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."

Comments

A good read...

[ack154]

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

Re:Ahh Jack...

[cgenman]

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!)

Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game

[Rei]

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.