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."
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?
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.
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.
than uninformed asshats with a cause all in the name of "saving the children."
/me loves me some video games...
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.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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:
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
No sig for you!!
Can they counter sue to have Jack Thompson labelled a 'public nuisance'?
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
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.)
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!
Jack Thompson is declared "public nuisance"?
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
"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!!!
to avoid paying for a game. You'd think the judge could afford to just buy it when it comes out.
Take Two lost millions due to the Hot Coffee mod (repackaging cost, recall cost, lost sales, etc).
Not all publicity is good.
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?"
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.
Since when was ad hominem Insightful?
Would you kindly mod me +1 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...
I believe the PS3 is a threat to our children and our sacred ways of life.
... REVIEW ... IT FOR POSSIBLE IMMORAL MATERIAL.
I DEMAND A PS3 SO I CAN
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
...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...
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
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.
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.
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
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
Since you became such a doody-head, of course.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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
repeating subject as body of text?
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.
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)
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."
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.
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?
Hrmm... Anvil Drop '07. How will this be improved on from Anvil Drop '06?
Regards, Ian
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
I disagree. They haven't even had to advertise Bully. I only heard of it from slashdot articles like this one.
nothing
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.
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.
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.