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."

38 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. 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 jackbird · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    3. 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."

    4. 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?

    5. 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."
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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 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.

  11. 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.)
  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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?"

  15. 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.

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.