the court system look stupid.

    14. Re:Ahh Jack... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree

      Don't think it even comes close, the law is expensive because lawyers like it that way.

      and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.

      As far as I have read, nobody has said that neither he nor anyone else should not have the right to make an ass of himself. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy or supportive of his actions. He's got a right to be an ass, and we have the right to call him an ass for doing it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Ahh Jack... by Jackass+Thompson · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're insulting me. Give me $11 million.

      --
      I am the Great Jackholio. Are you threatening me?

      --
      Are you threatening me?
    16. Re:Ahh Jack... by antic · · Score: 2, Funny
      You won't stop until someone who's played GTA actually kills you, will you?


      I've been training hard, but I just can't get past the flying training in San Andreas!
      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    17. Re:Ahh Jack... by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is Florida we're talking about.

      Jaysyn
      (yes, I live in Florida)

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    18. Re:Ahh Jack... by cgenman · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's definitely a good thing to allow judicial access to anyone with a beef. And maybe the first time this happens, you listen to them intently, give them as much leeway as necessary to make their case, and finally rule against them when it's clear they don't have a clue.

      The fifth time, they should get a curt hearing, a cursory glance, and a "stop wasting my time" look. The tenth time...

      Let's see what Thompson has had beefs with, shall we?

      He has:
      Sued the State of Florida to get the Florida Bar ruled unconstitutional.
      Repeatedly filed baseless criminal harassment charges against radio stations, cartoonists, and other public figures.
      Ironically, is known for threatening and harassing behavior, and has been removed from trials for such.
      Charged Janet Reno with placing homosexual promotional material in public schools.
      Sued 2-Live-Crue over obsenity in their work, lost, then followed up suing over their victory song about the first amendment.
      Publically offered to make a 10,000 dollar donation to charity, then withdrew the offer as "satire."
      Repeatedly tries to get obsenity charges against music, losing pretty much every time.
      Has faced disbarrment charges. Was required by the Florida bar to prove self sane.
      Has had repeated high-profile civil cases on behalf of bereaved parents against the entertainment industry, and hasn't won a single one.

      With a list like that, the time for maximum allowable leeway has passed. Real people have real problems for the courts to solve. Wasting 100 hours of the court's time to play this game isn't going to help anybody.

      (Full disclosure, I make videogames. Oh the Evil!)

    19. Re:Ahh Jack... by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      Eeey, to you as a rep of Harmonix, I just gotta say, your stuff rocks. I can't count the number of times I've replayed Amplitude. Although the network features and the weird multiplayer setup bugged me at times, damn if it don't rock. Can't wait for Guitar Hero II.
      Can't wait to enter the game dev/programming field myself after university.

    20. Re:Ahh Jack... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Why can't the judge wait 24 hours like everybody else, and get his copy at the local Wall Mart?

      "Slowly, One by one, the penguins steal my sanity." - Unknown

    21. Re:Ahh Jack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack Thompson pretty much believes that Rock and Roll is the devil's music, so I'm sure your game wouldn't exist in Jack's Republic either.

      And Jack doesn't need to win in the courts, because he then gets politicians to make the law anyway.

      Someone needs to waste that motherfucker. I have no respect for his life.

    22. Re:Ahh Jack... by lgw · · Score: 1, Informative

      No one can really be effected by Bully as it hasn't been released

      You keep using this word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:Ahh Jack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His history is so funny. What confuses me is how does this guy make or have money? Really? He loses every case he touches, unless there a less public ones out there. He initiates all the lawsuits on his own, so I assume it's out of his pocket, especially considering he always loses.
       
      Actually while I'm writing this, it suddenly occurred to me that there remains the possibility that the guy works indirectly for Take Two and is a promoter, that would make sense. I see only good things coming up for Take Two and Bully. Bully is certainly not going anywhere but to store shelves as it's considerably less violent than previous games. Either Jack is mixed up and is stuck in some emotional vendetta against Rockstar or he is a promoter. Either way he ends up as a promo gimmick anyways.

    24. Re:Ahh Jack... by M-G · · Score: 1

      What confuses me is how does this guy make or have money? Really? He loses every case he touches, unless there a less public ones out there. He initiates all the lawsuits on his own, so I assume it's out of his pocket, especially considering he always loses.

      I'm sure he has many people who support his fight against 'evil' and provide him with all the financial backing he needs.

    25. Re:Ahh Jack... by generic-man · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thompson won't stop until he stops getting media attention.

      Slashdot is but one of many media outlets who have made Thompson a very wealthy man. Penny Arcade is another. Thompson has all of us to thank for his financial success.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    26. Re:Ahh Jack... by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      I've gotta second this. My scratched GH disc was the impetus for me to finally buy a disc repairing kit, I simply couldn't live without it...

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    27. Re:Ahh Jack... by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Jack Thompson's greatest sexual fantasy is to die at the hands of a gamer. It probably gives him a hard-on just thinking about it.

      Wouldn't you just LOVE to be poor bastard who's *his* psychologist?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. A good read... by ack154 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Someone has already had a hands on review of the game... Dear ole Jack won't be the first.

  5. Jack's Psychosis by Chibi-Hikaru · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Thompson needs to stop projecting his sick mind on the masses.

    --
    http://www.cafepress.com/hikarudesigns/ http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=hikaru
  6. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This kind of publicity will only increase sales for rockstar.

    The ruling is so that it can be assessed by somebody within the court.

  7. Nothing worse by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    than uninformed asshats with a cause all in the name of "saving the children."

    Why not protest the war or lack of education funding in the more poorer districts? I think children need more, oh I dunno, text books and trained staff than they need protection from "the boogie woogies" of video games...

    Oh right, cuz the guy is a press whore no-talent assclown who just wants to be known as the biggest loser in the world. /me loves me some video games...

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:Nothing worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for maybe starting your sentence in the subject line. That's worse.

    2. Re:Nothing worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      or lack of education funding in the more poorer districts?

      Such as in yours, for example?

    3. Re:Nothing worse by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
      Why not protest the war or lack of education funding in the more poorer districts?
      ...like Slashdot.
      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    4. Re:Nothing worse by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      mein english ist gude ya?

      At least I know enough to let people play videa games and not be disturbed. :-)

      psst, this is why editors exist ... [well that and proofreading and honestly who proofreads slashdot posts?]

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    5. Re:Nothing worse by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I have to. *snicker*

      Your English seems to be about on par with your spelling in German :P

      I apologize. I just couldn't resist.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    6. Re:Nothing worse by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Well given that I don't speak German... and I can reasonably write English at at least a high school level, I'll say danka.

      Can't we unite in hatred of Jack and stop picking on Tom?

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    7. Re:Nothing worse by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Agreed on the dislike of Jack.

      As far as picking on you goes, mine was done good naturedly. I just really couldn't pass up making the joke. =]

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:Nothing worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than your German, ja?

    9. Re:Nothing worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Insults aside, this is what your first sentence looks like:

      " Nothing worse (Score:4, Insightful) by tomstdenis (446163) tomstdenisNO@SPAMiahu.ca on Wednesday October 11, @05:28PM (#16402279) (http://www.imaluser.com/ | Last Journal: Friday February 04, @02:46AM) than uninformed asshats with a cause all in the name of "saving the children."

      Put titles in the title, first sentence on the first line. Not that hard.

    10. Re:Nothing worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more poorer?

      By the look of those two words alone, *all* districts!

      (But I agree with you on the rest :) )

    11. Re:Nothing worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would shut your fucking mouth, we might quit picking on you.

      We hate you, as well as your uninformed opinions.

  8. I don't know what it was exactly by zepo1a · · Score: 1

    But that summary made me laugh out loud...for real. For pete's sake Jack..it's a GAME for crying out loud. Please find something better to (not) waste your law school education on.

  9. Given the average intelligence... by tehSpork · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Given the average intelligence of the people assosiated with Jack Thompson and his anti-videogame 'movement', I doubt any of them are smart enough to actualy get the computer game installed and running, much less have the skill to get past even the first stages of the game.

    And what good is him having an advance copy going to do anyone, other than the fact that he will have a few extra words to the rants he's been making about the game from day 1. Heck, I didn't even know about the game until I heard him blabbing about it. Maybe he should realize that he's just turned into free advertising for the game and shut up?

    Nahh, that would be too mature a move for him. He's content to make a fool out of himself, again.

    1. Re:Given the average intelligence... by ack154 · · Score: 1
      Heck, I didn't even know about the game until I heard him blabbing about it.

      Same here. Had no idea... but now that I've heard of it (thanks to Jack) and seen some footage and reviews, I want it and will probably get it.

      Thanks for the heads up Jack!
    2. Re:Given the average intelligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets make a game where you can shoot jack thompsons balls off, then hogtie and toss him in a river with sharks with friggin lazers on their heads..

      i wonder how well he'll take it.

    3. Re:Given the average intelligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe he should realize that he's just turned into free advertising for the game and shut up?"

      Maybe this is Take Two's plan all along...

    4. Re:Given the average intelligence... by Cheapy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since when was ad hominem Insightful?

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    5. Re:Given the average intelligence... by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Since when do you install a PS2 game?

    6. Re:Given the average intelligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you forgotten where you are? Ad hominem *is* insightful on slashdot...

    7. Re:Given the average intelligence... by Nimey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since you became such a doody-head, of course.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Given the average intelligence... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Given the average intelligence of the people assosiated with Jack Thompson and his anti-videogame 'movement', I doubt any of them are smart enough to actualy get the computer game installed and running, much less have the skill to get past even the first stages of the game.

      They'll let their kids do it while they watch.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  10. That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by logicnazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't just mean it reaches a bad result. This really is just bad law as well as bad policy.

    A fundamental bedrock of first ammendment jurisprudence is the principle of no prior restraint. Sure the court has unfortunatly carved some exceptions where individuals might be fined or even prosecuted for the content of their work (obscene material with no redeming literary/scientific value) but it has universally struck down anything that even smacks of prior restraint. Obviously any damages can be sought after the game is released and the only reason to submit it now is to achieve something like judicial approval for their game. Such an action flies in the face of long established first ammendment jurisprudence.

    I suspect Thompson just found a sympathetic local judge who either didn't know or didn't like the clear first ammendment case law on prior restraint. Then again maybe the publishers didn't protest too loudly knowing they could have it reversed on appeal and it would get them great publicity. In either case I don't doubt that this will quickly be reversed.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    1. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You would be correct if the Judge had actually issued a ruling against Rockstar. All he's said is that he'd like to see the game. That can also be for an appeal so that when Jeck loses and appeals it, the lower court can demonstrate how fair it was to Jack's case.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative
      A fundamental bedrock of first ammendment jurisprudence is the principle of no prior restraint. ... Obviously any damages can be sought after the game is released and the only reason to submit it now is to achieve something like judicial approval for their game. Such an action flies in the face of long established first ammendment jurisprudence.
      Jack Thompson is attacking this game as a public nuisance.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nuisance

      He's saying the game will create an ongoing danger to the local community & because of this, the game should not be sold (in that Florida jurisdiction).

      This isn't prior restraint because he is not attacking the content of the game, merely its ultimate effect on the community.

      His legal action very cleverly does not have to even go near the issue of Constitutional Law.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you make that sig a little bigger and more obnoxious?

    4. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is precisely equivalent to a court ordering an author to hand over their soon-to-be published book beforehand so the government can scrutinize it. Since no anti-expression laws (such as defamation) apply until after publication, there is no fathomable basis for the government to have a pre-release copy of the software title. It is not like the government can do the prior restraint of stopping the games release. So this court has very much overstepped its bounds. Some (far too many?) judges just do not understand the law. You do not get to break the Constitution just because you wear a robe or get elected to Congress.

    5. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      His legal action very cleverly does not have to even go near the issue of Constitutional Law.

      What country are you talking about, exactly? For that matter, what planet?

    6. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Babbster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are you talking about? Since you decided to provide a wiki link to public nuisance, you should probably read the one on prior restraint. JT is attempting to prevent publication of material based on its content - that is the definition of prior restraint. The idea that his suit could possibly have merit (the courts have made very few rulings upholding prior restraint, and usually only do so when the government makes national security claims) is just silly. One might as well have argued that "Kill Bill" should have been sued out of existence - oh, but that's right, movies are art while Rockstar's videogames are "murder simulators."

    7. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did the judge actually rule in any way to stop Rockstar/Take Two from doing anything? At least from the summary and the linked blog, it seems that the judge is only asking to see the game. I mean, he asked with some force behind it, sure, but still-- if someone is trying to bring a case regarding the game's content, it seems reasonable for the judge to want to see the content, don't you think? If games reviewers have already seen the game, is it so difficult for someone to produce a copy for a judge?

    8. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then again maybe the publishers didn't protest too loudly knowing they could have it reversed on appeal and it would get them great publicity.

      Wow. Thanks! Jack Thompson is really a creation of Rockstar's PR department. Wow.

    9. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by lelitsch · · Score: 1

      Maybe in his mind, but the last time I checked, SCOTUS still decides what constitutional law is and isn't. I don't play a lawyer on TV, but if the judge rules against Take 2, one of the first arguments of their lawyers will be first amendment case law. Unless there are even better causes for appeal in Florida law.

      Even if there are, though, I would probably go and try to get a Federal court to take jurisdiction under all kinds of statutes.

    10. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Insightful
      He's saying the game will create an ongoing danger to the local community

      Waltzing was a danger to the Swiss and Austrian communities too. It's a good thing they were smart enough to ban it, or lawlessness would have broken out and civilisation as we know it would be over by now.

      And drugs. Now, it's a good thing we had that war on drugs so now nobody can buy them, get wasted and forment anarchy. If it hadn't been for the billions of dollars spent, and all those lives wasted rotting in jail, those damn potheads could have ended up running the world.

      Now it's gamers. We have to stop them getting their hands on anything that might make them think of violence. I mean, imagine what could happen if that rabid pack of pasty-faced basement dwellers decided to get out and do something instead of twiddling their joysticks. Who could even think of standing up to a flabby menace like that?
      That's one set of new overlords I won't be welcoming.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL, but it would appear that Thompson is arguing the case on the grounds that the game constitutes a public nuisance. If he's arguing on those grounds then the court has no choice but to decide on those grounds. Many people posting in this article have repeatedly pointed out that it is a violation of first-amendment rights to ban this game. If that is so, then it is not the Florida judge's duty to decide what is or is not a violation of the constitution. That falls to the US Supreme Court. The reason that it hasn't been thrown completely out as prior restraint is because the Florida legislature has penned a law specifically allowing prior restraint if the publishing of the art constitutes a public nuisance. Note that my knowledge of said law is exclusively based on gleanings from other posters.

      To sum it up, it is irrelevant whether or not this is a violation of first-amendment rights because the jurisdiction in question cannot decide what is constitutional and what is not. This is also not a clear cut case of prior restraint because of a piece of Florida legislation. If Rockstar wants to set a freedom of speech precedent should this case be lost, they will have to follow an appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court. For a lower court to rule based on the constitution would imply that said court was somehow on-par with the Supreme Court.

      --
      SRSLY.
    12. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by logicnazi · · Score: 1

      Well that does explain the judge's ruling. The non-appealeate judges (district? or is that just for federal) are often less willing to throw out laws for being unconstitutional prefering to play it safe and leave that up to the appealeate judges.

      However, you are simply wrong on the ability of lower courts to rule on constitutional claims. In fact in most cases a district court must rule on the constitutionality of a law for it even to reach the supreme court. The supreme court does not just take up these issues de novo they are appealed up through all the lower courts.

      The supremacy of the supreme court merely means that the lower courts must apply the supreme court's precedents when deciding whether a law is consistant with the US constitution (state supreme courts get to interpret their own constitutions and no doubt florida also has a free speech provision there).

      --

      If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    13. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Jack Thompson is attacking this game as a public nuisance.

      I agree, Jack Thompson is a public nuisance.

    14. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Redwing · · Score: 1

      The reason that it hasn't been thrown completely out as prior restraint is because the Florida legislature has penned a law specifically allowing prior restraint if the publishing of the art constitutes a public nuisance. Note that my knowledge of said law is exclusively based on gleanings from other posters.

      To: John Q Floridian
      Re: Your future criticism of Jeb Bush

      We have deemed that future statements of yours that malign Jeb Bush amount to a public nuisance. The state doesn't have a problem with the content but just the effect. You must desist or face charges for disregarding the order of the court.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      Raisinettes are my raison d'etre
    15. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      Or we could just censor^H^H^H^H remove all the Republican AND Democrates names from the ballot because it is possible that will allow people to vote for them and put them in a position where they will create a public nusance.

    16. Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal by tritium6 · · Score: 1

      No, you only get to break the Constitution if you are President.

  11. A huge Victory! by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, that's right, a huge victory for Jack. He finally got his hands on a copy of a video game before release!

    Obviously since nobody else has played this game yet, it will be a major loss to the gaming industry. Certainly there aren't already copies in the hands of video game reviewers, or any store or... wait? There are? *How* many people have played it?

    I'm not quite sure how this is a major victory, other then that he found a(another?) judge to play ball with him.

    --
    Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    1. Re:A huge Victory! by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      It's pretty obvious what his plan it. Now that he's obtained a copy before release he can upload it unto the net where all the kids can download it and play it for free ensuring Take-Two doesn't make a profit.

      It's downright ingenius

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  12. What ever happened to parents? by lemur3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it is just me? It's the "think of the children" crowd who are a public nuisance.

    I think it shows a large amount of disrespect toward parents (and adult gamers) all over to have a Judge/Plaintiff deciding what is good or bad for the public when it comes to video games or art or entertainment.

    1. Re:What ever happened to parents? by rpillala · · Score: 1

      How many parents do you know? 100? 200?

      I've met at least 3000 parents over the last 10 years as a teacher. There are lots of incompetent folks out there.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    2. Re:What ever happened to parents? by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Stupid people, stupid parents.

      But hopefully numbers like that will change soon. You see so many people these days talking about parents censoring what their kids play. The way I see it, the upcoming generations of parents will know better than ours did.

      Or I'm having some sort of pipe dream (Obviously from all that Mario I've been playing,) and we'll all turn into a bunch of hypocrites. I guess it could go either way, since some of us will not want our children playing, for example, GTA3. Others, though, may think that its harmless, since they played games like it when they were children. It really depends on the person.

    3. Re:What ever happened to parents? by LochNess · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. This clown doesn't want you to decide what your children can see. He thinks that *he* should get to decide what they see.

    4. Re:What ever happened to parents? by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, there are lots and lots of incompetent parents. Being possibly one of the most important jobs there are, parenting is unique in not requiring any skills or competence whatsoever.

      --
      Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
    5. Re:What ever happened to parents? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I've met more gullible people than I can count, should we ban advertising and tabloids because of that?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:What ever happened to parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many parents do you know? 100? 200?

      I've met at least 3000 parents over the last 10 years as a teacher. There are lots of incompetent folks out there.


      Yup. Lots of incompetent parents who don't know what's good for their children.

      So, why is Jack Thompson suing Rockstar and not McDonalds? Rockstar's games are marketed to adults, and have caused no deaths (or at most a handful, if you accept the ludicrous argument that they are responsible for murders). McDonalds' junk food is marketed straight to kids, and must have killed thousands with heart problems, and caused obesity and the consequent health problems, higher insurance premiums, etc. to millions more.

      If it's OK for McDonalds to harm millions of kids, because parents have the right to decide what they let their children eat, then it's OK for Rockstar to sell violent games, because parents have the responsibility to decide what they let their children play. Conversely, if it's not OK for Rockstar to sell violent games, then it's not OK for McDonalds to market junk food to kids. Let's have a little consistency, shall we?

    7. Re:What ever happened to parents? by rpillala · · Score: 1

      All I'm saying is that it's useless to point to parents as the true source of guidance for children when we all know it's generally not true.

      Also what you used was the contrapositive not the converse. Luckily for your argument, statements do imply their contrapositives. You'd have a good argument except that it's not OK for McDonald's to do what they do just because Jack Thompson isn't suing them. No one person can do everything. Video games are just an easy target. People like Jack Thompson are simply doing what they do for money or for their image. I doubt he really cares about the things he says he does.

      The problem is that this situation is inherently unfair. Parents shouldn't allow their young children access to these materials that allow free exploration of morally questionable activities (let's use bloodshed) which are then rewarded. But they've dropped the ball and technically no one else has the responsibility so no one takes it. A business is going to take on something like child rearing? Please. They'll do whatever the market will bear.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  13. Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I checked the First Amendment was still in the constitution. How is a video game a public nuisance, whatever that means, and subject to extraordinary examination that would never pass constitutional muster if applied to a book or movie?

    1. Re:Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      By claiming it will insite people to violence would make it a public nuisance.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the First Amendment applies completely to this topic, and instead of having the courts censor games, parents should, you know, do their job and watch their kid, I have to disagree with the arguement that books are just as bad as video games. While I have seen some really disturbed things in books, mainly because I read Stephen King, one has to realise that most people are more likely to play a video game than they are to read a book. That may not be true for most of the slashdot crowd, since its rare to find this many people who can carry on an intelligent conversation, but for the general population, it holds true.

      Most people, at least around where I live, don't read unless its school forced, and that stuff's pretty heavily censored by the administration. The games, however, are either censored by the parents, or not censored at all. Also something to consider: Is a parent more likely to ban a video game than they might be to ban a book? The child would still be reading, at least, opposed to just playing games.

      I guess the point I'm trying to make is that books won't have as wide an affect on most kids as video games will. While I realise there are special cases, such as Harry Potter, for the most part, a kid's more likely to play a game than read a book.

    3. Re:Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Jack Thompson's ridiculous lawsuits incite me to near violence... can get get him banned too?

    4. Re:Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? by daigu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Last time I checked, the fact that the First Amendment is in the Constitution doesn't count for a whole lot. Think free speech zones as one of many examples.

    5. Re:Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That may not be true for most of the slashdot crowd, since its rare to find this many people who can carry on an intelligent conversation...

      Wow... your user ID is showing...

    6. Re:Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's not. With habeus corpus ended, that pretty much eliminates several of the other amendments, at least in effect.

  14. Sounds Worse Than It Is by KU_Fletch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thompson is bringing a claim to the court that the game constitutes a menace. Since the game isn't actually out yet, the judge has no way to proceed with this claim until he sees the product. I fully anticipate he'll view it for a few days, take a few days of consultation, and then reach a sumary judgement for the defendants. You'll be hard pressed to find a judge willing to prohibit free speech or free commerce of this kind. Blocking the sale of a legal commerical product won't pass much constitutional scrutiny and would be thrown out in an instant by a higher court.

    This is just Jack Thompson wanting attention for his upcoming book (hell, he called his co-author as a witness). Giving him attention is letting him win.

    --
    It's not stupid. It's advanced.
    1. Re:Sounds Worse Than It Is by tehwebguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the problem is, as far as i'm concerned, is that the judge shouldn't be able to order something like this.

      --
      -- lol pwned
    2. Re:Sounds Worse Than It Is by pcgamez · · Score: 1

      I understand and agree (in a way) with what you are saying. The problem here is that by ordering the game produced, he is in fact saying that a game CAN be a public nuisance. That in itself is a hirrible precedent.

    3. Re:Sounds Worse Than It Is by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Surely the Goskomizdat must review the game before publication, eh comrade?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Sounds Worse Than It Is by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    5. Re:Sounds Worse Than It Is by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Giving him attention is letting him win.

      The problem with that is there are people that will blindly accept his vitriolic opinion as truth and fact when there is a lack of an alternate viewpoint. If the mature, logical gamers don't "give him attention" by responding, the other side of the debate won't even be heard, and it will just be the hardcore gamers making stupid comments and generally making a bad impression on the so-called "normal people". Jack Thompson's rhetoric sounds reasonable if someone isn't familiar with the subject he's attacking, or isn't informed.

      Although, reading this preview account of it, I can't think that the judge, if he is at all fair, will see what's all that bad about it. Jack Thompson may have tried to select the particular judge to his own liking, though.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    6. Re:Sounds Worse Than It Is by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Courts normally deal with things that have happened, not things that might happen. The game hasn't been published or sold to the public. That should be reason enough for the judge to dismiss the case.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:Sounds Worse Than It Is by Gryle · · Score: 1

      See there? Was an explanation so hard?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  15. makes my head spin by phyruxus · · Score: 0

    I always thought the furor over GTA and suchlike was foamy-mouthed zealotry from technophobic churchladies. This alters my perspective. The subject matter is enough to royally piss me off, but I'm not sure whether that's enough to make me agree with censorship. I'd like to say that freedom outweighs all other considerations. I really would. But on a personal level I have to wait to see what shakes out.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:makes my head spin by Xiroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Congrats, you fell into Thompson's trap. Now why don't you have a read of what the game is really about (as linked in an earlier comment).

    2. Re:makes my head spin by Maserati · · Score: 1

      And for the non-RTFA crowd I have two words about the game, "no blood". And three more, "go to class".

      This isn't remotely a GTA-in-school game. Then again, Catcher in the Rye has been banned or burned many times. Get over it.

      IHBT

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    3. Re:makes my head spin by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      After reading that preview, I'm actually interested in the game. Thank you for posting the link. Before, I had naiively dismissed it as GTA-at-school. This ... depending on how good it is, could actually convince me to buy a PS2 and the game. Which says a lot. :D

    4. Re:makes my head spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I always thought the furor over GTA and suchlike was foamy-mouthed zealotry from technophobic churchladies."

      "For the children" minivan morons are a step away from churchladies in terms of ignorant hysteria.

  16. Standing by MrLint · · Score: 1

    Other than Jerk Thompson's, how on earth does this case exist? On what grounds is the court asking for review? I am just at a lack here to understand how this would work. How does JT claim he deserves pre-release software for his own gratification? Not to mention that i doubt this would hold up on appeal with what I assume are amazingly specious claims.

  17. Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by aztektum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL...

    If I were Take Two, my FIRST piece of evidence in defending my wares would be America's Army. "Hey it isn't just us making games that are violent. The very same government asked to pass judgement against us gives this shit away!"

    AA is designed to be as accurate as possible with regard to teaching people proper technique for assault, infiltration and causing strategic mayhem. All supported by our tax dollars. If the government is freely supplying this material to people, how the fuck can they ban it? Is this fucking insane or am I missing something?

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Broken+scope · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, run into a building without checking, running down the middle of the street, and shooting everything that moves is teaching me how to use military tactics.

      --
      You mad
    2. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'll be a double-edged sword; America's Army can be used as evidence that videogames train people to be violent, because that's what the military uses it for.

    3. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now if we could only get our soldiers to stop jumping into walls, and maybe train them to not scream over "spawn camping f4g0t wall hax"

    4. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Zing! Well said.

      I'd like to see the GP in JRTC.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    5. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      I have friend who joined ROTC because he wanted to shoot guns, he didn't think it would be all that bad. Now i laugh at him for not listening to me.

      --
      You mad
    6. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Buahaha... I thought the same thing until they shoved an M60 into my hands and told me to drag it, my rucksack, the tripod, and my scrawny 150lb ass 30 miles in a night. I became a 60 gunner real fast, so it wasn't a total loss, but it was a miserable fucking experience I never want to repeat.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    7. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Broken+scope · · Score: 2

      Oh god.... an ammo belt of 7.62 is heavy. I don't think i could go half a mile with and m60 on my back let alone in my hands.

      --
      You mad
    8. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Nimey · · Score: 1

      ROTFL! That goes in my quotes file.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      A squad is assigned a machine gun. One person carries the gun. Another carries the ammo. Another carries a replacement barrel. When you fire the things pretty regularly, the barrel gets hot and can warp.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    10. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      America's Army has never been used as a training aid for soldiers. It's a PR stunt to get more people interested in enlisting.

    11. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      I willing to bet it a hell of a lot hotter than the shotgun i burned my hand print off on.

      --
      You mad
    12. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by entrigant · · Score: 1

      Um, that's kinda the point. America's Army teaches you to be a more effective killer than vice city does.

    13. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      99.9% of the player base are in no way effective killers. It seems like counter-strike sometimes, a bunch of soldiers running around acting like dumbasses yelling "LOL". Neither game teaches you to be an effective killer. To be an effective killer you have to be willing to shoot someone. That is a very hard line to cross, it would take much more than a game to put a normal person over that line.

      --
      You mad
    14. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by stewwy · · Score: 1

      Thought that was standard US tactics, but its not very accurate as theres no special 'target allies' option

    15. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahahaha No.

      --
      You mad
    16. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      Saw this comment yesterday - thought it fit here as well.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    17. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      Let me explain

      fascism /fæzm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
      -noun
      1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

    18. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could shoot someone if I had to. It doesn't matter if they have a face or not. I don't think that I am psychotic, though I think they really mean sociopathic. People are simply not used to killing, because they have become removed from the activity by civilization. They fancy that it is some truly difficult act that they could no commit, despite the evidence to the contrary in those places where killing other humans occurs regularly. You need feel no guilt so long as you feel that your actions are justified--that you are righteous in the termination of another's life. They are taught that killing is wrong and their conflicts are rarely righteous, so they must come to terms with killing people because they are told to rather because they feel it is truly necessary. I could do that, but I too would have my share of remorse, or at least I hope that I would. Humans kill each other in civilization that is so far removed from the hardships of real life by the luxury of opulence, and though some may feel remorse for their actions, they are motivated by truly simple things such as greed, unrequited love, betrayal, and so forth. Most murders are committed against people known to the killer--people that very much have faces.

      I do not think that killing is that difficult, I think that we want it to be. We are a species of killers, and we crave so much to be otherwise. Thankfully for most of us, we can push off our killing onto others. They feed us and they protect us, and we fancy ourselves free of what we consider a sin.

    19. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Since when has the government had to obey the same laws that the common people do?

    20. Re:Defense Exhibit A: America's Army by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I forgot about the barrel. You're NOT supposed to have to carry all that shit, I found out when I got assigned to my initial ammo bearer position after basic and AIT. Appearantly you're not supposed to get into arguments with your drill sargent.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  18. What's up with Jack Thompson ? by The+Sith+Lord · · Score: 1

    ... he hasn't been the same after playing a US general in Broken Arrow (worst accent EVER !)

  19. Whose the 'public nuisance'? by suedehed · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can they counter sue to have Jack Thompson labelled a 'public nuisance'?

  20. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Steeltalon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What blows my mind is that this is the guy who suggested that someone should make a game where the president of Take 2 Interactive and her family are killed... and then blew off the $10,000 he offered should someone make that game. Where the **** does he get the moral authority, let alone professional authority -- I mean, he's a lawyer, and knows about the game industry only in an academic sense, and I say that using the loosest definition of academic possible -- to judge whether Bully is acceptable. He's a God fearing man. Would it be so bad for God to drop an anvil on him?

    --
    Regards, Ian
  21. Jack still has license to practice law? by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why does this guy still have the license to practice law? He should have been disbarred years ago for the stunts he's always trying to pull.

    Hell, why is this guy still alive? After what he said about the gamefaqs community, he should have been struck down by God as an agent of the devil.

    --
    It's been a long time.
    1. Re:Jack still has license to practice law? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Jack Thompson was right, he'd be dead.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Jack still has license to practice law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably for the same reason that Bill & Hill weren't disbarred. Him a perjurer and her not being able to "find" the billing records. Lawyers, like police, are crooks for the most part.

    3. Re:Jack still has license to practice law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, Bill was disbarred.

    4. Re:Jack still has license to practice law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, he's only a perjurer if you're in the 1/5th of the country that doesn't think if he didn't put his penis inside of her vagina, he didn't have sex with that woman. And he clearly made sure that the definition the majority of the country uses was the one that would apply.

      Contrast DeLay who insisted he had never been reprimanded by the ethics committee, despite the fact that they had already issued three admonishments for misbehavior. It's ok when one of your own does it.

    5. Re:Jack still has license to practice law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm suprised he's got time for this, shouldn't he be busy with his lawsuit on behalf of the child rapists and torturers, you know, that kid who killed his stepparents after they burnt him with an iron and forced him to have sex with them?

    6. Re:Jack still has license to practice law? by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Oh, the Florida Bar and he have been going at it for YEARS. Sadly, "Jack" is just slimy enough that nothing sticks.

      --
      -
    7. Re:Jack still has license to practice law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Jack Thompson was right, we'd all be dead. Not just Jack.

  22. Bewareness by afz902k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bully is a game that no children should be exposed to. Clearly, It has been crafted by the Devil it/him/her-self, or probably a lesser Demon such as Orobas or Teeraal, to make the children who play it commit acts of violence against other children, and those who don't, against Jack Thompson and his lackeys.

    1. Re:Bewareness by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I dunno. I thought Hell was still using COBOL. Can they even code something like this?

    2. Re:Bewareness by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?
      Everyone knows they use Visual Basic in hell.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  23. Judge doesn't get it? by Facekhan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when can some random uninvolved third party with no standing sue to see an unreleased product? Is the judge JT's drinking buddy or just completely out of his mind?

    1. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by krycheq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude... are you living under a rock or what...? This happens all the time. Big businesses are sued by non-involved parties all the time... every time a bank buys another bank for instance, some moron comes up with a law-suit saying that they won't have the same access to retail banking, or that loans will be harder to get, or whatever... this is extremely common.

      What's shocking about this whole thing is as a society we have fallen to expecting public entities like government, companies, and schools, to police this sort of stuff. Responsibility begins at home. If you don't want it in your house, you don't have to have it! This is *still* a free country (for now) and no one is going to force you to expose you or your children to anything objectionable.

      The problem is, the people who are willing to go to lengths like this to sue are the same people who lack the parental courage to tell their kids they can't have the POS game to begin with because they can't stand hearing their kids complain that they don't have the latest or the best of anything.

      People... get over it, we live in a free market society and it's time to stop trying to shift the blame to that market and take responsibility for the content you and your family consume. If you don't like it, don't give them your money... I guarantee you that this will send a message way more powerful than any judge can.

    2. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by mjs0 · · Score: 1

      I am a big fan of the free market (and have flirted on occasion with libertarianism) but whilst I agree 100% that responsibility begins at home it does not, unfortunately, stop there.

      No matter how good a parent I am, how good I am at protecting my children from exposure to the evils of the world ( until they suddenly recieve their package full of maturity on their 18th birthday that turns them into responsible adults, followed of course by their responsible drinking skills 3 years later...subjects for another rant, but I mustn't get distracted ), I cannot as an individual protect them from the offspring of irresponsible parents who think nothing of letting their kids run riot, playing GTA at age 8, immersing themselves in unhealthy fantasies with no parental help, researching bomb building on the internet, etc... etc... (Warning the preceding sentence contains deliberate hyperbole!)

      Too often as a society we think in terms of punishment rather than prevention. Making the parents responsible for their actions and the actions of their children would not bring my children back from the grave. Taking personal responsibility only goes so far...it is necessary but not sufficient...at some point we must stop and take responsibility for society as a whole or it will rise up and bite us.

      It is not to protect your kids from you that these rules are necessary, but to protect you and your kids from those other out of control kids and adults.

      (General comment not aimed at parent ->> We are told that giving up our liberties is not an option, unfortunately too often luxuries are presented as liberties. By all means lets draw a line in the sand around our inalienable rights but restricting luxuries is not the same thing as denying inalienable rights. My right to the pursuit of happiness does not extend to the joy I would get from wringing the neck of the that annoying git on the next block so why is questioning the potential for actual physical harm that may or may not result from the broad availability of certain entertainment materials shouted down so vehemently. )

      Surely the price of living in a civilized society is accepting that some rules are necessary to ensure that the majority are not terrorized (I can't believe I used that word) by those minorities that include the irresponsible, the lazy, the greedy, the jealous and the downright evil.

    3. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by LindseyJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I - as an adult and a citizen - shouldn't get to play this game because releasing it might cause it to fall into the hands of your kid against your will? Some kids drive without a license, so all cars should be banned to prevent this from happening?

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what Mr. Thompson is proposing, and what you seem to be backing. You can control your kids' media intake at home, but not when you're not around - this is a given. It always has been a given, and will continue to be true until Big Brother takes over and we're all watched 24/7 anyway (and for the love of God, don't make a tangent about this).

      Know who your kids hang out with, what they're doing. This is not difficult; they're hardly going to be firing up the systems to play some rousing matches of UT or Halo or GTA or [M Rated Game] at school. Our society already has such 'safegards' - to an extent - insofar as that it's not (supposed to be) possible for kids to buy 'questionable' games. Yeah, those restrictions need to have harsher penalties (and not just for retailers), but they are there. There are management systems built into all current- and next-gen systems that allow you to keep the system from playing games above a certain threshold, like the V-chip.

      Speaking of the V-chip, I think it's pretty interesting that everyone whines about tougher safeguards against kids playing violent games, but there is no whining about tougher safeguards on other violent media. Why isn't there a system to keep kids from buying violent books? There are a lot of kids who can read well despite public schools, and I would posit that they would be just as affected by the message a book broadcasts as they would a game or TV show - if not more so. What is stopping a kid from buying a ticket for a G-rated movie and then sneaking into the R-rated theatre? The list goes on.

      I say this because this rediculous crusade against games under the sacrosanct guise of "protecting the children" is really starting to bother me on a deeper level than just "Oh goddamnit, Thompson is at it again." If it bothers you so much, don't buy your kids a system and don't let them go to friends' houses that have systems / violent games. Call their parents and ask about it. I'm certain your kids will be shell-shocked when they get out into the Real World(tm) after a life so sheltered. A better solution would be to talk to them about good values early. Adults these days underestemate the age at which their kids are exposed to mature ideas and media. In this day and age, it is never too early to start talking to your kids about things like this.

    4. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by mjs0 · · Score: 1

      Interesting...at no point during my post did I raise the issue of my children's exposure to the games, yet that is the point you chose to focus on. I also at no point expressed support for Mr. Thompson and in fact find his approach abhorrent especially since the tactics used by slime like him reduce the ability of the rest of us to have a reasoned discussion.

      My concern is the lack of parental responsibility exhibited by OTHER parents. I cannot control that and so felt that some reasoned discussion of how to reduce the risk generated by those irresponsible members of society might be appropriate.

      Look we already know there are limits to the rights mentioned (not granted, since they are inalienable) in the bill of rights. You cannot yell fire in a crowded cinema...Child and some other forms of pornography are rightly banned and not covered by the first amendment...So I am guessing we are already in agreement that some forms of speech are not acceptable, the debate is over where the line should be drawn. I am not proposing that all violent video games should be banned but there should be a reasonable debate over the level of violence that constitutes obscenity (in its wider definition, not restricted to sexuality) in all media, not just games.

      I home school my children and what they play and watch is pretty tightly controlled, but I am not a rabid censor, they see many shows and play many games that are rated above their current age; with plenty of parental commentary, open discussions about ethics and morality and the right framework to ensure they understand the difference between reality and fantasy this is not a problem. Actually, as an aside, what really disturbs me is that even when I try to control my kids media intake I am constantly stymied. My 5 and 6 year olds love to watch the Discovery/Science/History channel but are bombarded with images not during the programs but during commercials and trailers that are not appropriate for their age, even on the Disney Channel during G-rated toddler shows I have seen unedited trailers for shows such as CSI. I wish people would focus on reducing the potential for incidental exposure of children to unsolicited violent and disturbing images rather than obsessing over irrelevancies such as Janet Jackson's Superbowl exploits. Oh and with the current trends in DRM, and the desire of media companies to remove my ability to capture and edit TV shows to remove those commercials/trailers, my options for removing that undesireable content will be reduced even further, as far as I know current and future versions of the V-chip will not help with this.

      I do not subscribe to the view that either violent or pornographic images will spontaneously create dangerous predators, but when combined with a lack of moral guidance and responsible involved parenting there is at least circumstancial evidence that this can happen in children.

      Again, this is not about my kids getting access to this stuff, and I would hope that if you read my first post objectively you would understand that. The discussion is about the absentee and downright irresponsible parents and their poor kids...how we might take steps to protect society from their poor parenting, whether such steps are currently necessary and if not, at what point they might become necessary. Since mandating good parenting is unlikely to work :) reducing exposure to poor role models including ones that are virtual is, in my opinion, a reasonable alternative to discuss.

    5. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Well considered post that would get my mod points.

      I agree, despite the seeming undesirability of censorship in a free society we are letting children down by treating them as adults. It is time that society recognized that children have a right not to be mentally screwed up by our carelessness. Where you draw the line is a great debating topic but a line ought to be drawn.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    6. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by LindseyJ · · Score: 1

      Touche. My apologies for misreading your first post, and thanks for taking the time to correct me instead of just posting a flame :)

    7. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      I would say that your assertion that some speech is not acceptable is far more dangerous to our rights as humans than any speech could be. Now, while I would certainly agree you have a right to say it, I would say that you are completely, utterly, and dangerously wrong.

      Even your example of "fire in a crowded theater" no longer holds the relevance it once did. When that incorrect exception to the First Amendment was put forth, the danger of a stampede killing many people was FAR greater than it is today, with our mandated clear exits and well lit exit signs. The result of someone shouting fire would likely be annoyed patrons standing in the street, if they even paid any attention at all, as I would suggest they would not, considering how frequently fire alarms are ignored on the basis that most are false.

      Even child porn, bad though it is, isn't a valid reason to surrender our right to free speech. The witch hunt that has resulted from the ban has created a culture of fear that far exceeds the damage to the children involved. I would suggest that the appropriate response to this should be to attack the production, and accept the product as a bad result of necessary freedom.

      But what you're using even these limited examples to justify is an attempt by you to dictate to other parents your overprotective form of parenting. And that, when combined with government force, is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, and a violation of all of our inalienable rights.

      So, while I firmly stand behind your right to have these views and to speak of them, I consider them to be as abhorrent as the views of the Ku Klux Klan, or of the Westboro Baptist Church.

    8. Re:Judge doesn't get it? by mjs0 · · Score: 1

      I can respect your opinion as well even though on my side I find the implication behind your words dangerous and abhorrent to anyone wanting to live in a civilized society that truly respects the rights of every single citizen.

      Even child porn, bad though it is, isn't a valid reason to surrender our right to free speech. The witch hunt that has resulted from the ban has created a culture of fear that far exceeds the damage to the children involved. I would suggest that the appropriate response to this should be to attack the production, and accept the product as a bad result of necessary freedom.

      Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this...what does attack the production mean if not restricting the right to this form of speech. This whole sentence feels like an attempt to wriggle out of an uncomfortable acceptance of the need for restriction on personal expression too barbaric to be acceptable.

      There is a line that must be drawn, total personal freedom is not possible without impinging on someone elses total personal freedom. I too will defend until my last breath your right to think and verbally express any opinion, without exception, but some methods of expression must be controlled because they have either a direct and enduring effect on the inalienable rights of others. In addition the maturity level of those on the receiving end of the expression should be considered, which is why it is, for example, illegal to show pornography to minors.

      If you won't accept child pornography as the line then how about my desire to express myself with art constructed using the blood and body parts of ritually sacrificed teenagers, how ridiculous do I have to get in order to prove the point.

      There is a price to pay for our inalienable rights as a society and it is recognizing that compromise is necessary in order to prevent the strong in society trampling all over the rights of the weak.
  24. This story makes *SO* much sense here! by soren42 · · Score: 1


    So, before I RTFA, I just assumed that there was a "bully" that was to be handed over.

    "News for Nerds," eh? A bully getting there just desserts would certainly be of interest to all us nerds who faced bullies throughout adolesence.

    But, then, I suppose that after RTFA, the real bully here is that idiot Jack Thompson.

    --

    "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
  25. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never played GTA. Thought about it, but never did.

    Now I'm getting curious. Might have to pick me up a copy.

    1. Re:Seriously by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Now I'm getting curious. Might have to pick me up a copy.

      It should be in the $20 "greatest hits" bin by now. It's a decent game, but it also doubles as a fun toy. You can just wander around the world and do things. It was the most immersive game I ever played until Oblivion came along.

    2. Re:Seriously by Babbster · · Score: 1

      If you're going to pick one up for a first play, I'd suggest going with Vice City ($20 new for PC/PS2/Xbox). I think it's the best of the lot so far, and the 80s vibe is a blast. :)

  26. Volunteers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone want to give Jack Thompson a sightseeing tour of NYC in their Cirrus SR20?

  27. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Otter+Escaping+North · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?

    Judge says he wants to see 100 hours of game play. Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...

    --
    Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
  28. Don't misread the article summary by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative
    Dear ole Jack won't be the first.
    I'm not sure if you misread the article summary (I did at first), but the court isn't ordering a copy of the game be turned over to "Dear ole Jack"

    The Judge ordered Take Two to provide a copy of the game so the Judge can sit around and make up his own mind over the contents of the game.

    Maybe Take Two should provide the Judge with the same footage that they provided to the ESRB?
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Don't misread the article summary by Nephilium · · Score: 2, Funny

      No one has seen the obvious... the judge is a gamer, and wants to play it pre-release!

      Brilliant!

      Nephilium

      "I was neat, clean, shaved and sober, and I didn't care who knew it." -- The Big Sleep (Chapter 1)

    2. Re:Don't misread the article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same damn thing.

    3. Re:Don't misread the article summary by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Hmm... the billowing black robes of a legal bit-torrent alternative?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    4. Re:Don't misread the article summary by computechnica · · Score: 0

      That's better than the Oklahoma Judge that was caught pleasuring himself with a sex toy during court!! 8^P .

    5. Re:Don't misread the article summary by nytes · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh great! The judge is going to sit in front of his TV playing the game for 100 hours straight.

      Then the judge, now a serial killer, is going to come into court, look Jack Thompsom in the eye, and put an ice pick through Jack's forehead.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    6. Re:Don't misread the article summary by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The ESRB only gets a movie, the USK got a playable version two months ago (and gave it a 16 rating).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  29. Does anyone have a mirror yet.. by Acecoolco · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a mirror yet.. 1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10 seconds yet?

    --
    Just because it works, Doesn't make it right. - JTM
  30. How soon before... by Boap · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jack Thompson is declared "public nuisance"?

    1. Re:How soon before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not soon enough

    2. Re:How soon before... by freeweed · · Score: 1

      I don't see why this is moderated funny at all. It's one of the more insightful comments in this thread.

      Folks like good ol' Jack, by using scare tactics and throwing logic entirely out the window, are why our society is going to pot right now.

      Or have you forgotten your mysteriously exploding toothpaste? Did we all throw out our plastic sheeting and duct tape? Hey, they did it on Jericho, it must work!

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  31. Some Background by cgenman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some Background
    Thompson's rambling initial letter.
    The Suit, from Jack's Perspective.
    Ars Technica's take on what happened today.
    A little bit about Jack (including favorite classics like "claims Janet Reno is a homosexual. Repeatedly." and "tries to get Florida bar ruled unconstitutional.")

    Sooo... Take 2 has deep into Thursday to file an appeal. Thompson will likely retort on Friday, and a ruling made on Monday. 24 hours after this Take 2 will deliver a copy... on the release day.

    As the site is currently down, does anyone know what the legal grounds are for this ruling? How can there be "more copycat violence" if the game hasn't been released in the first place?

    For that matter, I'd like to demand a pre-release copy of Halo 3 to ensure that there isn't graphic violence and amazing multiplayer action.

    1. Re:Some Background by kingbilly · · Score: 1

      From you wikipedia link:

      Thompson gave Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Thompson said that Reno then put her hand on his shoulder and responded, "I'm only interested in virile men. That's why I'm not attracted to you."[8] He filed a police report accusing her of battery for touching him.

      I think that is so funny (and sad) that he passes notes at that age. Its so high school and childish, just like him.

  32. More lawyers than engineers (again)... by gorehog · · Score: 1

    See the problem here is that America has more lawyers than engineers. If Jack Thompson and crew were engineers then they would write non-violent video games like civ and carmen sandiego, and more recently things like Katamari, or Mario.

    Instead, all he can think to do is sue people for doing something he does not like. His is the violent and destructive action against a creative endeavor. The fact that the court is willing to indulge his infantile rampaging is indicitive of the corruption and facist tendencies of the legal profession and courts of Florida. Hillary Clinton is no damn better on this issue.

    The fact that car jacking and personal violence predates videogaming altogether wont stop these pricks from scapegoating the new pastime any more than it stopped them from blaming TV, movies, liberal hollywood, Rock and Roll, guns, fluoride in the water, alchohol, and communism.

    To a certain type of scared closed minded mentality the new thing is always to blame. To them it's not a matter of "how does this work" but rather "how can this hurt me." And when you look at the numbers of lawyers to engineers you start to see the trend of people more willing be fearful than knowledgeable.

    1. Re:More lawyers than engineers (again)... by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      You made me think of something (don't you hate that?).

      GTA isn't original. They didn't come up with the concept of shooting a hooker or stealing a car. They copied these things from the real world (where, believe it or not these things have at some point happened). I've seen these things on the news, so I know they happen. Moreover, I could get the idea that I should do such things in the real world by watching the news! Did anyone check if the various shooters blamed on GTA watched the news before they did what they did?

      The News should clearly be against the law, as it promotes violence and even teaches people how to kill (I've seen people use a gun on the news!). Too bad that wouldn't get any publicity if Jack tried to sue them (or at least it would be very different publicity, probably starting with "crackpot theory").

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    2. Re:More lawyers than engineers (again)... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      they would write non-violent video games like civ

      Civ is non-violent? Granted, it's not graphic but Civ does NOT teach non-violence or tolerence.

      Prime example: A couple of weeks before Civ IV hit the shelves I loaded up Civ III for old times sake. I played on a huge map with 6-7 other civs and lead a fairly peaceful existence, only two minor wars. I never lost a city and only took over 3-4, one from warfare the others from influence. I was the largest civ, the most advanced civ and the most peaceful civ (AFAIK, I never provoked the wars I was in). I gave tons of tech to my neighbors and traded with them on a regular basis. My rating was "East the Weak". Fantastic!

      Basically after that I realized that "civilization" should really be called "kick the auslanders asses". When it comes down to it the game is difficult and tedious, at best, after you establish yourself unless you're willing to go to war. If you don't go to war it's endless bantering with the idiotic AI demanding stuff from you for free lest you be blown to bits. If you somehow manage to get through all of it without either being a prick or a victim you get rated as weak? WTF?

      Compare that to the numerous times that I've played CS:S and rescued all the hostages without firing a shot... I was still rewarded for my efforts a hell of a lot better than what Civ rewarded me for being generous, peaceful and noble.

      None of this is to say I disagree with the rest of your post.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:More lawyers than engineers (again)... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Basically after that I realized that "civilization" should really be called "kick the auslanders asses".... Compare that to the numerous times that I've played CS:S and rescued all the hostages without firing a shot... I was still rewarded for my efforts a hell of a lot better than what Civ rewarded me for being generous, peaceful and noble.
      Yeah, I'd have to agree. No game brings out my "inner shithead" more than Civilization. Granted, you can't really play GTA[3|VC|SA] without feeling some sensation of being a lawless asshole, but only the Civ games make me cackle with sadistic glee as I pile up Modern Armor in anticipation of being a total dick and invading my peaceful neighbor in revenge for one minor war they started with me fifteen hundred years ago.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  33. Just wait until the see the sequel: by monopole · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Foley" in which you play a Congressman and the Chairman of the "Missing and Exploited Children Commitee". In the game you pursue pages and ...

    Just think of the children!!!

    1. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      He's bringing the same suit against the same parties repeatedly in various different jurisdictions. Surely somewhere where he has filed as barratry laws...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Barratry charges are unbelievably rare, and the main reasons are:

      1. Everyone involved is a lawyer, so there is a version of that blue wall of silence that every profession has to some degree

      2. Our system needs to be accessible, and so it is better overall to err on the side of an occasional asshat filing a frivolous lawsuit and letting it slide, rather than an important casue of action being barred and a wronged person denied their day in court.

      3. Courts generally have better things to do than defenestrate annoying lawyers.

      Honestly, I think in many jurisdictions it's more number one than number two, but number two sure does make a dandy fig leaf. And number three is always a factor; many jurisdictions have dockets jammed to the hilt and extremely finite resources.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    3. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, think of all those innocent 17 year olds, who have never heard of sex.

    4. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I have to ask... Did you really mean 'defenestrate'? Because I've never heard of a court throwing a lawyer out of a window.

      But I definitely agree that it's a combination of 1 and 3 that stops this and many other lawsuits that would help clean up our legal system.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    5. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      Yeah, defenestrate, in at least the metaphorical sense. Most barratry statutes include provisions for disbarment, as well as general fines, so it is the equivalent of throwing the lawyer out the window. The court has other, less extreme and somewhat subtler methods for dealing with vexatious or annoying litigants, anywhere from 'contempt of court' all the way down to 'judge ignores every third motion for practice' and even 'judge makes personal fun of the lawyer in ruling'.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    6. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by rjstanford · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, I have to ask... Did you really mean 'defenestrate'? Because I've never heard of a court throwing a lawyer out of a window.

      Of course you haven't. As the GPP pointed out, they have better things to do.
      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    7. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      In Jack's case they should, preferably from a very high building.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    8. Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "Courts generally have better things to do than defenestrate annoying lawyers."

      Well they may have better things to do, but I don't.

      Better clear my calendar...

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  34. I'm SO sick of this! by thombone69 · · Score: 0

    People do not have to buy the damn thing if it offends them. I am so sick of fascists like Jack(ass) Thompson trying to force people to live by his moral code.

  35. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

    The real question is whether or not a game about Jack dropping an anvil on God would be okay. How about King George (the Texan, not the Brit)?

    --
    I have nothing to say.
  36. How much? by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, how much are Take Two paying Jack Thompson at the moment in order to get him to stir up shit to drum up their sales figures? The whole thing seems kind of suspicious to me. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone's been paid off to act as an 'enemy' of another person in order to help drum up support and interest...

    1. Re:How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. I was going to post along the same lines.

      Thompson must not realize that he's actually the industry posterboy. I would say that you can't buy this kind of publicity, but who knows... maybe they actually are paying him to stir up interest. There is no such thing as bad publicity. This is doubly true for violent games; surely Jack knows that.

      My alternate theory is that maybe he's also planning to run for office, so he wants to get his name associated with a hot topic for the next generation. In 10 years they'll forget he was the "bad guy" and vote for him because they remember his name.

    2. Re:How much? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      *cough cough* Shortpacked did something like that *cough cough* Linky -> http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20051026.html, read back 1 comic and forward I think 2 comics to get the full story...quite funny. PS: Shortpacked is a webcomic, it's about a toy store...a very odd toy store.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
  37. Kind of a sneaky way by BeeBeard · · Score: 3, Funny

    to avoid paying for a game. You'd think the judge could afford to just buy it when it comes out.

    1. Re:Kind of a sneaky way by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

      No kidding. The rest of us mere mortals have to wait until 0-day to pick up our free copies.

    2. Re:Kind of a sneaky way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward laughingly considers the judge leaking the game...

  38. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Astarica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Take Two lost millions due to the Hot Coffee mod (repackaging cost, recall cost, lost sales, etc).

    Not all publicity is good.

  39. Thanks, Jack!! by eepok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would never have heard of this game had not Jack Thompson thrown up such a huff. Now, I want to play it.

    "Let's see... we'll just ban these books and NO ONE will ever want to read them... right?"

    1. Re:Thanks, Jack!! by shren · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking that. I hadn't heard of the game and now I'm going to at least rent it. If it gets banned temporarily, it must be good. That's a buy. And if they ban it and it somehow stands up in court... well, they're not going to manage that in all countries. Import time!

      --
      Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
    2. Re:Thanks, Jack!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble with that is when banning becomes marketing.

  40. Actually...he can't appeal this by bigskank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.

    That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment. Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.

    1. Re:Actually...he can't appeal this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      , and then we'll go back to executing criminals,

      No, not as a class we don't. We execute horrendous murders. Evil men who ass-fuck little girls, and then twist their necks until the child chokes to death in fear and agony.

      "Criminals".... Is that what you are, or just an idiot?

    2. Re:Actually...he can't appeal this by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      Exhibit 1.) Frothing at the mouth death penalty supporter.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    3. Re:Actually...he can't appeal this by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
      Speaking of which, have you seen this?

      The survey is to be published in a UK medical journal, the Lancet, on Thursday. In an accompanying comment, the Lancet's Richard Horton acknowledges that the 2004 survey provoked controversy, but emphasises that the 2006 follow-up has been recommended by "four expert peers... with relatively minor revisions".
      Its obvious that body counts based on a non-scientific news method can ever reach the same number as a peer reviewed scientific method based on statistics, but if the Iraq Body Count is right that they counted 44-49k of iraqi dead, it is reasonable to assume that this is only the tip of the iceberg that gets reported.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Actually...he can't appeal this by tritium6 · · Score: 1

      TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game
      That doesn't mean they have to turn over the game. They can simply refuse and then deal with the consequences. One possible consequence could be that the judge decides for the plaintiff. Then TTWO can appeal on the grounds that the judge's request for the game was unconstitutional.

      Another possibility is that someone gets locked up for contempt for not providing the game. That can also be appealed on grounds of constitutionality. Either way, its not like TTWO is without options. It may be easier and cheaper for them to just hand over the game an appeal later, but they could also take the high road and protest the intrusion by refusing to hand over the game.

      PS- IANAL but I watch a lot of Law and Order

  41. How about a video games based on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the incredibly violent and bloody confrontations that are in the Bible? Hmmmm.

    And then some sex games like: seduce your dad to get pregnant?

    What do all of you think? Think it will cool the heels of these asshats?

    1. Re:How about a video games based on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike a lot of history, the Bible tells the ugly side just as it happened. Why don't people see that instead of thinking it has been doctored to hide things? If anything, things of that nature would have been omitted long ago. Instead, they are provided as examples for us. Now games are under attack for telling stories and here you are bringing up a somewhat off-topic argument about a book that if anything upholds and agrees with the belief you're trying to defend. I don't get it, but then again, I'll bet you probably haven't even read the entire book anyway.

    2. Re:How about a video games based on... by Ugly+American · · Score: 1
      What do all of you think? Think it will cool the heels of these asshats?
      It certainly won't stop Jack Thompson. His comment on Left Behind: Eternal Forces (based on the Left Behind novels):
      "We're going to push this game at Christian kids to let them know there's a cool shooter game out there," said attorney Jack Thompson, an author and outspoken critic of video game violence. "Because of the Christian context, somehow it's OK? It's not OK. The context is irrelevant. It's a mass-killing game."
      From the LA Times
      --
      For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
    3. Re:How about a video games based on... by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to hand it to him for being consistent.

      Of course he went apopleptic at The Sims too, so I really think it's the Demon-Possessed Magic Box of Light and Sound that he's really got problems with.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  42. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game"

    All I know is that the more awful the game sounds the more I want to get a copy! ;-)

    Gots to have my shoot 'em ups as realz as possible!

    And when is the next Unreal Tournament being release? :-P

  43. Frankly, I think video games are idiotic bullshit by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    and a bad habit best broken early.

    HOWEVER I will cheerfully defend the rights of others to play them. It is imperative that the free thinking among us stand up against this rising tide of intolerance and cluelessness.

    This election is 1858 all over again... Stand up against the theocracy. Stand up for your rights!

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  44. Who's really to blame? by Private.Tucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny how Jack's tried in the past over a school-shooting to get $33-mil for damages because the kid who did the shooting played "Violent" video games such as Final Fantasy, had a copy of The Basketball Diaries, and accessed porn sites. Parents no where to be found? I'm rather sick of this guy.

    Where were the parents when these kids get the games, obtains movies, and accesses the porn sites? Jacky-boy. Put the blame where it is due. I have no problems with my kid and porn or video games because I monitor what he does on the computer, consoles, and DVD-player, and I'll be damned if some born-again Christian thinks he can control how I control my kid.

    Some kid shoots people and you try to get the kids parents $33-million? Idiot...

    1. Re:Who's really to blame? by AusIV · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I certainly agree that parents have the responsibility for the actions of their kids, but I don't think games, movies or porn sites are going to cause a kid to go on a school shooting. I think kids likely to go on school shootings are attracted to violent video games, violent movies and porn sites, but that doesn't mean that those factors made the kid want to commit the crimes. Neither does it mean that every kid who plays violent video games, sees violent movies, or watches porn is going to go out and kill people.

      One example that comes to mind is the pedophile and star trek correlation. I remember reading some time back that a bizzarre percentage of pedophiles were big trekkies. I don't know if its true, but assuming it is, this doesn't mean watching Star Trek makes you a pedophile, and it doesn't mean everyone that watches Star Trek is already a pedophile, it simply means that for some reason the same people are likely to be pedophiles are likely to enjoy Star Trek.

      I know the phrase "correlation != causation" is cliché when it comes to Jack Thompson, but it's also quite true.

    2. Re:Who's really to blame? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1
      I remember reading some time back that a bizzarre percentage of pedophiles were big trekkies.
      That's cause everyone who saw The Next Generation wanted to fuck over Wesley Crusher. Some just took it a bit too serious.
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  45. I think it's a good idea... by Shemmie · · Score: 1

    ... finally, I way to get my hands on Duke Nukem Forever! "Yes Mr Judge, the game will probably make me do bad things - can I just have a sneak preview to be sure?"

  46. It's about bad parents... by tansey · · Score: 1

    [quote]a judge in Miami ruled that Take Two Interactive, makers of the controversial title Bully, must hand over a copy of the soon to be released game to the court within 24 hours[/quote]

    Or else the judge will have to admit he forgot his son's birthday and didn't get him anything.

  47. He makes everyone else named "Jack" look bad... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    ...so maybe we ought to sue him for defamation of character (hey, it'd be less friviolous than his lawsuit)!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  48. Really...? by xael · · Score: 1

    As a victim of bullying for much of my life to date, as I'm sure many of us are, I find this game slightly offensive. I believe there are two sides to this arguement, however. Firstly, the game could move bullying from the school-yard into the interactive game-world, thus reducing the bullying in schools. This, I believe, is an optomistic view. I'm sure there will be some, in fact many, people who stop bullying others in real life after playing this game. But, in contrast, it is also true that many people will start, or increase, bullying because of it. I am not going to object to it's being released to the public because I am not so concieted that I believe that my own opinions, feelings, and beliefes are the only correct ones; but I do hope - forgive me if I have not done my homework - that the game should have a rating making it suitable for people of a minimum of 18 years old.

    1. Re:Really...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the game, bullies are the enemies. You star as a new kid at school, trying to work your way through the school's hierarchy.

      Actually, here's a good review of it from the Times:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/arts/10bull.html ?ex=1312862400&en=f536b0ae84f0468b&ei=5088&partner =rssnyt&emc=rss

  49. F*** Jack Thompson by JRW129 · · Score: 1

    It's ridiculous to profit off of something (on top of trying to have it pulled from shelves) because you think it's too violent. He should go speak to kids in the poor neighborhoods about not dealing drugs for a living if he wants to make a difference.

  50. Grr! Goddamn Sony! Sue! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe the PS3 is a threat to our children and our sacred ways of life.

    I DEMAND A PS3 SO I CAN ... REVIEW ... IT FOR POSSIBLE IMMORAL MATERIAL.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  51. The convenience factor by curecollector · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...must hand over a copy of the soon to be released game to the court within 24 hours.

    Well, it beats driving to Best Buy, and is a heck of a lot faster than Amazon...

  52. Jack Thompson by 8ball629 · · Score: 1

    I know what my next mod is going to be Jack Thompson: Episode I.

  53. And here's the worst precedent it sets by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

    They want to see 100 hours of gameplay? Now we'll have a legal precedent for more jumping puzzles!

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
  54. Seriously, Jack Thompson, GFY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go f**k yerself, then take a long as nap. No adult wants you censoring their enertainment. Any child who gets a hold of your "satan's games" deserves to kick his parents in teh nutz0rz. arents should be responsible for their children's actions.

    Any parent who does not know what games their child is playing deserves to be shot, quartered, drawn, burned at the stake, ground, and served at a Nazi breakfast.

    Disclaimer: I was a teacher for some years until I grew the last few brain cells I have left. I could not stand talking with the retarded "I can't see what's wrong with my retarded child" parents.

    I'll tell you
    For a fee...

  55. Judge plays game, gets ass kicked, orders easier by billstewart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, ran out of title length. "Judge plays game, gets ass kicked, orders Taketwo to make it easier to win"....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  56. Thought they had to wait for a book to be publishd by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thought they couldn't stop you but could only react afterwards.

    Interesting that they are doing this to a video game- not sure it will be constitutional.

    "We want you to provide copies of your newspaper daily before you go to press so we can approve or disapprove it."

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  57. Jack Thompson loves violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the people lobbying against porn secretly like porn, does that mean that Jack Thompson secretly likes violence?

  58. No, the problem is Jack Thompson by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    See the problem here is that America has more lawyers than engineers.

    No, that's not the problem. The problem is one man. But he has tried this b.s. repeatedly in the past, and has a long history of failure. The "fascist" courts don't seem to have been very good the man, despite all his frothing at the mouth. Maybe they don't like the fact that he keeps suing the Florida bar.

    As for the lawyers to engineers ratio, the reactionary, fearful, know-nothing mentality has been with humanity since long before there were lawyers and engineers. Based on history and current events, it seems to exist in nations where there are very few lawyers and comparatively many engineers just as much as it exists in lawyer-infested places like the United States. Come to think of it, in many of those places, the attacks aren't merely legal.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  59. Review by bcmg150 · · Score: 1

    What does it really mean to review a game? Does he have to actually play it, or does he just hand it over to someone to highlight parts of it?

  60. Maybe it will backfire... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny
    The judge will get a copy of the game, not know what to do with it and flip it to his grandson, "Hey kiddo, is this good or not?"

    After a quick demo of the cool early release (and posting a torrent copy), sonny boy says "Yeah, it's really cool! Everyone will want a copy!"

    The judge will buy some Take Two stock.

    Case Closed.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Maybe it will backfire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Maybe it will backfire... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or even better, the Apocalypse Mr Thompson has been predicting all this time will occur and after a 60 hour gaming binge the judge will come to court, hopped up on Mountain Dew and pound the living daylight out of our dear lawyer friend. Oh well...win/win situation? :)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  61. Oddly enough... by lewp · · Score: 1

    It's not violent videogames that have made me want to kill Jack Thompson...

    --
    Game... blouses.
  62. Eureka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1. Sue game makes for free early copies of games.
    Step 2. ???
    Step 3. Profit!

    Oh wait...

  63. Torrent by robbiedo · · Score: 0

    I bet the Judge puts Bully on his computer, and torrents it before it is even released.

  64. The way things go by ucblockhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Judge: I can't really rule without seeing the game.
    Rockstar: We've got nothing to hide, want to see it?
    Judge: Sure, that'd help.
    Jack Thompson Self Serving Press Release: Hah! Because of MY great lawsuit, the judge ORDERED Rockstar to produce their evil game!!
    Gullible Press: "Judge orders Rockstar to produce game!"
    Slashdot: "fascist jugde orders rockstar to prodce game!"

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:The way things go by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Nice. I had to stop and consider deleting Slashdot from my bookmarks. That just sums it all up neatly, you can stop reading right there.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    2. Re:The way things go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Honor, there's also this little thing called Duke Nukem Forever, and if it's anything like its predecessor, it's quite violent...

    3. Re:The way things go by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      The idea that Rockstar would even have to bother to go to court to defend their right to sell a video game is inherently fascist.

  65. Maybe there is another reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be that the judge just wants an early copy of the game to score some points with his teenage kid...

    I've been watching (kinda unavoidable) the antics of J.T., and in my opinion, I'd say he's off his rocker, outta his tree, and has misplaced his marbles. Of course if he'd just sit down and shut up, I'd be happy to varnish the rocker, put it back in a tree, and even get him a bag of marbles.

    I think we should make a memorial to him. His is after all, one of the biggest examples of why lawyers have a bad rep. I know a couple of lawyers who are just embarrased when anybody mentions him. Why hasn't the bar done something about him yet? Are they laughing too hard when they read about his antics? Has he become the legal worlds version of comedy relief?

    I wonder if he realizes that he is the prime example of a lawyer bully. Maybe he imagines too much of himself in those games.

    ("Me thinks he doth protest too much...")

    Later

  66. Ehh, trial stipulations by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 0, Informative

    This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.

    That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment. Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.

    1. Re:Ehh, trial stipulations by Magic5Ball · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.

      Yes. But why let the technical details stand in the way of a provocative message? The war that both sides are fighting is not localized to this event.

      That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment.

      Not this one, otherwise Jack Thompson would have been allowed to enjoin Rockstar from releasing the game much earlier in this proceeding without as much evidence gathering.

      Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.

      Sadly, I think you fail to describe the edge case.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
  67. Jack Thompson is an asshole. by ximkx · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's just not much else to say about him.

    1. Re:Jack Thompson is an asshole. by Macthorpe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whoever modded that up, that's not informative!

      We knew that already!

      *joke*

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  68. asshats and assclowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >I think children need
    Sometimes i'd like to see the credentials of some of these posters, things like "Have children" "No children" or "Still a child myself"

    While i may be old enough to remember playing the original Adventure, and enjoying it, I'm too old to think computer games are an interesting way to kill time, and I can still appreciate new words. I kind of like "asshat", but "assclown" sounds like too much of a stretch, an attempt at one-upping.

  69. "Public Nuisance"? by pluther · · Score: 1

    This video game is so intense they're trying to ban it?

    Sweet! I gotta get me a copy of that game!

    Where can I buy it *right now*??!

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    1. Re:"Public Nuisance"? by arth1 · · Score: 1
      This video game is so intense they're trying to ban it?

      Sweet! I gotta get me a copy of that game!

      Where can I buy it *right now*??!

      I could tell you, but then I would be held in contempt of the court...
  70. Re:Grr! Goddamn Sony! Sue! by Game_Ender · · Score: 1

    Glad we got that PS3 out of the way, now I have nothing to distract me from playing Bully on the PS2.

  71. Parent is correct! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You do not get to break the Constitution just because you wear a robe or get elected to Congress.


    Got to be elected president for that!
  72. ARRGGH!! by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    UGH, Jack Thompson is such a douche bag.

    Really, I can't think of any better way to put it.

    -d

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  73. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

    I'm so going to start coding on that one...Anvil Drop '07!

  74. Unnecessary Fear of an Otherwise Innocent Title by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From my understanding, Bully is actually not the type of game the title and Take Two's reputation in the game industry would imply. So much so, that the game has actually received surprisingly mild ratings from reviewers regarding any sort of violence in the game what-so-ever.

    The game literally has very little to do with going around GTA style, beating up defenseless weaklings at random. In fact, it's quite the opposite and promotes standing up to the adversity that bullies present in humorous ways. Honestly, I'd say parents have more to fear from your typical Mario title than they do from Bully.

    This movement is entirely motivated by who is making the game, rather than the content of the game itself.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  75. repeating subject as body of text? by Alias777 · · Score: 5, Funny

    repeating subject as body of text?

  76. 2 Live Crew by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is 2 Live Crew all over again.

    There was a lawyer who pissed all over free speech and the Constitution in Florida, making it illegal to sell 2 Live Crew tapes in Florida, and making it illegal for them to perform.

    I believe his name was Jack Thompson.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Live_Crew

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  77. Is the judge qualified? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    Can't they bring some sort of motion to have a judge who actually understands technology preside over the case?

  78. indeed by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

    I used to play hockey in a small(ish)* local adult league. If he harassed us like he does gamers, he would likely not be in good physical health today. There were plenty of instances of bloodletting for offences much less severe than what this assclown delivers.

    Gamers have shown remarkable restraint towards this man.

    * It was much larger than the more official local hockey scene.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  79. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...

    And perhaps you nailed it right on the head. Sometimes, when a judge wants to have a little fun with a particularly vexatious or obtuse litigant, he'll take their more absurd motions and put constrainst on them that make their fulfillment render the cause of action moot. So, perhaps this judge thinks it silly and so requested something (like 100 hours of gameplay) that can't be fulfilled before general release to make sure that he won't be placed in the awkward position of having to rule on the legality of its distribution. (And, anyway, wouldn't that be a flagrant case of Prior Restraint?)

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
  80. Easily taken care of by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

    Send a special version which requires that an NDA be signed before being used.
    Then if he shoots his big mouth off, sue his sorry ass.

    Also, another option, don't sell the game in Florida, but advertise stating that it would have been available if Mr. Thompson hadn't been harassing Take Two so much. List his home address and phone numbers and let the populace decide.
    Then finally, file a harassment suit. I know of many more games which have even more blood and violence than Take Two's games, and he doesn't seem to be going after them. Slap a gag order on him and watch his head explode.

    --
    Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    1. Re:Easily taken care of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, another option, don't sell the game in Florida, but advertise stating that it would have been available if Mr. Thompson hadn't been harassing Take Two so much. List his home address and phone numbers and let the populace decide.

      That sort of thing would just give him more ammunition. No, Take Two needs to sue him for a hojillion dollars and seek disbarment.

      Slap a gag order on him and watch his head explode.

      Gag orders are for ongoing trials where there is a reasonable assumption that it will unduly prejudice the case. Jack knows how to be as inflammatory as possible without saying anything really specifically actionable (although the bit about the game about killing the Take 2 CEO might have been). Much as I'd love it to be otherwise in Mr Thompson's case, no court in the world can order someone to STFU forever.

  81. Now we just need Thompson ... by FIT_Entry1 · · Score: 0
    He's given Take-Two 24 hours to produce it for the court's review.
    ... to tackle Duke Nukem Forever, I hear it features crude language and useable toliets.
  82. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by donaldm · · Score: 1

    I was in EB's two weeks ago in Australia and saw the game Bully on the shelf as a new game. The strange thing was it was not named as Bully (can't remember what though) but all the artwork was identical to what I have seen from game sites. The writing was also something similar to the introduction. I was in a hurry and did not enquire if the game was actually available although from previous experience if the game box in EB's has full information front and rear then it normally is in stock.

    Since I am not currently in Australia (will be returning soon) can anyone (this also may be available in the UK since Australia uses the PAL TV standard) confirm or deny this?

    Maybe the best way of getting around this issue is to rename the game from "Bully" which possibly has terrible connotations for those of a delicate nature, to something less likely to upset people.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  83. Where's Horatio? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    Where's Horatio Cane, prolly staring off at nothing as usual....

  84. Public nuisance? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    So where do I file to declare that Jack Thompson is a pulbic nuisance?

  85. Party time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard the judge also subpoenaed an 18 inch pan pizza and a 2 liter bottle of Coke to go along with it.

  86. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    The judges ruling will be given on IGN.com along with an in-depth review.

    How ridiculous are these people who want to prosecute game makers? I understand protecting the children, but in the end it is up to the parents. If a parent doesn't let their child watch rated R games, then the parent shouldn't let them play rate M games.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  87. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by PygmySurfer · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Europe, the UK (Isn't the UK in Europe?) and Australia, It's being called "Canis Canem Edit", which is Latin for "Dog Eat Dog."

  88. That's ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironically, I think you're an idiotic shithead, and I don't intend to defend you at all.

  89. Topic: Florida? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beteween this and this, I think Slashdot needs a new "Florida" icon... :P

  90. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jack Thompson has persuaded me to become a lawyer for this very reason. All I have to do is call myself an "expert" in a field, even if I know something about it... let's say "cars." Now I just walk up to my local dealership and say "I need to test this new Jaguar for the public good! Give me a brand new Jaguar or I'll sue you!"

    Then you can carry around special business cards. I'm a gourmet expert! My meal is free or I'll sue you! I'm a alcohol inspector. I'll need to sample and take away your finest wines to make sure they're safe for consumption. If you don't comply, I'll sue you for putting the public in danger!

    He's a dumbass nutjob, plain and simple, but he's also shrewed enough to convince people who, like him, also have no idea what the Hell they're talking about. That's the scary part.

  91. GameFAQs? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    What did he say about the GameFAQs community?

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:GameFAQs? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      After a member of the gamefaqs forum committed suicide, Jack decided to take the opportunity to say disgusting and hateful things.

      "Your "gamer friend" will find peace through the Lord, Jesus Christ, but sadly it's too late for that.

      There is a void in every heart. You can fill it up with the things of God, or the things not of God. This unfortunate soul chose to fill it up with combat games. The playing of these video games is masturbatory activity, meaning senseless self-stimulation. If you gamers could use a dictionary you would know that that term is not necessarily a sexual one.

      The real tragedy here extends beyond the life and death of this one fellow. There are literally millions of young people and young adults whose despair is deepend by turning to the things of this world and then finding them meaningless.

      All of you gamers need to put down the controllers and get a life. The utter inanity of the vast majority of postings here shows how vapid "gaming" really is.

      You are one of the cheerleaders for this wasting of time and the wasting of lives. Do you feel any remorse for having contributed to this "culture of death?" Of course not. Hey, let's all play MORE games, and ignore all the really productive things to do with our lives.

      Let's pretend to be shocked that a gamer might descend into deeper depression, as his gamer "buds," knowing he was killing himself, couldn't figure out how to call 911 themselves for him. That would have involved leaving their computers I guess.

      Sad. Sad for all of you."

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:GameFAQs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe that. Why can't people sue for that kind of shit? Seriously he should be debarred at least, if not sued, to taste his own medicine. That's a terrible thing to say. Fucking jackass.

  92. Jack has it in for Take two. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As another user has already stated, it's not the game itself which is of any consequence, it's who is making the game. Jack has had a hard-on for Take Two for years now, and he's going to harass and attempt to stifle their right to free speech and free expression when they release their next game and their next game after that ad nauseum. It's not about the game. It's about a personal vendetta.

    [Insert disclaimer stating that this is merely my opinion and not fact, as to keep nutjob lawyers from suing me]

  93. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by EtherealStrife · · Score: 1
    Take Two should just send a copy of some of the game tester recordings. I participated in a game test/marketing study once, and they record the entire thing (and even have average joe responses/feedback to the more questionable content). Should be able to come up with 100 hours of gameplay quite easily, and that way the judge can just put it on FF looking for the naughty parts -- if it's a he, I'm sure he has plenty of experience.

    Now if the judge refuses that, you know he's just trying to screw with the product. The testers' responses and recordings provide public opinions of 20-30 semi-random people on appropriateness of the product, whereas a copy of the game restrains to a single pov.

  94. Take Two now doing happy dance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This will actually play right into Take Two's hands.

    Judge orders Take Two to go into production on new game.
    Judge gives new game a lot of hype, no matter which way he rules.

    Rules against the game-->The game will not be available to minors, because that always works. Loads of people buy the game to see what all the fuss was about.
    Rules for the game-->The game is hailed as a new messiah for being the game that got a judge to tell Jack Thompson to shut up and go away. Millions of copies purchased in gratitude.

    Profit!

  95. You are a victim alright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A victim of the ignorant loudmouth disease that is rampant in the US. You have no clue what you are talking about, and yet insist on blathering on like a dumbass. The game is about being a high school kid, and its teen rating is very consistant with the content of the game. At least read a preview and learn what the game is about before deciding to buy Thompson's horse shit.

  96. Taking faith in the government once... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I say they be the bully, and sue Jack Thompson for being a public nuisance and find him as a Vexatious Litigant, and publically shame him all over CNN and every other news media outlet. Let the whole USA know that Mr. Thompson is practically uneducated as far as any type of common sense goes, and then play a bigger bully and start telling people the truth behind his idiotic claims, and point out how a (maybe?) 14-year old brought Mr. Thompson down to his knees by making him resort to insults. That alone might put Mr. Thompson into hermitude, forever, and the world would be FAR better off without him.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  97. Yipee! by DrStrangeLug · · Score: 1

    I'm an , err *thinks fast* Creationist Rightwing Christian ! I insist that Maxis hand over a copy of Spore to me right now so that I can see , erm , how badly it spreads the lie of creationism. They can have it back in 2 or three years.

  98. sorta related tangent example by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    The government went after porn studios that had hired Traci Lords after it came out that she was a minor when they were filmed. The charges were dismissed when the defense pointed out that she obtained a passport stating she was a minor. If the government gave her an incorrect ID, how can you prosecute the studio's for believing the government?

  99. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wired.com had a neat article about it.

    Their take on the subject? Rockstar has pulled a coup with this one. They've made a game that people are preemptively blowing their tops about, and in reality, A) the messages are actually good, and B) it's a social critique on both those people and the principle that "power corrupts". In the first respect, it's opposite of GTA, but in the latter case, it's exactly the same.

    The game doesn't glorify bullying at all. Typical missions involve defending the helpless. One mission that looks bad -- accompanying a gang of toughs that are going to beat up a hobo -- reverses when the toughs flee, and you end up befriending the man. On the other hand, like in GTA, everyone in a position of power is corrupt. And, most importantly, by "lowering the stakes" to such a minimal level, where one of the greatest crimes you can commit is to stay out past curfew, Rockstar both embarrasses those who railed against the game while knowing nothing about it, and the society that puts these types of people in public office.

    --
    You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
  100. Buy Take Two stock? by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how T2's stock price fluctuates a lot based on public fear of their constant litigation,even when they do win a few now and then, I'm not sure I'd go that far yet.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  101. Class Action against Jack by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Let's just file a CA against Jack for being a dickhead and interfering with our better interests-- the possibility that games might be made without the game makers worrying Jackass Dumbshit might come sue them. Maybe the price of games will come down when this moron goes away. Maybe if the concept of parents controlling their kids was pushed more than the world having to be full of magical bondage fairies that taught good manners and nonviolence, we might actually get some of the stuff dickhead over there pretends he's after.

    1. Re:Class Action against Jack by tinkerghost · · Score: 1
      more than the world having to be full of magical bondage fairies
      Hey, don't diss the Bondage Fairies. We could do worse.
      Exibit A: Obviously fake photos of Jack Thompson at a nudist colony
      Me: I rest my case your honor, he's a public menace that needs to be locked up for the good of society.
      Judge: My eyes, my eyes, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
  102. Re:Grr! Goddamn Sony! Sue! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    That's funny. I believe the same about the space shuttle. Now when do I get to, hum , review it? I'm willing to travel, I mean, I understand it's a little difficult to ship a space shuttle, tank, boosters, a zillion litre of fuel, launch pad, launch teams, command center, and all the space necessary to place it on in 24h. So a private jet, with nude, willing women onboard, comming to pick me up will be an acceptable replacement for home delivery.

  103. But how? by Aranwe+Haldaloke · · Score: 1

    You know, all these Jack Thompson stories keep popping up here and there. But has anyone ever asked him, in response to all his claims about "training" killers and bullies and inspiring school violence, how would these games do it, according to him?

    Like, with actual scientific studies and the like?

    1. Re:But how? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I think people have actually attempted to present scientific facts to Thompson.

      That 14-year-old that got replied to from him with emails full of ad-hominem insults tried it, I think.

  104. Re:Judge plays game, gets ass kicked, orders easie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


    Try using the comment field for your comment then, rather than the subject field?

  105. Terrorists.... by AlphaLop · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Someone needs to crash a plane into Jack Thompson.....

    --
    It's only paranoia if your wrong...
  106. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Judge should then bill tompson for the hundred hours of gameplay nesssary to fully review the content.

  107. Most games... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Are less violent than the bible.

    When do we ban that? It doesn't even have an age rating on it!

  108. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Steeltalon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hrmm... Anvil Drop '07. How will this be improved on from Anvil Drop '06?

    --
    Regards, Ian
  109. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rockstar is clearly thinking these issues through ahead of time, creating weapons for the legal battles. But then, what else would you expect from a company that could sucessfully release an update to pong! If only the Southpark guys would take on Jack ...

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  110. 9th Amendment by dparnass · · Score: 1

    Obviously the Judge and the Lawyer have no clue about the 9th amendment of the constitution that says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". Which I believe it is up to the individual to decide what is to violent for them. If the individual is a minor then it is up to the parents. The government has no place in this issue. Government should not be used to replace bad parenting. I know this game is called Bully but lets look at Grand Theft Auto. GTA is a game which I personally think went to far. I will not play it. That is my choice. If you want to play it go right ahead. I will not stop you unless you are my minor child. What Ever happend to personbel responsability.

  111. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... or is it just to let the judge play the game himself ....

    Yes, the judge will play with himself.

  112. I think "reality tv" is idiotic bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *cough*, like you are one to talk about bad habbits....

  113. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by donaldm · · Score: 1

    Thanks, no wonder I could not remember the name since I never studied Latin at school. Still the Latin name is interesting and appropriate.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  114. I was a victim of bullying.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..and I was hoping to take my revenge out on a virtual society within my computer game.

    Unfortunately, I may not be able to do this, so I might have to go beat up some innocent people instead.

  115. Re:Grr! Goddamn Sony! Sue! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    well yeah, because you have to make sure that the nude willing women are GODLY WOMEN and are FAMILY friendly. So you need one just to make sure, right? ;)

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  116. here we go again by Petkov · · Score: 1

    in the 1950s it was comic books which caused teen deliquency. Then it was movies. Now it is violent video games. When will society stop looking for excuses?

    --
    I got permanently modded -1 because I dared to question Israel on /.
  117. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Zastai · · Score: 4, Funny

    - The anvils will use Pixel Shader 3.0 for a more realistic metal look.
    - A new "Pimp My Anvil" mode will allow extensive anvil customization.
    - Iron Maiden contributed 2 exclusive songs to the heavy metal soundtrack.

    --
    When all other methods of communication fail, try words.
  118. now i am interested in this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never heard of that upcoming title before, but now i'll look out for it and am eager for any unbiased (p)review.

  119. You're all missing the point here... by Builder · · Score: 1

    The judge just wanted to get a copy early, that's all this is about :)

  120. Good thing, too by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

    Hey, before you label me as 'Flame': it *is* a good thing for the company.

    The whole thing is completely ridiculous, as (nearly) anybody can easily see. If worst comes to the worst and the USA truly looses it's slim grip on reality, this game could actually be banned in Florida.

    But the rest of the world (and USA sans Florida) hears about it.
    This is great PR, truly amazing. If I wrote a game, I'd actually be jumping with joy if it was treated like this.
    It's going to sell very well :)

    Ciao,
    Klaus

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  121. why the judge needs 100 hrs of gameplay by commodoresloat · · Score: 0

    He wants to hang out on the island and kill a million boars so he can grind his way up the levels. Then in court he will wield the Sword of a Thousand Truths against the complainant and say "you're totally pwned, dude!"

    1. Re:why the judge needs 100 hrs of gameplay by AliasN · · Score: 1

      After he does it, will these annoying South Park jokes stop? Leave it on LFG.. (South Park world of warcraft episode, if you are interested in why this is supposed to be funny)

    2. Re:why the judge needs 100 hrs of gameplay by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      will these annoying South Park jokes stop

      Hi, welcome to /. you must be new here.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  122. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More irrelevant stats and updated rosters, duh. Didn't you know the 25lb category was completely dominated by ACME after the recent transfer season?

  123. Hmmm, does this work for everything? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    The Mac Pro is a threat to our children. Especially the Quad Core 3GHz version! Where can I pick up my review copy?

  124. responsibility,.... do it yourself by suntac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really wonder what the big idea behind this is. What will the judge do when he thinks the game is too violent, or not "nice" for some people, or even give people the idea that to bully is a good thing.

    I do not think the judge will be able to stop the release of the game; he will not have the power to do anything about the content of the game. What are the intentions?

    Do we not have the freedom to express in an artistic way by for example creating a video game? If people thing that their kids should not play this game because it is bad influence for them they should simply not allow them to play the game. It is the same thing as, if you think your child should be allowed to watch a adult movie you should simply not allow him to.

    People do have their own responsibility and the responsibility towards their kids to give them the education they think is good for them. If this includes not playing a certain game they should simply not allow the kid to do so.

    --
    Regards, Johan Louwers.
  125. prior restraint by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Yep, it's called prior restraint, and it is widely considered the worst form of censorship. The Pentagon Papers case was the first time in history the judicial branch had exercised prior restraint and that was at the request of the executive over a national security matter (and the restraint was lifted within a week). Things have gone downhill since then in national security issues - prior review by the military is routine in war reporting, though it's totally ineffective thanks to the internet and the international press - but as far as prior restraint by the judicial branch over something like a "dangerous" videogame -- I don't know of any case comparable.

    1. Re:prior restraint by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but I do wonder if there might be more to it than that - I certainly HOPE that there is more to it than that.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
  126. duh by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    The game doesn't glorify bullying at all.
    Well, duh! That's exactly why Jack Thompson is against it!
  127. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by cliffski · · Score: 1

    true, but I can't exactly feel sorry for take two. They bought this upon themselves, they have deliberately made games that appeal to the shock horror tabloid press in order to generate publicity. I can't say im suprised, or especially upset that their shock tactics marketing has come back to bite them on the ass. They can clearly make great games, the irony is, they dont actually NEED to provoke people. The downside is, they tar all games with the 'violent cop killing simulation' brush. You cant say that take2 has actually improved the image of the games industry, unlike the Sims.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  128. That's the point of prior restraint by logicnazi · · Score: 1

    You don't get to bring a case regarding the content of an expression before it is published.

    Now perhaps Thompson has some clever argument that some pre-release copies constitute release but the essence of no prior restraint is exactly that the government doesn't get to go review your work before it is published.

    It sounds like what is going on is that florida published a pretty blatantly unconstitutional law (if it supports the judge's action) and the local judge is playing it safe and letting the appealete judges do any striking down of the law.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  129. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by szembek · · Score: 2

    I disagree. They haven't even had to advertise Bully. I only heard of it from slashdot articles like this one.

    --
    nothing
  130. Hrmm, bit of a waste of money... by Antifuse · · Score: 1

    Listen, Jack, if you wanted a pre-release copy of the game, I'm sure Take Two would gladly send you one.

  131. Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that she started off this crap before you vote for her in the next election.

  132. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

    The poster in a Game store I saw the other day also includes text to the effect of '(formally known as "Bully")' - presumably to make sure people still buy it.

  133. Coming soon the RJ Reynold game company by gelfling · · Score: 1

    The real bullies, the selfimportant soccermom twits are going to litigate videogames out of existence soon. Pretty much like what they have done to cigarette companies.

    1. Re:Coming soon the RJ Reynold game company by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      The biggest problems the cigarette companies have had is that they falsified research, lied under oath, engaged in blackmail, and engaged in a truely massive coverup. Without all of that, they would have had a crapload less liability for the issues. When you say "I never said that" and then get handed a 2" stack of memos where you said it, you loose credibility. When you say "It's perfectly safe" for 20 years, while all of your research says it'll kill you - you loose millions/billions

  134. Actually, I'm really looking forward to this... by meringuoid · · Score: 1

    ... from what I've heard, it's essentially a 21st century Skool Daze. And that was a hell of a good game.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  135. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by hcob$ · · Score: 1
    "Canis Canem Edit"
    *waits for the marjuiana jokes*

    Come on... you know you want to.
    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
  136. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?"

    Hm? Did you read the article?

    "She added that the Judge will view the game in chambers beginning tomorrow afternoon and is prepared to spend several days watching its content."

    Tough job, being a judge. Maybe Take-Two could submit some beer and nachos into evidence, while they're at it. (Really, doesn't sound like a bad thing...say that you actually have to _see_ the game before deciding if it is a nusiance...)

    Reminds me of the joke about the Supreme Court needing "examples for private study", when deciding the Hustler pornography case.

  137. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1
    Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...
    Only if you waste time on non-essential activities like eating and sleeping. Perhaps the judge has stocked up on jolt & has his mom standing by with the pizzas?
    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  138. Ironic, isn't it by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

    I'm involved, somewhat, in a wireless ISP. It never ceases to amaze me the great lengths the people with the most money will go to in order to hang on to that money. We have installed for quite a few poor people, and they have never asked for a discount, though some have tried to get the install fee knocked down. However, without fail, a doctor will try and get the monthly cut in half, because they think they are freaking special or something. The nerve of someone making two or three hundred thousand-plus a year and living in a house whose concrete driveway and garage costs more than my entire house and land put together, thinking they shouldn't have to pay full price for something!

    Transporter_ii

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
  139. Unelected 'officials' making deciscions... by Asrynachs · · Score: 1

    See, up here in Canada we have an unusual legal system, it's quite different from that of the States. Basically cases like this don't make it to trial, our judges do what is called 'throwing out' a case. It's an unusual concept I know, but it works in keeping things like that RIAA fiasco from happening. Our judges know that politicians are the ones who have the power to make these big deciscions, not some morally upright jackfuck. SO... they don't deal with that shit.

  140. Jack Thompson Fund by sulfur_lad · · Score: 2, Funny

    The sad part about Jack Thompson is that he makes more than you ever will by just being an asshat. And now he's demanding free video games too.

  141. Making your point twice enforces it... by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

    Making your point twice enforces it...

  142. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by hrrY · · Score: 1

    It would be awesome if the judge leaked it...you know, so people can...um...oh nevermind.

  143. think of the white people by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

    while i haven't played AA, i would imagine that it is wholesome compared to GTA because you are playing an american fighting in the desert against "terrorists" instead of playing a black teenager in california listening to rap music and shooting at white people. there is probably a lower occurence of prostitutes in AA. tho, running over a hooker in an abrams tank would be way cooler than running over one in a car. perhaps we will see that in GTA: kabalah city

    the logic is simple: setting muslims on fire is good, stealing cars from white people is bad. AA is good, GTA is bad.

    --
    sarcasm:
    -noun
    1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    1. Re:think of the white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already is an Abrams in GTA, it's called a Rhino in game though, you have to steal it from the army. Going to war against an opposing street gang in the Rhino is hours of wholesome gangland fun.

  144. No such thing as bad publicity by Khammurabi · · Score: 1
    Jack Thompson is attacking this game as a public nuisance.
    Yes, and Rockstar gets:

    1. Wads and wads of free press about the game
    2. Sued by a lawyer who loses nearly every court battle he's ever been in

    I don't think Rockstar considers this a bad thing.
  145. 2 Live Crew - Redux? by otopico · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Leave it to Florida to stomp on the 1st Amendment at all times.

    Can we get a lawsuit going to ban the Bible down there? It's full of rape and murder, and I think the youth of the world should be protected from it.

  146. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Rayor · · Score: 1

    You're thinking of cannabis.

    --
    "Using linux is like a game, if you're able to make it run better than Windows, you're winning" - Unknown slashdotter.
  147. contempt of court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I predict the following scenereo:

    Employee knows something really brutal will happen if he wins a certain fight.

    J: Let's see what happens when you defeat that kid.
    E: Ok... oops he beat me.
    J: Do it again...
    ( repeat N times )
    J: This court orders you to beat that kid or I'll find you in contempt.

  148. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Proof that video games don't cause real-life violence: Jack Thompson is still alive.

    QED.

  149. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by hcob$ · · Score: 1

    that, was kina the point... a few extra letters and WHAM!

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
  150. Advance copies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow, so if I start filing frivolous lawsuits against companies, does that mean I can get free advance copies of games, too?

  151. Eureka! by Atroxodisse · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just figured it out. Jack is friends with that judge and the judge is a big fan of Rockstar so he got Jack to bring this lawsuit so he could get paid to sit on his ass and play Bully for 100 hours.

    --
    Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
  152. *shrug* by Jabrwock · · Score: 1

    I was going from the info as available at the time. Destructoid.com hadn't yet updated their website of their on-the-spot coverage to make it clear that Take Two had offered to bring the game in without an order.

    Technically the judge did make the order, he just refused to make official, because that would "take too much time". He actually yelled at them for requesting the proper paperwork...

    --
    Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
  153. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's no dumbass. He has quite a livelihood based on his insane ramblings. He may be evil, but he's no moron.

  154. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

    They don't need to because Midway already has.

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  155. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by AliasN · · Score: 1

    Except when mispelling URLs when filing police reports. Oh, and, claiming harassement when people donate money to charity. (I'm sorry, I don't have the links offhand, but you should be able to find them pretty easily)

  156. This game was out 15 years ago by DrXym · · Score: 1

    The ZX Spectrum had two games Skool Daze and a sequel Back to Skool which more or less encapsulate the same ideas found in Bully - disrupting school, punching people, stealing stuff, using a catapault, detention etc. If a certain litigious asshole wants to launch lawsuits, I suggest he start flinging them at the various Spectrum sites that host these "columbine simulators" since Bully is clearly just the spiritual successor to those early pioneers.

  157. My left kidney for some mod points... by Fluffy+the+attack+ki · · Score: 1

    I very nearly spat coffee reading that. It's funny because it's true. The irony of Mr. John Bruce Thompson Esq. attacking a game called Bully, using his standard tactics, is rather profound; even more so that it's a game about combating bullies. The cognitive dissonance involved in something like that must be truely epic.

  158. RWS had the best response to this nut by Morinaga · · Score: 1
    I love this rationalization from Running With Scissors. Just make your game open ended and no one is forced to be violent, they simply choose to be.

    http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/18/ 174224

    eToyChest is reporting on a response that Running With Scissors (the makers of the ultraviolent game Postal) has released in response to Jack Thompson's latest rantings. From the article:

    "There are no missions based on slaughtering innocent bystanders. You play in a detailed environment and are given simple tasks such as buying milk and cashing a paycheck. As in the real world, the player may find weapons in that environment if they seek them. And, just as in the real world, the choice of what to do with those weapons is yours. Misuse results in severe consequences, in Postal you're always held accountable. In our opinion that makes Postal 2 the most politically correct game ever made."

  159. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Maybe the best way of getting around this issue is to rename the game from "Bully" which possibly has terrible connotations for those of a delicate nature, to something less likely to upset people.

    You mean like those pussies in Anthrax did with the "basket of warm puppies" crap? Say it like it is.

    Fucking nutless wonders.

  160. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

    Are they going the fix the thing where if the target gets too far behind the anvil, the target somehow magically catches up?

    That always used to shit me.

  161. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Judge should then bill tompson for the hundred hours of gameplay nesssary to fully review the content.

    Fuck you, lunatic. Why do the bastard conservatives always have to turn to the "let the accused pay all costs for civil proceedings against him" canard?

    The judge is a fucking civil servant and gets a goddamned hefty salary; he should not get a penny more for doing his sworn duty. Somehow it's always the underdog who is expected to pay for everything.

    How about the corporate fuckers pay all costs for all the goddamned time they waste for the courts? (Hint: they're too busy screaming, every time a law is proposed that will cost them fifteen cents, "But it will clog up the court system!!!!!" Sooo, let them contribute to funding for new courts. They just don't want court time pissed away on cases where they're the defendants, instead of the plaintiffs.

  162. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by pyrote · · Score: 1

    A new "Pimp My Anvil" mode will allow extensive anvil customization

    OOOOh I want the lowered Anvil(TM), all flat and stylin!

    --
    THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
  163. Suit should have been dismissed out of hand by FishinDave · · Score: 1

    I have never seen a "public nuisance" law that didn't require the existence of a nuisance as a prerequisite to its enforcement. The game hasn't been released anywhere yet, let alone in Florida, so it cannot be causing a nuisance, public or private.

  164. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Zediker · · Score: 1

    I just find it hillarious about him complaining about things that dont even happen in the game. People who have played demos of the game say its not even close to what Jack is raging about. YOU ARE NOT A BULLY! Your character stands up to the bullies and defends the weak... what is so wrong about that Jack?

    --
    I love to slaughter the english language.
  165. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by Lotharus · · Score: 1

    What the heck are you talking about? The parent poster said the judge should bill Thompson for the hundred hours of game play. Thompson is the plaintiff. That means he's the one doing the accusing. He's being a jerk and bringing a lawsuit against Take Two for a matter that really should not be judged in the courts at all. I wholeheartedly agree that the accuser should pay for the costs when his case is shot down. Thompson is the one wasting the court's time; Take Two is simply trying to defend itself.

  166. The real issue by moloko_synthemesc · · Score: 1

    It isn't this game or any previous game this or any other developer has made. When I'm standing in the game isle of my local Mega-Lo-Mart and see yet another mother or grandmother buying little Timmy (who's maybe 10) whatever game he wants without bothering to even look at the ESRB rating, it's very clear where the problem lies. The last time I saw this, I felt the need to speak up, so I went over and asked the woman if she knew that this title was rated M, and what that meant. She shrugged and said something to the effect that it's just a game and he plays games. If I'd had the presence of mind I should have, I would have asked her if she also buys little Timmy Hustler magazines simply because they're magazines and he reads magazines. The problem does not lie with the developer, the publisher, the retailer or the ESRB. They do their part to follow the rules, it's parents/guardians who circumvent the checks that are in place. Unless we see some common sense laws that deal with the glaring lack of responsibility of the consumer, we can expect to see more of this illogical blame game. Speaking of that particular game, those who like to blame the 'holier-than-thou right-wingers' seem to be conveniently forgetting names like Lieberman and Clinton. Just as many who see the DMCA for what it is are quick to forget who it was sitting in office when it was allowed to be passed into law.

  167. Judge declines to restrict sale of Bully by Alpha232 · · Score: 1

    Judge Ronald Friedman has decided to allow Bully to be sold freely in Florida after the game's release on October 17.

    Read the Article:
    ... After the court session concluded, Jack Thompson told Ars Technica that the proceedings were a travesty. He characterized the judge's viewing of footage as nothing more than a couple of "Take Two operatives" showing the judge everything in the game they wanted him to see. "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine. But there's such a thing as due process," said Thompson. "And I was denied due process in court today."

  168. Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game by admactanium · · Score: 1
    Take Two lost millions due to the Hot Coffee mod (repackaging cost, recall cost, lost sales, etc). Not all publicity is good.
    does the "millions" figure include how many copies they sold specifically because people heard of that feature? or how their renegade status will affect their future products' sales? when people use the phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" they're implying the net effect. rockstar games probably gets some "street cred" for putting the hot coffee easter egg in the game to begin with. the more people that know about it, the more their image benefits from it for people who would find that funny or cool, namely heavy gamers.