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."
Someone has already had a hands on review of the game... Dear ole Jack won't be the first.
This kind of publicity will only increase sales for rockstar.
The ruling is so that it can be assessed by somebody within the court.
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).
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!
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.
The ______ Agenda
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!
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.
There's just not much else to say about him.
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.
l ?ex=1312862400&en=f536b0ae84f0468b&ei=5088&partner =rssnyt&emc=rss
Actually, here's a good review of it from the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/arts/10bull.htm
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!)
The ______ Agenda
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.