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."
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.
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!!
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.
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.
repeating subject as body of text?
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?