Judge Clears Bully For Publishing

stupid_is writes "The BBC are reporting that Judge Ronald Friedman has cleared Bully for publication in Florida. Jack Thompson is, predictably, critical of the decision, stating "You did not see the game, you don't even know what it was you saw." after Take-Two gave him the game, along with someone to play the game for him to watch before he made a decision." This is a follow-up to our story last week about Take-Two handing over copies of Bully per court order.

Comments

First amendment.

[Pig Hogger]

Why would a judge be asked to condone prior restraint, and expected to do it???

Re:First amendment.

[WilliamSChips]

More importantly, how does a judge restrain a Prior?

Re:First amendment.

[Nanpa]

1. Flog his stick 2. Tie him up in your basement 3. Profit!

good comment

[gEvil (beta)]

"There's a lot of violence," Judge Friedman said. "A whole lot. Less than we see on television every night."

It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world.

Re:good comment

[hal2814]

"It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world."

I'm not so sure. Such an argument seems to imply that if the violence were worse than what you'd see on TV, there would be some grounds to have this game forcibly prevented from sales. So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint.

Re:good comment

[EmperorKagato]

"I'm not so sure. Such an argument seems to imply that if the violence were worse than what you'd see on TV, there would be some grounds to have this game forcibly prevented from sales. So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint."

If you remove Bully from publishing, you would also have to take every TV/MA TV/T show off the air.
I find the judge's defense is sound: The judge basically identified that the level of violence in this game is already approved by society.

Let's also not forget children cannot buy this game on their own nor rent it as well as parents still have the right to pre-view before purchase.

Re:good comment

[gEvil (beta)]

Well, I suspect that this is his way of applying the "community standards of decency" (which can be used at a local level to prohibit the sale of "offensive" materials") to the game. Since everybody in his jurisdiction is exposed to far greater levels of violence on TV on a routine basis, any attempts to prohibit the game's sale due to the amount of violence contained in it will be futile.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

But you have to compare it to something, otherwise you couldn't set any limits at all.

In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames. Add to that the violence everyday on TV, and you get a society that's just waiting to tear itself apart in fear of itself.

Long story short, Jack Thompson is an egotistic fuckhead who cares nothing for the children. If he did, he'd get rid of guns and actually do something about the physical violence not connected to videogames.

Re:good comment

[BlueCodeWarrior]

Children can buy or own the game. Game ratings are a reccomendation, not enforced by law.

Re:good comment

[EdipisReks]

Go back to Leningrad, Stalin. Don't you have a five year plan, or something, to do?

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right - not enforced by law. Enforced by Wal-Mart.

Re:good comment

[Cyno01]

But every damn retailer follows them because otherwise people like Jack Thompson would have their balls. Movie ratings are also voluntary.

Re:good comment

[tkrotchko]

No, it's bad.

It's not a judge's job to put his own personal feelings into the matter.

It's wrong on a lot of levels:

1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence"
2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay"
3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.

What's next? People can ask a judge if TV show is okay? A magazine? A book?

Where does this power stem from to rule on the contents of video games? I've never heard of it before.

This is beyond a slippery slope; it's a cliff. Look, I get that this Jack guy doesn't like video games and violence. Great. Fine. He should be allowed to campaign against them. Free speech works both ways. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take this guy seriously. The judge actually took this guy seriously for a week. That should bother everyone. I'm not commenting on whether Jack has a point; I'm simply questioning this judge putting himself in a position to judge.

Re:good comment

[John Betonschaar]

It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world.

True, but OTOH, he might just as well have compared it with one of the 100s of other games already on the market, that have so much more violence in it. It's actually pretty rediculous if you think of it, that a judge even has to decide on this. I mean, you cannot even kill people in this game IIRC. Games like Postal, Hitman, GTA, etc. etc. etc, they're already here, and there's much more realistic violence in them.

The game has become controversial because it's title might give the impression it's about bullying people, but that's just not true, which you'll find out when you actually play the game. A member of parliament over here actually literally said in an interview the game should be banned 'because it rewards bully behaviour'. The fact that his comments were taken seriously by other members is quite disturbing, considering the fact that probably none of these people even saw the game and still formed an opinion on it. If you read reviews of it, you'll find that the game actually *punishes* you for bullying, and rewards you for following classes and gaining respect by doing 'the right thing' (tm).

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames.

In my opinion, shared by our founding fathers, not having guns is quite a bit worse.

Re:good comment

[MikeTheYak]

So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint.

Not so much. The judge merely established a baseline in an offhand comment. The judge never said that if the content were worse than what is seen on TV then the game could be banned. It's also easy to argue that network TV restrictions are tighter than what could be reasonably expected for games. Television decency occurs because networks ceded First Amendment rights in exchange for a piece of the public airwaves, which are regulated by the FCC. Cable TV, for example, has no similar restrictions, and privately traded games are unlikely to be held to the same standards either.

Re:good comment

[poot_rootbeer]

Free speech works both ways. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take this guy seriously. The judge actually took this guy seriously for a week. That should bother everyone.

Ever hear the saying "Justice is blind"?

A judge is supposed to take EVERYBODY seriously. And because the judge took the complaint seriously and worked methodically in dismantling it, Thompson has very little room now to appeal the decision.

I wouldn't want a judicial system where the guy on the bench could deny me justice just because he thinks I'm a nutbag before I've even argued my case. I should have to PROVE I'm a nutbag before the court can deny me its good graces.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

I hate to say it, but your founding fathers weren't really unbiased either. You took a country by force from its very natives while basically comitting mutiny against another country. Of course they needed guns.

You don't anymore, though. Sure, you might think you need it because of crime or whatever... But consider this: would there really be so many robberies and so much crime, if it was much harder to get ahold of guns? Would kids simply open their fathers closets, take the gun and shoot their classmates in school if not _everyone_ had a weapon?

Sorry, but that argument just doesn't stick. You have the highest crime and murder rate in the world for a reason. And it's not JUST because of viodegames ;)

Re:good comment

[apendrag0n3]

While that may be true in your state/municipality, it is NOT true in mine. City ordinances are in place that STRICTLY enforce the Movie and Game rating systems. There are HEFTY fines associated with being caught violating those ratings-based ordinances>

Re:good comment

[everett]

This is a brilliant idea, it's working great for the UK.

Re:good comment

[hobbesmaster]

I bet those strict ordinances wouldn't survive a court challenge.*

*Assuming that you are living in the US.

Re:good comment

[The Mad Debugger]

What's next? People can ask a judge if TV show is okay? A magazine? A book?

Well, yeah. Generally comunities have obscenity laws, and those laws are based on some idea of a community standard. Yes, there could be some sort of legal action around a TV show, book, movie. Who else would you expect to interpret the laws and decide whether or not a publication had run afoul of those laws?

The judge gets his power to rule on the contents of video games because it's a publication like anything else.

The only strange thing in this case is that the judge did agree to consider arguments *before* the publication of the work. As noted in the original coverage, the government is generally prohibited from ruling on something *before* it's published. That's the free speech thing. You can publish what you want. There just might be consequences afterwards.

Still from TFA, it seems like the judge wanted a look, and handed down NO DECISION, telling Thompson he could bring action after the publication. His comments afterwards seem to hint that he doesn't expect such a case to suceed, and also from the TFA, it sounds like Thompson got that message.

Re:good comment

[JPriest]

I'm simply questioning this judge putting himself in a position to judge.

Did you get a chance to read that as you were typing it?

Re:good comment

[bcat24]

Taking away public access to guns might help a little, but I don't know how much. It might keep them out of the hands of stupid people and stupid bad people, but Really Bad People (TM) would find a way to get them.

Re:good comment

[tkrotchko]

So you're saying that if you wanted to sue CBS because you thought CSI was too graphic, you should be able to file a motion, and CSI would have to submit a TV show and the judge would look at a show and decide if it was okay?

Go ahead try that and let me know how it works out for you...

Re:good comment

[MrNougat]

"It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world."

I'm not so sure. Such an argument seems to imply that if the violence were worse than what you'd see on TV, there would be some grounds to have this game forcibly prevented from sales. So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint.

I know we're talking law here, so logic may have nothing to do with it, but --

Just because you make the claim that A does not reach the badness of B, so A is permissable does not mean that if A surpassed the badness of B it would not be permissable. B in this discussion is not a defined limit of badness, it is a real-world example of a level of badness which is permissable - while the actual limit may be higher, or very much higher. The point is that it's not lower.

If there were a strictly defined badness limit - say, C - then there would be no reason to reference B at all.

Re:good comment

[Dun Malg]

It's wrong on a lot of levels: 1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence" 2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay" 3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.

No, you're wrong. In an ideal world, yeah, the judge should be able to say the above and everyone would say "yes indeed, it's none of our business". But that's not what would happen. If the judge declared himself unqualified to judge if the game is OK, that philosophically leaves a back door open to find a judge that thinks he IS qualified, because there are PLENTY of people out there who think it IS the government's business whether "violent" media is allowed to be distributed. His answer frames the question in a more practical way, one that addresses the stupid fucks who think that way: "If we (collectively) are willing to tolerate a greater level of violence than this on TV, calling for a ban on this game for violent content makes no sense." See, it's not as effective to say "your method of applying morality is wrong" as it is to say "your argument is wrong even by your own moral standards".

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

That's exactly the point.

This has to be done in steps. Crime is not going to disappear overnight, and it's about time we stop thinking it will. For now, a great first stop is remove the access to guns from everyone. This will leave only the really determined crooks with guns. Great, now you've reduced the amount of suspects by, I don't know, maybe 70% or more? Suddenly you have enough police to go around twice-and-a-half, and you can go ahead and really crack down on the real criminals, instead of having to ride between one idiot with a gun and an itchy trigger finger and the next one.

Tell me, doesn't this sound sort of logical?

Re:good comment

['nother poster]

1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence"
2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay"
3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.

Well, 1. - wrong, 2. - wrong, and 3. - wrong. That is what judges do, judge things.

What's next? People can ask a judge if TV show is okay? A magazine? A book?
Been done. Will be done in the future.

Where does this power stem from to rule on the contents of video games? I've never heard of it before.

Obscenity laws. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they are legal, and should reflect the standards of the community. That is what the judge is doing. Ruling if they exceed public standards.

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

But consider this: would there really be so many robberies and so much crime, if it was much harder to get ahold of guns?
Consider this: If a Bad Guy knew for an absolute fact that his target sm were armed, would that Bad Guy attack, or move along to an easier target?

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have to PROVE I'm a nutbag before the court can deny me its good graces.

Yeah, but Thompson has *already* proven that he's a nutbag on numerous occasions. At what point do we draw the line between taking everyone seriously and simply ignoring all the established nutbags? Personally I think Thompson has crossed that line.

Re:good comment

[Saanvik]

Just like TV show ratings. Just because a show is rated, doesn't mean a kid can't watch it.

Re:good comment

[SillyNickName4me]

'should be able to' is not the same as 'are able to'.. just thought I should mention it..

GP is definitely right, if you dispute something and take it to court, the judge should look at the content, not at wether he thinks you are a nutcase or such.

Re:good comment

[Jabrwock]

1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence"
2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay"
3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.

Technically he did. He never actually formally ruled whether it was a "public nuisance" or not. He just made that offhand comment about the level of violence, and dismissed the case.

Officially, he wouldn't have been able to rule, since prior restraint in the US requires one of the following:

a) incitement to riot
b) obscenity
c) state secrets

Seeing as how Bully contained none of the above, he wouldn't have been able to rule on it.

Re:good comment

[bigbigbison]

Are you in the USA? While I know that other countries have actual laws regarding ratings, I am unaware of any place in the USA which does. If you are in the USA, where? How do such laws apply to unrated films? or selling "unrated editions" of dvds? What if a film theater wanted to show a film from before 1968 when the MPAA ratings were created? Because of things like this, I would be very surprised if there were places in the USA where municipalities are actively enforcing such laws.

Re:good comment

[Arwing]

But what if we need to rise up again against some type of authority that abuses its power? What if the day when everyday citizen will need to protect themselves from the authority? Look at what's going on in U.S. today, is it really that unthinkable that we can no longer trust the people who are suppose to be our 'representatives' in the government??

Re:good comment

[Bill_the_Engineer]

So you're saying that if you wanted to sue CBS because you thought CSI was too graphic, you should be able to file a motion, and CSI would have to submit a TV show and the judge would look at a show and decide if it was okay?

Sounds fine to me. Actually, you would send it to the FCC and yes it will get reviewed. Remember the super bowl fiasco?

Of course, this is apples v. oranges. A game is something that can be purchased and "regulated" at the point of sale. A television broadcast uses the public's airways and is open to viewing by anybody. Before you give the standard "Change the channel" bullshit, this attitude is not prudent since all the broadcast networks tend toward the lowest common denominator of what they can get away with. Eventially there will be no channel to change to for "family" programming.

Cable can show what they want due to more spectrum available and the influence that revenue from subscribers have on the channel line up.

Re:good comment

[apendrag0n3]

Actually, they have been challenged and DID survive... Small community municipalities sometimes are an ADVANTAGE. No one has said that parents can't buy the games for their children. As a matter of fact, they just make it MANDATORY that the parent/guardian DOES. Are there ways around it? Yep, sure there are... Much like the ways around buying alcohol or tobacco products when you are underage. But at least SOME communities are trying to put responsibility back in the parent's court.

Re:good comment

[spathi-wa]

You would not be able to file a case against "CSI" in general without stating specific incidents as evidence or at least as examples.

As I understand it (and as your parent post puts it, in different words), Thompson made specific accusations about the game, the Judge reviewed the game *with those accusations in mind* and decided that Thompson had no valid case.

While Thompson is free to file another case with different specific complaints, the case was filed by him to prevent the game for shipping. He has failed to achieve that.

P.S. It would cost the game publishers and developers a *lot* more if he filed a case after the game was widely distributed, and got the court to rule against the game and force the pubs/devs to recall it. I guess Thompson doesnt think the same way as I do. Maybe now he will!

Re:good comment

[smoker2]

It seems that sarcasm isn't your strong point.

His statement only implies that there is less violence in the game than is seen every day on TV.

Re:good comment

[Ravenscall]

Ah, but take away all the guns, and what stops the govenrment from taking away everything? Crime be damned, it is the government and it's crreping crawl towards fascism that scare me.

Re:good comment

[apendrag0n3]

Limestone County, Alabama

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

Consider the fact that maybe you don't NEED guns for that? And should you ever DO need guns in an event like that, I'm sure there'd be no problem getting them.

I don't know of any country in the entire world with nearly as many guns as you, that are as afraid of yourselves that you are. Remember, Bush can't hold down 300 million americans alone. YOU have the power, you're just too lazy and afraid to admit it, rather relying on guns to do the talking and objecting.

Think about it. If 300 MILLION americans rose up against an abusive government, even without weapons, what the hell could they do about it?

Get your heads out of your gun-barrels and think about it. Really think about it.

ps.
I live in sweden. We have idiots. We have a government. We have idiots IN the goverment. Yet, not a single citizen here feels that guns should be a "right" so that we can defend ourselves against said goverment. And we're just a measly 9 million people over here :)

Re:good comment

[Deoxyribose]

But which is the most frequent offender? The idiot who leaves a loaded gun lying around the house where his kids can find it, the common street criminal, or the Really Bad People (TM)? Hint: Which are you most likely to be affected by walking down the street in your town?

The bottom line is that if someone is extremely determined to get weaponry no laws or regulations will stop them. But what limiting access to guns will help is, as the poster said, keeping them out of the hands of the stupid/stupid bad people, which are the problem 90% of the time anyway.

Re:good comment

[hal2814]

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should've been. I completely understand and agree with the logic of your statement. However, your specific argument isn't what I'm concerned with. I'm far more concerned with the premise itself. That (AA is even mentioned bothers me because there should IMHO be no implication relationship involving A and B. My main point (though I may have originally botched it) is that if (AA even exists then there must be a C at which (A>=C)->!A or else the judge wouldn't have even brought it up. And in my opinion there should be no C.

Re:good comment

[hal2814]

"It seems that sarcasm isn't your strong point."

When it comes to judges rendering legally binding opinions, no it's not. I tend to take everything a judge has to say very seriously as future decisions will be based not only on a judge's ruling but also his or her reasoning behind that ruling.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I find the judge's defense is sound: The judge basically identified that the level of violence in this game is already approved by society.

But that's the wrong test. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for restraining publication of anything. Even instructions for creating a nuclear bomb in the 50's.

Re:good comment

[metallic]

Lawful gun owners rarely commit any crimes with their weapons. I've owned guns since I was 8 and I have never once killed someone. Guns aren't the problem, people are. And as long as people have criminal inclinations then there will be problems with violence. That is why in the UK the police wear vests that are intended to stop a knife blade instead of a bullet. You are trying to fix a social problem through legislation which never works. And if I remember correctly, the violent crime rate in the UK went up when that country all but banned private gun ownership.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames.

You're joking, right? Guns in the hands of the populace work to keep crime down. I don't even know where you got the classroom thing.

If he did, he'd get rid of guns

Yeah right, like anybody has that power.

Re:good comment

[MindStalker]

He will be expected to pay court fees. Essentially as long as you accept the fact that if you are going to lose you will have to may court fees, our system allows you to sue anyone for any reason whatsoever. I could sue you for telling me the sky was blue. I judge would have to take me seriously then quickly dismiss the suit and make me pay court fees and your cost for wasting your time. Thats just how the system works.

Re:good comment

[metallic]

You seriously overestimate the number of gun owners in the United States. Most people I know have not even held a gun, let alone owned or shot one. We are not afraid to go out on the streets at night. It's not like there is blood just constantly flowing down main street. And frankly, you should be happy that the United States has had such a deep ingrained gun culture. It's one of the reasons that you aren't speaking German as your primary language.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

Nice. Really nice.

Have you ever heard the phrase "an eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"? It applies here too. You want a gun because someone else _might_ have one. And if you definitely have one, then the one who _might_ have one is definitely, definitely going to have one. And if he has one gun, why don't you carry two? And keep one in your closet? And one in the kitchen? And one...

I think you see where I'm going with this.

There's always going to be crime. Always. No matter if you carry a gun or not. But it's your duty to do something AGAINST it, and I suggest you do this by not making the problem worse.

Remember what we're actually discussing. It's not crime. It's kids killing other kids because everyone's afraid of themselves! And they're not carrying guns to keep from getting mugged. They're only out to hurt others, kill teachers and friends. It has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with there being guns all around them.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames.

You're joking, right? Guns in the hands of the populace work to keep crime down. I don't even know where you got the classroom thing.

We're not talking crime. A kid killing another kid because he's angry, doesn't know better and happens to know where his father keeps his revolver has NOTHING to do with crime. It's easy access and bad parenting, and NOTHING more.

If he did, he'd get rid of guns

Yeah right, like anybody has that power.

He obviously thinks he has the power to regulate what 300 million americans do in their free time. Why can't he have the same delusions of grandeur and work for removing all the guns?

And no, it's not guns that kill people. Not people either.
It's people with guns that kill people!

Re:good comment

[kfg]

A judge is supposed to take EVERYBODY seriously.

Under law.

Show me the law that gives prior restraint complaints standing. A judge is supposed to dismiss cases that don't have any. He has a reponsibility to take such cases with no more seriousness than that.

KFG

Re:good comment

[Chris Burke]

Sorry, but that argument just doesn't stick. You have the highest crime and murder rate in the world for a reason. And it's not JUST because of viodegames ;)

No, but it isn't because of guns either. Guns are used to commit crimes; they do not cause crimes to be comitted. You can argue about the guy who wanted to commit a crime but couldn't because he couldn't get a gun, which probably would occur, but does he need a gun when he knows that his victims won't have one either? Are you saying it wouldn't be just as easy to hold you up in an alley with a nail bat?

Yes, the U.S. has a crime problem. However if you compare us to other modern democracies with and without guns and their crime rates, you will find something remarkable: The existence of guns does not correlate with a vastly higher crime rate, nor does the lack correlate with a vastly reduced crime rate. The U.S. has a high crime rate compared to a lot of other countries with guns. There are, as always, other factors of crime.

In this way anti-gun arguments are similar to anti-video game arguments. They both miss the fundamental, underlying causes of why crimes occur. Did a guy rob a liquor store because he had a gun, or because he was poor and desperate? Of course it's not to the same degree. A gun is actually a useful tool for committing crimes, whereas Grand Theft Auto doesn't teach you anything useful about grand theft auto, much less murder or armed robbery. It's not batshit crazy to blame crime on guns. It just misses the vastly more important underlying causes of crime that getting rid of guns would not help. You'd just end up with more nail-battings instead of shootings.

Re:good comment

[Some_Llama]

Ever watch bowling for columbine? Canada has just as many gun owners per capita but yet a fraction of our violent crime...

Re:good comment

[KeiichiMorisato]

I am not going to argue if guns will prevent crimes or if guns lower crime rates, but one thing I believe is that the easy access to guns, so that everyone can have one, is the reason the US has a high gun related death rate compared to other nations.

Think about it, for example, if a criminal is robbing a store in Canada, that criminal will not have the mentality that it will be a life or death situation, since most people don't carry guns. This criminal will go in, knowing that using a big knife or something maybe good enough and that he/she won't have to kill the store owner. Now in the US, this criminal will be prepared to potentially face a person with a gun, and thus will not hesitate to protect his/her own life by either killing the clerk first, or having the mentality to kill that person.

Now some of you will say that the potential for a criminal to lose their life due to the store owner having a gun, will be the deterring factor for the criminal to NOT rob that store. But the problem is that many criminals will rob a store no matter what, due to their desperate nature/situation, and thus will use any means to rob that store. And that includes getting a gun, since that's the only way to ensure their own protection against the store owners with guns.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

First off, I simply estimated the number of citizens in your country. I never said that all of them carried guns. Actually, I stated the opposite :)

And I know you didn't just go there! So you think you saved the world, do you? Were you in WWII? Were your buddies? Even your parents?
I have all the respect in the world for those that actually fought in the war, but none for the brats that try to abuse it to their own end.

While we're there, how about you take a look at your own hands, and tell me if all the native american blood was worth not having to speak british english or, god forbid, learning the language of all the natives you brutally murdered and harassed so that you could have a country of your own at all.

"You don't win a war, you survive it". Read that sentence a couple of times, and think about what it means.

Re:good comment

[Some_Llama]

"Great, now you've reduced the amount of suspects by, I don't know, maybe 70% or more? Suddenly you have enough police to go around twice-and-a-half, and you can go ahead and really crack down on the real criminals,"

and since guns are illegal we should let the cops go in an search houses for guns since only criminals will have them.

Let's also declare a war on guns, history has proven that once we declare war on something, the situation drastically improves.. if it worked for drugs it will work on guns...

Re:good comment

[Some_Llama]

""an eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"?"

This is false, an eye for an eye would leave the whole world with one eye. and i assure you people would be more careful when it came to eye hazards.

"It has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with there being guns all around them."

I thought it had everything to do with people living in fear.

There are other countries who have just as much gun onwership as america with a far lower crime rate.. why is that?

Re:good comment

[KeiichiMorisato]

But you can't just go into your local Walmart in Canada to buy a gun. And the majority of the population that have guns, don't live in the major metropolitan areas. And.....our population is similar to the population of California...yet it's spread out over this huge land mass.....

Re:good comment

[_xeno_]

Sorta like how making drugs illegal has removed all drug-related crimes from the US?

When guns are made illegal, crooks get them the same way they get anything else that's illegal: illegally.

The best you can hope to do is replace the violent weapon with a different one. If there were no guns, then people would be murdering each other with knives and swords. (And axes, and hammers, etc.)

By the way, a quick Google search indicates that the US does not have the highest crime rate in the world. The Wikipedia gives that honor to either the Vatican City or Dominica depending on statistic source. Unfortunately I can't find any really good source deliniating crime rates, and the statistics suffer from non-uniform reporting and differing definitions of what is and isn't a crime.

It helps that the US was kind enough not to answer the UN survey of crime rates. Take that as you will.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

You take my first eye. I take your first eye in revenge. You take my second eye in revenge of your first. I (somehow, while being blind o_O) take YOUR second eye in revenge of MY second eye.

That leaves us both blind, as far as I can see. (pun intended)

I'd be might interested in the name of that particular country :)

no?

Well, I thought so...

Re:good comment

[flimflam]

I used to subscribe to this mode of thinking, but I'm not so sure anymore. Just looking at the 20th century, how many revolutions were fomented by essentially unarmed people (or at least people without legal arms). It seems to me that if a government has lost a certain amount of legitimacy and enough of the population has made the decision to rebel, it doesn't much matter if the people have guns or not. If the people aren't willing to rebel, it also doesn't make much difference.

I could be wrong and I haven't fully convinced myself of this, but that's the way I'm drifting.
 

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

but one thing I believe is that the easy access to guns, so that everyone can have one, is the reason the US has a high gun related death rate compared to other nations.

Yeah, if guns were harder to get, suiciders would use something else.

Now in the US, this criminal will be prepared to potentially face a person with a gun, and thus will not hesitate to protect his/her own life by either killing the clerk first, or having the mentality to kill that person.

Or they'll run away when a gun is produced, since they just want cash anyway.

But the problem is that many criminals will rob a store no matter what, due to their desperate nature/situation, and thus will use any means to rob that store.

Except that he'd prefer to rob the store (or house) when nobody was there, since he doesn't want to get shot.

Re:good comment

[spyfrog]

What are you talking about?

Are you implying that you americans defeated Htiler with the help of small firearms?
I am sure that the Sherman tanks, the flying fortresses and other military equipment didn't matter at all... no, Hitler was defeated by your hand guns!
What do you mean? That you sent a militia to the British side? And the british didn't do anything by themself?

Really, get a grip on reality.
Hitler was defeated by Russian T-34 tanks and russian soldiers.

Re:good comment

[jackbird]

I think the GP is saying they wished the judge had dismissed as a matter of law, rather than on the merits.

Re:good comment

[rifter]

"I find the judge's defense is sound: The judge basically identified that the level of violence in this game is already approved by society."

But that's the wrong test. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for restraining publication of anything. Even instructions for creating a nuclear bomb in the 50's.

That's just not the case. It's sad, but there is in fact ample precedent for restricting works wholesale. Think _Ulyses_ or _Lady_Chatterly's_Lover_ or _Lolita_ or anything else on the "banned books list." The legal standard established by precedent is exactly what the judge was following here. A work can be judged obscene and therefore unworthy of first amendment protection if it holds no artistic value, appeals to the prurient interest, and meets the community's standard of obscenity. I don't agree with that but that is how the law has been interpreted for a very long time. The judge's argument here is that the community already accepts a level of violence greater than what is contained in the game as valid entertainment, and there is nothing else objectionable in the game. Therefore it fails to meet the legal standard for obscenity and must be allowed.

Personally I am an absolutist when it comes to the constitution. I think when it says "shall make no law" that's what it should mean. None of this funny business about "reasonable compromises for society" and all that. The Constitution is not reasonable and does not compromise. It is not to be held to the standard of culture that was the product of millenia of oppression and ignorance. It stands above all and should be regarded in that way. I don't think it's even useful to go too far into what the "Founding Fathers" would have allowed. They could not possibly have completely imagined what they had unleashed. They had an idea, but even they were not ready to apply it as we have by freeing slaves, allowing non-landowners/non-whites/women to vote, etc. But despite the fact the government felt the need to amend it to accomplish these things, the law was already there in the constitution and the declaration of independance. "Society" was just not ready to apply it properly just as it was not ready to accept a world without kings where free men chose their own destiny and "class" no longer mattered.

Every time we try to apply the needs of "our heritage" and "society" to these things we take a step backward. That's why the constitution should be interpreted literally and followed as the supreme law of the land. It doesn't say "you have freedom of speech as long as you do not offend the most prudish of minds." It does not say you have the "right to be secure in [your] papers, effects" etc except when the government feels the need to pry. It says no and it means it. "make no law." Do not touch this area of life.

There have always been people who want to move backwards and want to change things back the way they used to be, especially people who once held more sway than they do now. They will always have an excuse, some reasonable argument why you should allow them to have their way. And that is why we should always follow the constitution. We should say that no means no, period. To believe this is alreday the case is to suffer from grave naivite and serious error.

Re:good comment

[EmperorKagato]

"Even instructions for creating a nuclear bomb in the 50's"

That sounds like open source to me.

So you're saying that you would be able to obtain all parts necessary (at the age of 12) to build a nuclear bomb with ease?
What useful is knowledge when you're still missing the tools to replicate a 1950's bomb?

Re:good comment

[gowen]

The government has an army, and the army has serious fucking hardware.
Exactly what legally-owned firearm do you think is going to stop an Abrams Tank?

You'll notice that the Iraqi insurgents are not using .45s and hunting rifles.

Re:good comment

[MrHanky]

Just face it, you can't expect an armed rebellion against fascism from the gun-touting Texans. I'd say that the freedom to own guns is an effective feel-good measure in an oppressive state: Look, you can own a gun, you can speak freely, you can vote for Kodos. As long as nothing you do ever matters, you can have any freedom you want.

Re:good comment

[xant]

Not to mention TV ratings, which aren't even enforceable without one of those awful chips, and which still require *parents*, not officers of the law, to carry out the enforcement.

Re:good comment

[afidel]

Actually quite a few articles with much less information than bomb making instructions were quashed due to national security concerns. In fact on May 15th 1945 the Office of Censorship sent out a memo to editors and broadcasters stating

""Scientific experiments.--The Code of Wartime Practices requests that nothing be published or broadcast about 'new or secret military weapons...experiments.' In extension of this highly vital precaution, you are asked not to publish or broadcast any information whatever regarding war experiments involving: Production or utilization of atom smashing, atomic energy, atomic fission, atomic splitting, or any of their equivalents; the use for military purposes of radium or radioactive materials, heavy water, high voltage discharge equipment, cyclotrons; the following elements or any of their compounds--polonium, uranium, ytterbium, hafnium, protactinium, radium, rhenium, thorium, deutrium."

So official censorship does and has happened even in a Democracy. As the wikipedia article mentions some people are talking about bringing back the office of censorship for the undeclared war on terror which is an unwinnable war without a possible definitive end.

Re:good comment

[rifter]

Consider the fact that maybe you don't NEED guns for that? And should you ever DO need guns in an event like that, I'm sure there'd be no problem getting them.

I don't know of any country in the entire world with nearly as many guns as you, that are as afraid of yourselves that you are. Remember, Bush can't hold down 300 million americans alone. YOU have the power, you're just too lazy and afraid to admit it, rather relying on guns to do the talking and objecting.

Think about it. If 300 MILLION americans rose up against an abusive government, even without weapons, what the hell could they do about it?

Get your heads out of your gun-barrels and think about it. Really think about it.

ps.

I live in sweden. We have idiots. We have a government. We have idiots IN the goverment. Yet, not a single citizen here feels that guns should be a "right" so that we can defend ourselves against said goverment. And we're just a measly 9 million people over here :)

What would happen to them is the same thing that happened to the people who rose up against Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and the Chinese government. They would be gunned down by the tools of the state and any survivors gathered for the torture chamber just to make sure the point was not lost on the rest of the populace, primarily because of the lack of means to oppose that level of force. When the Germans invaded your country resistance was only possible because guerilla fighters had weapons to use and advantage over terrain. Even then they were not expelled overnight.

There are other countries with more access to weapons than we have. I know it does not help my point, but the level of weaponry legally allowed in Iraq is shocking to most Americans. Actually, Iraq is instructive in one other way. The Shia were unable to oppose Saddam because gunships vs small arms = you are dead with your AK. The level of weaponry the common citizen has in the US is utterly impotent against the might of our military forces and machines were they ever turned against us. The only hope left is that the common soldier continues to hold true to those values that the German soldier threw away; they have sworn to defend the constitution with their life, and as long as they continue to do that they will never allow themselves to be blatantly misused.

Re:good comment

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Not to mention TV ratings, which aren't even enforceable without one of those awful chips, and which still require *parents*, not officers of the law, to carry out the enforcement."

A few things:
TV ratings are enforceable without a V-chip equipped television. Saying that the chip is required for enforcement is like saying to keep kids from eating ice cream after 7 requires a locking mechanism on the freezer.
Also, what's so awful about the V-chip?

Re:good comment

[rkcallaghan]

endemoniada wrote:

I live in sweden. We have idiots. We have a government. We have idiots IN the goverment. Yet, not a single citizen here feels that guns should be a "right" so that we can defend ourselves against said goverment. And we're just a measly 9 million people over here :)

I realize we're getting really offtopic here, but the discussion is what makes the site so please hear me out.

You've presented a valid discussion. Earlier in the thread you asked if your position sounded at all logical; and I completely grant you that it does. It's inductive logic however, which does not guarentee the accuracy of the outcome even if all the premise are correct. I submit to you that a different society may have different circumstance which requires different needs.

Here in the United States, the fact is we have a crime problem. I'm not going to get in to overthrowing the government because while a valid position, I don't personally see it as the most important factor in why pro-gun people want guns. Anyway, back to our crime problem. Yes, we have crimes that are committed with guns. However, these are almost universally committed with illegal weapons; and not by the honest citizens who do it 'by the book'. Thus, they would still exist even if we took the weapons away from the honest citizens -- they weren't affected by the law to begin with, and even yourself you noted that illegal weapons would still exist.

What we do have in our society is a historically proven fact that these crimes are greatly reduced in areas that allow legal gun ownership. The honest citizen is safer in an area where honest citizens have guns. I have lived in two major metropolitan areas in my lifetime. In Chicago, "gun control" legislation is strong, and most of the honest citizens do not own many weapons and they do not have legal options for concealed weapons permits. Mugging, carjackings, shootings -- these things are all daily occurances in Chicago. Maybe not to you, but they're so common that they barely merit attention on the news anymore. More importantly, the victims of these crimes are the honest citizens; it's much safer to attack the honest citizen who is unarmed than for these gang members and thugs to attack each other (though that happens too). In Phoenix, the people out here have a very "wild west" mentality and part of that is reflected in the gun laws. It is not difficult to legally aquire a personal firearm, and with no special training or permit you are allowed to "Open Carry" -- meaning if you want to cowboy up and wear a Colt 45 on your hip that sticks out and everyone can see it, by all means do. We also allow concealed-carry weapons permits which require training and testing but are not all that difficult to do. Many people have this option, women carry small pistols in their purses, my father has carried a 9mm when working in the city, and he was (now retired) a typical businessman (clean, upstanding citizen, didn't drink and drive, paid his taxes, etc). The crimes that are a daily occurance in Chicago are all but unheard of in Phoenix. The honest citizens are armed, and thus they are a less lucrative target. It's not good crime sense to mug a man like my father for maybe 200 dollars and take the risk that him or someone he is with is going to pull a gun right back at you. Since the criminal takes the gun risk in either honest targets or other criminals -- most of them are committing these crimes against each other. The other criminals have bling (lots of gold), drugs, and pimped out cars. This is much more lucrative than my father's 200$.

I realize my story is empirical, and correlation does not guarentee causation -- but correlation does affect public opinion and in this particular case I think we should consider causation because of the "market factor" that an armed mark is a more dangerous mark. Across the country, history has borne out the truth of the statement "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."

~Rebecca

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

Something that strikes me as both odd and sad, is that you're debating as if crime is something expected, something natural. I'm not saying that a law against guns will get rid of crime all together, I'm saying it will help.

Don't think whether the robber will run away or kill someone, think of why he's robbing anyone at all. He obviously needs money, and since there's such an easy access to guns, he'll simply get one and point in someones face.

Consider that far chance that maybe, just maybe, not having a gun will make this guy think twice, maybe figure out a way to get money without hurting anyone, or atleast not by robbing someone at length away where he can't get hurt, but has to come in close with a knife or whatever, in a position where he can be taken down even by someone WITHOUT a weapon. Gasp! Stranger things have happened.

Guns aren't the solution to everything, and banning them certainly isn't either. But it's a step in the right direction, and if we want to stop hearing about minors with guns in the streets, kids killing teachers because they got bad grades or were bullied, or babies crawling into the closet and accidentally firing the gun at themselves, we're going to take this step and actually try and make this a better world.

Crime won't stop itself, and if guns can't kill people then they can't stop violence either.

People kill people, but people also stop crime.

Re:good comment

[MrNougat]

And in my opinion there should be no C.

Clearly, you have the lead on me regarding logical notation, but I'm glad I made sense.

But there must be a C, even if there is neverending argument about what C is. Without C, society is amoral, and snuff films and kiddie porn are okay. I'm saying there is a C, and that those are two things that are on the other side of it. Things like women's breasts are arguable. And I think that good people having honest discussions about what's less than or greater than C is a good thing.

I know, the decision here is whether something is saleable or not, and if it's legal it should be saleable. So extend my thoughts to whether something should be legal or not.

Re:good comment

[soft_guy]

That's right - not enforced by law. Enforced by Wal-Mart.

But wait a minute...I thought Wal-Mart was the President of the United States? Is he the Supreme Court now?

Re:good comment

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Wow -- finally, a law where it belongs. This kind of legislation is what is intended by allowing municipalities the right to create and enforce their own laws. Not at the national or state level, where the opinions of few are forced upon the many, with no alternative. Instead, at the municipal level, which is presumably much more representative of the will of majority of residents than any legislation at the state or national level.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

Taking my argument and exaggerating it is not an automatic "I win"-button.

I didn't say guns should be outlawed in its entirety. If criminals have them, then police has to have them aswell, in order to take them away from criminals. But regular people aren't the police, and should stop thinking they are. If the police didn't have to worry about regular people killing regular people with guns they can legally own, they'd have plenty more time to take the guns away from the people you claim you're only defending yourself against.

And who ever said anything about a war against guns? Please, if you want to appear the least bit intelligent, try to stick to the actuall discussion without making things up :)

Re:good comment

[soft_guy]

The funny thing is, the libtards attribute that behavior to conservatives (which you do see some of), but THEY are the real culprits.

You must be new here. And by "here", I mean "politics", not "slashdot".

Re:good comment

[Ravenscall]

The government has an army, and the army has serious fucking hardware.
Exactly what legally-owned firearm do you think is going to stop an Abrams Tank?

Name ANY firearm that will stop an Abrams tank. However a well placed Molotov Cocktail can work wonders...

You'll notice that the Iraqi insurgents are not using .45s and hunting rifles.

You seem to forget the Iraqi Farmer that shot down an Apache with an 1890's vintage hunting rifle.

Re:good comment

[soft_guy]

Think about it, for example, if a criminal is robbing a store in Canada, that criminal will not have the mentality that it will be a life or death situation, since most people don't carry guns.

In Canada, the criminal will rob your house when you are home. In the US, he will rob your house when you are not home because he knows you can kill him if you are home (at least everywhere but the northeast).

Personally, I'd rather be robbed when I am NOT at home so that I am not killed. If you take away the guns, then the criminals will just come in your house, rape your wife, rob you, kill you whatever. The purpose of taking away guns is to make the general public into better targets for crime. Personally, I'd rather the criminal think I might have a gun.

Re:good comment

[yuna49]

I wondered about the punctuation of this sentence in the article. There's quite a difference between:

"A whole lot. Less than we see on television every night."

and

"A whole lot less than we see on television every night."

The former version reinforces the "There's a lot of violence" sentence before it; the latter makes a comparison. I wonder what the judge really meant to say.

Re:good comment

[soft_guy]

So you're saying that if you wanted to sue CBS because you thought CSI was too graphic, you should be able to file a motion, and CSI would have to submit a TV show and the judge would look at a show and decide if it was okay?

That doesn't sound like too bad of a system. Then, after considering my case, the judge should rule that my lawsuit is a nuisance suit and award CBS with legal fees (paid by me) and dismiss the suit with prejudice so that I cannot re-file. And the judge should call me a knucklehead. And let the CBS legal team kick me.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Something that strikes me as both odd and sad, is that you're debating as if crime is something expected, something natural. I'm not saying that a law against guns will get rid of crime all together, I'm saying it will help.

Um, it is natural. There are always people trying to get away with something. Also, you haven't offered anything other than your opinion on how it will help.

He obviously needs money, and since there's such an easy access to guns, he'll simply get one and point in someones face.

And without guns, it's a knife or a gun. He's either scum or poor and desperate, so the solution is to fix the economic problem and lock up or kill the scum.

Consider that far chance that maybe, just maybe, not having a gun will make this guy think twice, maybe figure out a way to get money without hurting anyone

You're funny.

Guns aren't the solution to everything, and banning them certainly isn't either. But it's a step in the right direction, and if we want to stop hearing about minors with guns in the streets, kids killing teachers because they got bad grades or were bullied, or babies crawling into the closet and accidentally firing the gun at themselves, we're going to take this step and actually try and make this a better world.

Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you're a liberal. A REAL liberal, not one of those socialist usurpers who call themselves a liberal because socialism has a bad name in the U.S. You're a liberal in the same sense as Voltaire and John Locke.

It's really very simple: if the people don't want this type of thing, there will be no market for it. QED. Nanny state politics and overbearing government intrusion need not apply. If you must engage in lawsuit abuse and political hackery to prevent things like this from coming to bear, then you are merely using an abusive, authoritarian system to engage in anti-free-market tactics for the purposes of enforcing your minority view on a large number of free people.

While we're on the subject, let's point out to all our conservative friends that these very same people despised the very notion of traditionalism (one of the prime elements in a lot of current social and political debates) and rejected the idea that past behavior was a valid criteria for determining a future path. Funny how living under the affliction of the Divine Right of Kings will give you a (rightful) distaste for arbitrary tradition.

It really is sad to see how badly things have gotten away from us over the last 100 years or so. I feel bad that the framers did all that work for nothing.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That was a request. The War Dept tried and failed to restrict people from independtly discovering how to make a nuke and then publish, so they requested that people not do that.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Prior restraint, not banning books, but preventing them from being published. There is no precedent for this, and there shouldn't be.

Re:good comment

[Mark Maughan]

Saying that lawful gun owners rarely commit any crimes is misleading. Most gun related deaths are the result of domestic attacks, accidents, and suicides. Guns are far more dangerous to the owner/family/friends than to any perp. It is correct that the lawful owner isn't generally suspected of commiting a _crime_ except in the case of domestic violence (which you neglected to mention), though someone who steals that gun is. The gun cabinet is almost always plundered in robberies which almost always occur when the gun owner isn't home.

The UK crime rate went up as their economy went down. High unemployment fosters crime. For instance, their auto theft rate shot through the roof. But guess what? Their level of violent crimes like murder remained lower than the US even though their overall crime rate became much higher. If anything the UK is an annecdote that gun restriction works even when times are bad.

Personally I don't think the UK model can work as well in the US. We have far too many outdoorsmen. A criminal only needs to steal a hunting weapon from them. Not nearly as many people hunt in England. But I do think that handguns could be prohibited. And I do think that would work to some degree and make the US safer as a rifle or shotgun is much harder to conceal but better at home defense (the intimidation factor of it's size) and better for any future rebellions against our tyrannical government (in keeping with the 2nd ammendment).

Re:good comment

[TheScottishGuy]

"But what if we need to rise up again against some type of authority that abuses its power? What if the day when everyday citizen will need to protect themselves from the authority? Look at what's going on in U.S. today, is it really that unthinkable that we can no longer trust the people who are suppose to be our 'representatives' in the government??" Do you realistically think that if it comes to us vs the government that a handful of gun club members with colts in the besdide cabinet will be of the slightest use against the national guard or the army? think about the situation you're describing, how many people will take up arms against the government? now think about how many people are employed by the government to bear arms, now imagine those two groups meeting in the street, who'd win? rising up against the government is such a bullshit reason for owning guns it's ridiculous. the right to bear arms is not infringed, you can totally bear arms in a well organized militia, in fact in the us you have a choice, army, navy, marines, air force, shit, ypu even get paid for it. two hicks in a dodge ram with a gun rack does not make a "well organized militia"

Re:good comment

[theghost]

Hold up there just a second buddy. If he can't be given credit for fighting Nazis he shouldn't be given the blame for murdering Native Americans either. Show a little consistency there.

Re:good comment

[KeiichiMorisato]

Except that he'd prefer to rob the store (or house) when nobody was there, since he doesn't want to get shot

I knew this would be brought up, and the answer is that this applies if a store/house having a gun is not that prevalent. However in the US and the ease of obtaining a gun, unless the criminal takes the the time to case a house/store to determine if they have a gun (and who knows if they can ever find out), then they will assume they do have gun.

Yeah, if guns were harder to get, suiciders would use something else.

If you truly believe that the stats for gun related deaths are so high because of suicides, then you must do more research.

Or they'll run away when a gun is produced, since they just want cash anyway.

Yes they do want the cash, and they will get it with whatever means necessary because many times these people are desperate, rarely for food or essentials, but to satisfy their addictions be it drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.... People get killed for $20, because many of these criminals are not rational.

Re:good comment

[PresidentEnder]

I hate to say it, but your founding fathers weren't really unbiased either. You took a country by force from its very natives while basically comitting mutiny against another country. Of course they needed guns.

That's it, right there. That's why we need guns. It has nothing to do with crime, or deer hunting, or aliens or sport. It's about being able to "mutiny" against our government.

Re:good comment

[Ironsides]

what's so awful about the V-chip?

It's a government mandated "feature" that jacks up the cost of the TV.

Re:good comment

[KeiichiMorisato]

I actually agree with some of the stuff you said, but I must disagree with the following comment. Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.

There is no correlation that banning guns will increase crime. The excuse has always been "Criminals who want guns will get guns, thus we need guns to protect ourselves". This may apply to the big gangs and smugglers who have far reaching contacts to get guns (if there were strict gun laws), but without the easy access to guns in the US, do you really think the majority of gun crimes committed by lowly criminals would have had the money or contacts to get a gun?

It is because of the ease of getting guns, that criminals can have access to them. Thus, the feeling that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves. As an example, in Canada again, guns aren't illegal, people can have them, but it's just harder to get them. Thus, the majority of criminals don't have guns. Sure, as I said earlier, the major gangs have them, but rarely are they involved with small time robberies, etc, and regular citizens. Unforutnately, more and more guns are being smuggled north into Canada from the US now.....

Also one more thing....even though I agree on a grand statistical scale, school killings are an exception to the rule (just like plane crashes are), it is not a minor problem. When a plane crashes, it's a MAJOR problem because it is deviating from the norm and the problem is handled until an answer surfaces. That is the same thing for school shootings. Would you think it's a minor problem, if one of your children was killed in a school shooting....As sad as it is, there are crimes that people expect and crimes that fall outside of this expectation and thus more emphasis is placed upon them. Nothing in life is just about numbers...

Re:good comment

[Symp0sium]

"I'm simply questioning this judge putting himself in a position to judge." Yeah Judges should never judge anything.

Re:good comment

[Greatmoose]

Consider that far chance that maybe, just maybe, not having a gun will make this guy think twice, maybe figure out a way to get money without hurting anyone

That HAS to be joke. Really. You can't actually believe that. How old are you?

Re:good comment

[Apocalypse111]

This is why many people that are considered "crazies" (and admittedly, many are) are of the mind that all military hardware should be available to the public.

Whether the idea of rebellion nowadays is realistic or not, the idea that people should be allowed to own guns is part of our constitution. It was put there for a reason - because the framers had just gotten done fighting a war against an oppresive regime that wanted to take away their ability to fight back! I can't speak for the founding fathers, but I imagine that they wanted to ensure that, should the US government become too much like the English one they just threw off, that the citizenry would be able to fight back. Or at least, that's what I believe, your interpretation may vary.

Oh, and it doesn't take much to stop a tank. An explosive made of household chemicals can tear apart the treads, immobilizing it. A quick trip to Lowes and Radio Shack and you could stop a battalion of tanks.

Re:good comment

[russotto]

Poor Hammurabi. Thanks to Gandhi, many people fail to give him the credit he deserves.

It's an eye for an eye, and it _stops there_. That ends it. The person punished doesn't then get to go back and take the original victim's other eye.

If there's no deterrent effect at all, "an eye for an eye" causes twice as many eyes to get poked out as "no punishment". It doesn't leave the whole world blind. The idea, of course, is that there WILL be a deterrent.

Re:good comment

[KeiichiMorisato]

How many cases have their been of home invasions compared to the US? Many of the home invasions in Canada are gang related and involve drugs and other gang related activities, and guess where most of the guns come from....smuggled from the US.

Again, the assumption that "Criminals who want guns will get them", is a fallacy because in the US a lot of criminals have guns BECAUSE of the easy access to these guns. With a few barriers of obtaining these guns, the majority of criminals won't have the ease to obtain these guns, except for really connect criminals and organized crime. These barriers won't affect law abiding citizens from obtaining guns either.

The purpose of taking away guns is so that the majority of the population/criminals probably won't take the effort to get the guns. The extreme ends of the spectrum (like all stats) will have them. One end are the law enforcement officials, hunters, gun enthusiasts willing to go through some hoops for guns, and the other end belongs to organized crime and gangs and some petty criminals who have the connections. Sure you will have exceptions, but it is far better than the situation it is now.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

There is no correlation that banning guns will increase crime.

Britain might choose to disagree.

The excuse has always been "Criminals who want guns will get guns, thus we need guns to protect ourselves".

No, it's "we have a right to guns, and they help protect us from criminals". Who else is going to do that, anyway?

his may apply to the big gangs and smugglers who have far reaching contacts to get guns (if there were strict gun laws), but without the easy access to guns in the US, do you really think the majority of gun crimes committed by lowly criminals would have had the money or contacts to get a gun?

Yeah, making all guns illegal opens up a new market for street gangs - easy access to a gun and bullets to use with it. As a bonus, if it breaks, no recourse against the seller.

Would you think it's a minor problem, if one of your children was killed in a school shooting....As sad as it is, there are crimes that people expect and crimes that fall outside of this expectation and thus more emphasis is placed upon them. Nothing in life is just about numbers...

Sure would. 100 deaths a year means they're more likely to die crossing the road or playing in water. It's also within expectations and falling, so what's your problem?

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If you truly believe that the stats for gun related deaths are so high because of suicides, then you must do more research.

Did that. Japan has a similar death rate to us, despite having minimal access to guns. Since they have a lower murder rate, they have a higher suicide rate. This imples (but does not prove) that suicide is largely independent of the methods used. According to the CDC, about 16000 people killed themselves with a gun in the past year, which makes up a substantial amount of the total deaths by firearm. It's likely that the majority of the others are due to gang on gang violence.

Yes they do want the cash, and they will get it with whatever means necessary because many times these people are desperate, rarely for food or essentials, but to satisfy their addictions be it drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.... People get killed for $20, because many of these criminals are not rational.

Sounds like an argument for concealed carry to me. If someone comes after me desparate for a fix, I'm happy to shoot them instead of dying myself.

Re:good comment

[drewson99]

Abso-freaking-lutely. I am gettiing really tired of reading posts on gaming sites by people cheering this finding, and saying things like "Jacko got PWNED!!!" Anyone celebrating after this debacle is not paying attention. We are on the verge of a desperate situation when a judge can demand that a piece of media be produced in court for evaluation before it's release. Period. Why is this concept over so many people's heads?

Re:good comment

[ConceptJunkie]

Eventually there will be no channel to change to for "family" programming.

There will always be the perfect "family" programming channel. It's called "OFF".

Also, we personally find tons of perfect family-appropriate material on DVD's of shows released in the 60's and even the 70's.

At some point, you need to realize that TV is not only getting worse, but is beyond the point of being saved. You can complain all you want, and it might even do some good (although it almost never does). Your only defense is to quit the game. Network TV as we knew it is practically gone, and what little good that is left won't be long for this world.

Give up. Find alternatives. It's a better use of your time.

Network TV deserves to die.

Re:good comment

[HiThere]

The main societal controls against revolution due to revulsion against the government cannot be addressed with guns. Certainly not with pistons. (Sharpshooter rifles with telescopic sights...maybe.)

Most of the true villains do not have faces known to the public. You would need to be so convinced in your cause, and there would need to be so many of you, that you could kill the government by killing all the tax collectors. Be aware that this would destroy the value of the paper money, as it's value is totally maintained by the government's demand that you pay it for taxes or they will confiscate your property. This will mean that many or most of the citizens starve, possibly to death.

Is anyone sane that determined? Yes, the government is evil, but it's not THAT evil. This would only ensure replacing an oligarch by a military dictator, without the false-front of a "popular election".

Re:good comment

[Taevin]

Obviously you haven't thought out the position of people who want gun ownership as another level of protection against a corrupt government. First off, you're absolutely right that a bunch of people standing in the streets attacking a well organized force of armored vehicles is going to lose. Hard. Even against an organized force of trained infantry using effective methods of crowd control the mob is going to be very limited in effectiveness. However, that's not at all how it would play out.

In the Revolutionary War, did we line up into neat little rows to be shot to hell by British forces? Not really. Our primary tactic was guerilla warfare which can and will work. An armed citizenry would make it a living hell for a government to control by force. Hunters especially would excel in this type of warfare. They know the land, are used to moving around stealthily, and are practiced with a firearm. One only needs to look to Iraq to get an idea of how effective this kind of warfare can be. Sure, our forces absolutely decimated their armed forces. But then we had to hold it, which of course has proved considerably more difficult and expensive, both monetarily and in loss of life.

Also consider that there are only 1.4 million active duty members of the military. Of those, over half are enlisted in the Navy and Air Force. The major assets of those branches (war machines) would be limited in effectiveness in the kind of war we're talking about. Certainly the soldiers in those branches could be used in a land war but they have less training in that kind of warfare than the Army or Marines. Then consider that those 1.4 million soldiers would be fighting a force of possibly 300 million over an area the size of the United States - not a simple task.

Here's the most important part though: do you really think the entire military would unquestioningly turn against the people they've sworn to protect? Their families, friends, and hometowns? Doubtful. Certainly there are plenty of blockheads who would do whatever their CO told them to do, but most of the people in the military that I've met are extremely strong of character. I'd put my money on most of the members of the military siding with their families over what a bunch of old guys in the government told them to do. Combine that with a bunch of angry citizens with guns and you make it extremely difficult for a government to defend against.

I'm sure there's a lot I've left out because there is a lot to this issue. The main point is that people often seem to underestimate the power of guns in the hand of honest citizens. Which is of course odd because in one breath they'll speak all the evils that are clearly the fault of a hunk of metal and not a deranged person, and then in the next breath describe how completely useless that same hunk of metal is. That's the problem with emotional responses, there's rarely any logic involved. Somehow the weapon is at fault by making it possible to kill the victim. However, that ignores the fact that any object can be used as a weapon and no weapon apart from the attacker's own body is necessary to kill a victim.

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I should know better than to get involved in this argument, but I'm curious: How often has armed resistance by US citizens against perceived opression from your government turned out well?
Your second amendment is there to keep you scared of everything but the thing you should be scared of the most: Your government, by giving you a false sense of security.

Re:good comment

[TheScottishGuy]

total kudos to you for an extremely well reasoned response, I honestly agree with you that that's how the situation would likely play out, except that i believe that any possible revolt would be quickly quashed, so soldiers would never be asked to turn against their families, just against a group of extremist survivalists shcaked up/hiding in the woods of montana (running to the extreme end of the example here) how do those scenarios usually end up? I just think that it's a thin argument for legalizing armalites and mac 10's

Re:good comment

[ender-]

I have to call BS on you. It's only costing an extra couple dollars [as in literally $1-2.00] to add the v-chip to a TV, so I'm afraid that's not a valid argument.

I'll grant you, I don't think it should be federally mandated, as that's not really their place, but as a feature on a TV, it's nice to have. It's useful for those of us with kids, and it is totally, 100% non-intrusive for those who don't want or need to use it. Well, except for when the munchkin manages to keep hitting the v-chip button on the remote while you're watching something, and the 'enter password' prompt pops up unexpectedly, but that's hardly the v-chip's fault. :)

Re:good comment

[Chowderbags]

Fortunately, the will of the majority can't overrule the rights of the minority. Even if 99% of a community wanted to outlaw someone from distributing communist pamphlets, it wouldn't (and definitely shouldn't) stand as a law in America.

Re:good comment

[metallic]

And I know you didn't just go there! So you think you saved the world, do you? Were you in WWII? Were your buddies? Even your parents?
I have all the respect in the world for those that actually fought in the war, but none for the brats that try to abuse it to their own end.

I have one Great Uncle that served both in WWII and Korea on my mothers side. He eventually retired as a Lt. Colonel after 30 years of service. I had two Great Uncles on my father's side that both fought in WWII. Of course my parents and I are too young, but that was a rhetorical question.

As for the United States participation as a whole, they were instrumental in the liberation of North Africa, Italy, France and the capture of Germany. That already says a lot. Then factor in the fact that we were also giving aid to the Russians and British prior to our entry into the war, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the United States was instrumental in the defeat of the Axis Powers. So no, we might not single handedly be responsible for saving the world, but it is hard to say that we didn't have a great deal to do with it. And FYI, the UK is still making payments for the supplies that we gave them under the Lend-Lease program. That should say a lot.

While we're there, how about you take a look at your own hands, and tell me if all the native
american blood was worth not having to speak british english or, god forbid, learning the language
of all the natives you brutally murdered and harassed so that you could have a country of your own
at all.

First of all, my family didn't come to the United States until the 1850's during the Irish Potato Famine. There's very little that my family personally had to do with the extermination of Native Americans. Secondly, I have Cherokee ancestry in my family which makes that statement even more ridiculous. If you want to get accusatory, Sweden had a colony in the New World too. So your country has some blood on its hands too. Not to mention the French, the British, and the Spanish.

Re:good comment

[AHuxley]

In Socialist Canada you talk to your doctor about the voices in your head. In Capitalist America gun talks to you.

Re:good comment

[Achromatic1978]

Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings

This is probably the saddest part of it all...

In most countries, five (if that) in a year would be a "bad year".

What is so endemically wrong that my country of 20+ million can have not a single school in the nation using metal detectors / security "on the door", but yet this is, if not the "norm", extremely commonplace in the US.

Re:good comment

[Achromatic1978]

Would you think it's a minor problem, if one of your children was killed in a school shooting....

Sure would. 100 deaths a year means they're more likely to die crossing the road or playing in water. It's also within expectations and falling, so what's your problem?

I find it amusing that you're seriously suggesting, were your child to be killed, that you'd go "Eh. Can't be surprised. Uncommon, but can't be unexpected."

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What is so endemically wrong that my country of 20+ million can have not a single school in the nation using metal detectors / security "on the door", but yet this is, if not the "norm", extremely commonplace in the US.

Metal detectors are usually put in the suburbs, where they aren't much use. It's not like the people shooting up schools have been walking around with a shotgun for a month, and less than 100 deaths in a year out of 300 million people is really really low. We'd save more lives by getting nonroadworthy cars off the road.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, I'd think it's a minor problem overall. The death of your child is a tragedy. The death of 100 is a statistic.

Re:good comment

[tkrotchko]

You could file a complaint with the FCC after it aired, but the FCC isn't actually a "judge"; it's part of the executive branch that determines if something is not suitable (a power that I don't agree with, BTW). The FCC's only power deals with something already aired on "broadcast" TV. It has no power over say, a movie, a video game, or a book. It doesn't even have power over a TV show unless it's shown on particular frequencies.

In any case you couldn't complain about an upcoming episode of CSI to anybody. Why would you grant that power to a judge in the case of a video game? That's my point. The judge should have simply said "this is not even available, you haven't seen it, so how could you bring a complaint to me when even YOU haven't seen it? Case dismissed"

That would have been 30 seconds of time. About right for this one.

"This attitude is not prudent since all the broadcast networks tend toward the lowest common denominator of what they can get away with. Eventially there will be no channel to change to for "family" programming."

I didn't realize there was a right to family programming? If there isn't any stuff you feel is suitable, then get rid of your antenna or cable box. Poof. The stuff disappears. Please understand, I agree that TV is not suitable for kids except for very specific shows. But I don't really think I have the right to demand family entertainment from a commercial entity. Seriously.

Re:good comment

[slarabee]

I have to call BS on you. It's only costing an extra couple dollars [as in literally $1-2.00] to add the v-chip to a TV, so I'm afraid that's not a valid argument.

So what is the price point where government mandated financial cost is considered a valid argument?

Anyone have any hard data for what a v-chip actually costs? The only references a couple minutes of digging could dig up where nineties estimates of $30 to $40. Since these were primarily from opponents of the v-chip, I would assume they are likely on the high side.

Another couple minutes poking around found an estimate of total television sales from 2001 -- 28 million. What has it been, nearly seven years of mandated v-chipping? That works out to 196 to 392 million total extra dollars using your own $1 to $2 guess. 7.8 billion dollars for the ludicrous high cost estimates.

In either case, toss in the costs from having to appropriately review every single television episode so the proper rating signals can be encoded. Probably a few bucks involved in having someone then do the actual encoding. Hmm, another few bucks for purchase, installation and maintenance of the needed broadcast equipment.

Seems like a lot of money considering the abysmally low v-chip usage rate. And considering that any child with the slightest motivation can reset the v-chip password. And considering the lack of quality research into how much harm Little Timmy will suffer if he is exposed to The Man Show. And considering the fact there are a large number of folks who still carry the antiquated notion that actually parenting is more than a appropriate substitute for a half-assed electronic nanny.

Re:good comment

[tkrotchko]

"That is what judges do, judge things."

Not really. And if he's doing his job, he throws it out because the judge is smart enough to know that there's nothing there to rule on!

Let me give an example. If I'm writing a book, and I tell people that's a revisionist view of WW2 with the Germans as the "good guys", and my neighbor objects, he can't go to a judge and say "Your honor, he is writing a book that offends me and likely offends this community. Make him stop." Well he can. But do you think the judge would say to me "Sir, give me a copy of your manuscript so I can 'judge' it"?

No, he wouldn't for a lot of reasons:

1) I'm allowed to write books that offend
2) I'm allowed to be wrong
3) And until I actually publish it, the judge couldn't ask me to stop writing it just because it might offend someone.
4) Even if I published it, he still can't do anything about it because it's not his job to review books.

I'm guessing that the judge would likely say something like "Sir, stop bothering this court with nonsense". And that's what the judge should have done in this case. It was not his right to review the game. Just like it isn't the judge's right to review books, or movies, or magazines, or anything like that.

Re:good comment

[Sj0]

A child once built a breeder reactor in his back yard using easily available materials.

One problem with the state of science education in the world is that people don't realize just how close they are to destruction, causing them to fraudulently believe that they can protect themselves by giving up their freedom and privacy.

Re:good comment

[Sj0]

Did you watch Iraq? They had infinitely better weapons than you're likely to have. Presently, the most advanced military force in the world is so far beyond being defeated by a few yokels with rifles, it's not even worth trying. It's like kings, who had a trained, armed militia, versus serfs, who could only really choose to either be subjugated or die.

Re:good comment

[Sj0]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the military didn't supply guns to their officers?

This assertion seems dubious at best.

Perhaps you're saying that the soldiers were ready to be soldiers because of the gun culture. Unfortunately, I remember vividly hearing a historian tell about how green American soldiers were avoided by other soldiers at first because they were loud and would attract mortar fire.

In the first world war, the Americans saved Europe by tipping the balance of power. In the second, they saved europe by being an economic powerhouse while Europe burned. Although both situations are wonderful and I'm sure everyone is quite glad the Germans didn't win either of the world wars, it was a well oiled economic engine paired with geographic isolation which gave the Americans their greatest strengths, not, if anything I've read is any indication, any particular superiority of soldier.

Re:good comment

[NeutronCowboy]

I speak German as my primary language. Yet I'm american. Wanna try that ass-backward argument again? Or are you just generally insulting Germans? Besides, I really don't get your point. There aren't many guns in the US, but it has a deeply ingrained gun culture? And somehow, that gun culture won WWII? If there's a deeply ingrained gun culture, shouldn't there be lots of guns in the country? And what exactly does a gun culture have to do with winning foreign wars? Last I checked, WWII was essentially won due to overwhelming economic resources by the US and massive human sacrifices by the Russians. Gun Culture had nothing to do with it.

Re:good comment

[fishbowl]

>A child once built a breeder reactor in his back yard using easily available materials.

A hoax continues to circulate widely that a child once built a breeder reactor. People who should have better critical reasoning skills continue to be taken in by the hoax.

Re:good comment

[trewornan]

This is only a hoax in as much as the reactor David Hahn built never achieved criticality. It was however a working neutron gun (and quite effective by all accounts), I guess it depends what you mean by a reactor. And incidentally - I've never heard anyone specifically state that he made a breeder reactor.

Re:good comment

[metallic]

Are you implying that you americans defeated Htiler with the help of small firearms?
I am sure that the Sherman tanks, the flying fortresses and other military equipment didn't matter at all... no, Hitler was defeated by your hand guns!

Of course it mattered, but ultimately WWII came down to boots on the ground, just like in any war. It hasn't been until the last 10 or 15 years that air power has had such a devastating effect on the outcome of modern wars. Korea and Vietnam are excellent examples of this. And even today, it still comes down to boots on the ground. Afghanistan and Iraq are both excellent modern examples.

But ultimately, WWII was primarily a ground war. Altogether the big three Allied Powers lost nearly 17,000,000 people in WWII. That breaks down to around 400,000 for the US, 400,000 for the UK and around 12,000,000 for the Russians.

And as for the Sherman tanks, that is a horrible example. The Sherman was considered a death trap by its crew. It's armor was too thin and its main battle gun was underpowered. The only saving grace it had was the fact that we were able to produce them in great numbers. But make no mistake, if a Sherman went up against any of the tanks that the Germans had it would lose.

What do you mean? That you sent a militia to the British side? And the british didn't do anything by themself?

No, of course the United States didn't do it alone. The British were in the fight well before we were. But the entire time that we were supposedly a neutral power during WWII, the United States was supplying the British and the Russians with weapons and supplies to fight against the Germans. When we finally did enter the war in December of 1941, we actually had 7 Army Aviators officially participating in the Battle of Britain. And even to this day, the UK is still making payments on the equipment that we supplied them under Lend-Lease.

Really, get a grip on reality.
Hitler was defeated by Russian T-34 tanks and russian soldiers.

In terms of the Eastern Front, Hitler was defeated by his own miscalculations. He believed that he could take Russia in three months before the harsh Russian winter set in. As a result, when winter did come his troops were ill-equipped to fight in the harsh winter climate. Hitler also made the mistake of disregarding the advice of his best generals, sending them back to Germany and replacing them with officers that would simply say yes to his line of thinking. Instead of keeping the initiative and continuing his advance to take Moscow, he diverted his attention to taking the Ukraine and gave the Russians time to bring in reinforcements from Siberia. In short, Hitler was his own worst enemy in this respect.

But in the end, both the United States and the Soviet Union were rushing towards Berlin and arrived there within days of each other. The Soviet Union got there first and hence Germany's surrender to Soviet forces. But to say that the Soviet Union defeated Germany would be inaccurate.

Re:good comment

[binaryspiral]

The vchip implementation has been shatty at best on every TV I've seen.

Having to dig through OSD menus at night after my kid goes to bed, just so I can watch a TVMA show. Then having to remember to dig back through the same damn menus to reactivate the lock.

And using a 4 digit code - wee... a dedicated unsupervised child could break it in a half hour of sequential tries.

That's why I supervise my children and leave the Vchip off. P
arenting.. meh, it's not that hard - you just have to do it.

Re:good comment

[azimir]

i believe that any possible revolt would be quickly quashed
Kudos to you right back for some actual dialogue about a tough topic.

I agree that any open revolt would be quashed. Have you considered the root of many of the atrocities committed during a country occupation? It's because the soldiers on the ground have *no idea* who their opponent is. When you stand in a crowd and have to pick out the people that are passively, and some actively, resisting you things get ugly. Most resistance to an occupation do not run around in their pickup waving firearms.

It really comes down to the fact that no government can hold a country if the people there don't want them. This rings especially true if those people are able to violently resist from day one. All the oppressors can do is kill the people en mass. This sounds like a bad trade, but it's the only one you have when someone else is trying to violently assert their will over you. If your only choices are: give in, peacefully demonstrate (see Tinamen Square, if the government has the drive to do it in front of internet broadcasts [can't trust the national media in such cases]), or fight, the US founding fathers would hope that their descendants would pick the last option. "Live free or die."

I personally hope that it never comes to that in this country. The only way to prevent it is civic participation and education. The lack of civics courses in the schools here worries me, our youth are being raised without awareness of what it takes to maintain any kind of representative government. If it does come to it.... I'm not willing to remove the tools needed to use the fourth box.
There are four boxes for use in defense of democracy: soap, ballot, jury, ammo

I also happen to agree with the numbers that show that a knowingly armed society has lower rates of violent crime. Yes, you run the risk of individuals making rash/poor/ignorant decisions with accessible weapons, but much of that alleviated on an individual basis through education. You cannot protect everyone all the time from the real world. No matter how many layers of bubble wrap you put around pointy objects, someone must deal with those edges. The police recognize that they are not the ones responsible for your safety: you are. When the sh*t hits the fan, it up to you to deal with it. I say give them your wallet, but if they try to harm you & yours it is time for you to prove why you deserve to continue to exist. I'm not willing to take away valid tools from you. If you decide to not use those tools, that's your choice. I'd appreciate it if you extend me the same courtesy.


Ignorance brings fear.

Re:good comment

[TheScottishGuy]

I totally agree with most all of your points, with one small caveat, when you say: ~I also happen to agree with the numbers that show that a knowingly armed society has lower rates of violent crime. Yes, you run the risk of individuals making rash/poor/ignorant decisions with accessible weapons, but much of that alleviated on an individual basis through education I'd prefer that we get the education first, guns second. As liberal as I am I'd be behind a mandatory 6 months in service, make people do it right oour of high school, give them a semester of credit at ANY college and make sure every single person over the age of 18 knows how to safely handle and maintain a gun, once you finish your x weeks of basic you get to choose to spend the rest of your 6 month term in one of many services, from peace corps type stuff right through actual mil training, how much responsability and respect would we learn then?

Re:good comment

[himi]

What would happen to them is the same thing that happened to the people who rose up against Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and the Chinese government. They would be gunned down by the tools of the state and any survivors gathered for the torture chamber just to make sure the point was not lost on the rest of the populace, primarily because of the lack of means to oppose that level of force.

Ooookay . . . If you /really/ think the US military would do that to the US populace, then you have bigger problems than your gun fetish.

Or maybe you're right, and the US /has/ really become a nation where the military would be willing to commit mass murder of their fellow citizens. If that's the case, then you're fucked, and all the handguns and rifles in he world won't help.

himi

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the best reply I've seen in this whole thread :)

Re:good comment

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I think that depends on the context. Though your example isn't exactly analagous, I'll roll with it. You're right -- if they said, "You can't distribute this", then it would not (and should not) stand as law.

However, if they said, "In order to distribute this, you must first acquire a permit and agree to distribute your pamphlets only to persons over the age of 18", that WOULD stand.

Laws such as this are commonplace -- if you don't believe it, look in any of the many small towns which require permits for parades or even protests. Google for "protest permit", for example.

I am not claiming to understand the legal reasons why these are acceptable (because I don't), but I'm assuming it's because the activity in question is not actually banned. Instead, it's merely limited in a way that's acceptable to the community.

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stalinist" is the proper word to use here.

Although I might disagree, it can't be any worse than the word libtard. Seriously - libtard? Did you even read what you wrote? I thought "self righteous no-nothing (sic) piece of euro-trash" was bad, but "libtard" is the cherry on a bullshit sundae.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

Um, it is natural. There are always people trying to get away with something. Also, you haven't offered anything other than your opinion on how it will help.

Of course it's natural, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that while it is normal, it's still a bad thing. Or do you disagree?

And without guns, it's a knife or a gun. He's either scum or poor and desperate, so the solution is to fix the economic problem and lock up or kill the scum.

A knife is better than a gun, since you have an infintely greater chance if disarming someone 2 feet away, than someone 10 feet away. Once again, you seem to be under the impression that I think banning guns will magically do away with crime. I don't. It's step in right direction!

You're funny.

You're sad.

Okay, now you aren't funny. Banning guns will increase crime, since only the law abiding will suffer. Kids killing each other is a minor problem - only a hundred in a bad year for school shootings, and babies crawling into closets with loaded guns? What kind of parent leaves a loaded unsecured guns where a baby can get to it? Has this even happened? Ever? Anyway, you can try and take the step, but don't be surprised if you're the only one.

so 100 kids dying every year for no reason whatsoever isn't really that bad? Seriously, tell that to the face of the parents who lost their children.
And who would leave a gun loaded and with the safety off? Lots of people, that's who. Do you seriously think that everyone that owns a weapon knows how to use it? I wonder which one of us that's really living in a fantasy world.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

Well, that only applies in a world where someone could get their eye poked out, and be fine with it because it's his punishment. Sadly, that's not how someone who would poke someones eye out in the beginning works. The one who did the first eye-taking obviously thought he had a reason for it, and thus he thinks it's fair. When someone then comes and takes HIS eye, he'll think that's unfair. And that's when hell go on a one-eyed eye-gouging spree.

There's really no such thing as morality. There's only what one considers fair to themselves, and what they consider fair to everyone else. Sadly, that's the truth.

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

What does my ideas have to do with how old I am? And why is this thought so funny to you?

I don't see how people dying every day for absolutely nothing is funny at all. Weapons do nothing but create hurt and fear, you can't deny that. Even your own perception of "safety" with a gun in your hand, is someone elses fear of getting shot.

And yes, I am being realistic. There is ALWAYS a chance someone will go along another path if they don't have a gun. If you're the one denying that, then you're the one that shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon at all.

Weapons are a dangerous thing, no matter how trained or skilled you are. It can always jam, break or go off unintentionally, not to mention the human factor in handling them. There really isn't any excuse to allow them for anyone regardless, it's just a surefire way to get someone hurt or killed.

Re:good comment

[Anonymous Coward]

You think a few people with guns could overthrow the US government nowadays? With their billions of dollars of weaponry of all sorts and massive manpower?
Their asses would be in gitmo before they even took a small town.

It's hard to put an exact date on it, (though it's probably sometime in the last century) but the ability of the US people to overthrow their own government by force passed into history.

Re:good comment

[Lotharus]

So what is the price point where government mandated financial cost is considered a valid argument?

Do you pay taxes?

Re:good comment

[scott666]

Uhh, guys? The game is rated Teen. Both Wal-Mart and the president will let kids buy it without hesitation.

Re:good comment

['nother poster]

So, obscenity laws are unconstitutional? Cool. Thanks for that tip. It's not the judges right to review a game or a book to see if it exceeds community standards as applied to obscenity laws, it is his OBLIGATION as part of his job. Just as this judge did he should then rule that it doesn't exceed the community standards for obscenity and remove any temporary injunctions. Ta freaking da. If you don't like the laws as they are get you politicians to change the freaking obscenity laws. The ones that are on the books have been appealed and found constitutional so if you don't like the way the laws work, work to get them changed. For you to say that it's not a judges job to follow and apply the laws because you don't like it is absurd.

Re:good comment

[gowen]

An explosive made of household chemicals can tear apart the treads, immobilizing it.

Your government has outlawed such explosives. Way to go founding fathers.

Re:good comment

[Some_Llama]

An eye for an eye goes back to the old testament, it was God's example of perfect justice.

If someone's eye happens to be gouged out by accident or on purpose, then the person who caused the eye to be gouged must lose an eye.

If your ox fell in a hole dug by another man and died, that other man must pay for the ox or give you one of his.

so on and so forth.. as happens often with the bible, people often confuse what was written with to what the passage pertains.

This was one of a long line of how to treat common problems that arose in daily life, like God's civil/criminal book of court law. For the time I believe it was quite fair.

Read the old testament, interesting stuff.

Re:good comment

[tkrotchko]

The judge wasn't asked to rule if this game was obscene, and the Jack wasn't claiming it was. In any event, the game was not yet published (and is not published), so how can he judge rule on it?

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Of course it's natural, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that while it is normal, it's still a bad thing. Or do you disagree?

Yeah, it's bad, but it's essentially unsolvable. You can't get rid of it, only manage the problem, and guns are a useful tool for this.

My main problem with you is that you have failed to say how you plan to ban guns, how it is that you know it will reduce crime (since now big guys can rape women with minimal problems, just as an example), and your arguments rely primarily on emotion. Yeah, it's terrible that less than 100 kids die in school shootings (they're far more likely to die outside the school or drown), but this is no reason to ban guns. Yes, some people have no business owning a gun, but it is their right, so until their incompetence is demonstrated, they get to keep on owning guns. By the way, since you can't come up with any examples of babies shooting themselves, I'll have to assume that was just hyperbole on your part.

Re:good comment

['nother poster]

Oops. You're right. It was a public nuiscence law, not obscenity. Doesn't change a thing. Jack filed a lawsuit saying the game violated public nuiscence laws. The judge viewed the game and made a ruling on whether to issue a restraining order and allow a lawsuit to proceed under that law. Once again, that is what judges are paid to do. Like I said before, if you don't like the laws work to have them changed. This particular one is a Florida law, so move there if you don't already if you wish to change it.

Re:good comment

[tkrotchko]

Actually, the burden should have been on Jack to prove that this game would cause a nuisance.

Let's put it in perspective...

The game (if it's ever released) would be released nationally. So if you're the judge, you'd have to say "Jack, there is no game released called 'Bully'. You claim some company will release such a game. What evidence do you have that it will create a nuisance".

Jack would have to say "Well, none your honor. I've never seen the game, but I've heard about it"

And the judge would say "Well Jack, that's interesting, so you're saying you read about something that may or may not bother you, but you're taking up the court's time to try to interfere with a video game that isn't for sale"

I think you're missing my point. The judge simply was not in a legal position to judge this thing yet. He would be after the game was released, but not until then release. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the makers of the game hired Jack for some free publicity.

Re:good comment

[Taevin]

As liberal as I am I'd be behind a mandatory 6 months in service, make people do it right oour of high school, give them a semester of credit at ANY college and make sure every single person over the age of 18 knows how to safely handle and maintain a gun, once you finish your x weeks of basic you get to choose to spend the rest of your 6 month term in one of many services, from peace corps type stuff right through actual mil training, how much responsability and respect would we learn then?

Might also cut down a bit on our growing obesity problem as well ;)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with it as I am strongly in favor of an entirely volunteer military except in the most extreme of circumstances, but it's definitely an interesting idea.

Re:good comment

[TheScottishGuy]

I kinda lean towards a voluntary military too, but I'm sure that we could find something for the ones who don't want to be soldiers to do, plenty of civil projects that just need warm bodies right?

Re:good comment

[endemoniada]

Ok. Practical example.

In Sweden, where I live, we don't have even nearly as many guns as you. And our crime rate is still lower than yours. Admittedly, it's on the rise, but that has nothing to do with weapons specifically.

Now, how can a country where just a fraction of a percentage of its citizens own weapons defend itself against those Big Bad Guys? In your saying, we couldn't. Yet we do.

Our police doesn't have to spend lots and lots of time on gang rivalries, small time robberies and general nutjobs as your police obviously has. That leaves them plenty of time to a) stop illegal weapons from even entering the country at all and b) investigate organized crime thoroughly. Over here, it's not a big thing when a kid gets shot. It's a big thing when the police, or anyone, fires a gun at someone else AT ALL.

Now, if we can manage this, surely the great and powerful U S of A can manage it too?

Yeah, it's bad, but it's essentially unsolvable. You can't get rid of it, only manage the problem, and guns are a useful tool for this.

Guns are not "useful" for anything, they are a last resort. Or atleast they should be. And they should only be allowed to trained professionals such as the police or military. The idea of giving guns to citizens is, to me, insane.

Yes, some people have no business owning a gun, but it is their right

Way number 1 to get rid of all the unnecessary weapons in your country. Stop just giving them away to anyone that wants one! Have them take a license, several lessons in handling a weapon, a statement from a trained professional that indeed, this person has proven to be sane enough to own and operate a weapon. I seriously can't even imagine how someone could walk into a store, buy a handgun and walk out, with no insurance what so ever that he won't just fire on the very first person he sees.

I've read countless comments about how you have to protect yourself from muggings, robberies, break-ins and what not. Shouldn't you rather ask yourselves why a thing like getting mugged practically equals getting killed? Criminals are so scared of every citizen carrying a weapon that they'd rather shoot first and loot later. Once again, here in Sweden it's a whole other matter. If you get mugged, be it at gunpoint or with a knife, you live to tell about it and to fill out a police report. Rarely do you ever hear about someone being killed by a mugger, robber or other here. And my assumption is that it's because criminals aren't afraid for their lives here.
Also, don't confuse this with the criminals escaping justice, just because we're not allowed to shoot them ourselves. Very often, more often than not, they're caught hours or a couple of days later, because there are always witnesses alive to report it to the police.

Re:good comment

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Now, if we can manage this, surely the great and powerful U S of A can manage it too?

The great and powerful USA manages just fine. We just have some bad spots that make the stats look bad - it's not spread all over. I'm going to take a pot shot and blame the war on drugs for giving street gangs something to kill over.

Guns are not "useful" for anything, they are a last resort

For some people, that means the first resort when things turn ugly. Most women I know wouldn't be able to fend off a pissed off teenager. They mostly avoid places where pissed off teenagers hang out, but a gun is a great way to say go away when one decides to thrash you.

Way number 1 to get rid of all the unnecessary weapons in your country.

Sorry, that runs counter to our constitution - who decides what's necessary?

I seriously can't even imagine how someone could walk into a store, buy a handgun and walk out, with no insurance what so ever that he won't just fire on the very first person he sees.

We don't do that. You either get a concealed carry permit (which includes a background check) or you walk in to the shop, pay for the gun, and then wait 10 days while they check you out. We mostly don't register gun ownership because of what the british and the nazis have done in the past and what california is doing now.

Criminals are so scared of every citizen carrying a weapon that they'd rather shoot first and loot later.

They don't do it because they're scared - it's easier to loot a corpse, and they won't tell the cops much either. In places where criminals do this, it's preferrable to kill them, gun or no, since the presumption is that they'll kill you anyway. As far as I know, this is only a problem in some places, like south central LA. Elsewhere, the criminal will run off, which is the idea.

You're comparing a highly ordered, mostly homogenous society with lots of social safety nets with the USA, which isn't any of those things. It doesn't work. Want to cut down on crime? Raise taxes a bit, get out of foreign quagmires, and institute some of the safety nets Sweden has, like health care and better opportunities for the poor. Demanding more of students would help too.

Re:good comment

[Sj0]

Yeah, I don't believe that you need criticality to become a reactor as long as you've got nuclear reactions, and in this case, I think he was using the neutron gun to transmute metals(It's been a few years since I read the article). If I remember, he's a labourer on a submarine these days.

The grandparent is a self pwning poster. I like it.

Re:good comment

[trewornan]

Just looked up the old BBC report - apparently he was intending to use his neutron gun to transmute thorium into uranium, which theoretically looked like it should work. The only reason it didn't happen was he started getting huge geiger readings and his common sense kicked in.

Re:good comment

[Apocalypse111]

True, but in a situation where such explosives would be necessary, its unlikely that we would be worried about the law anyways.

Re:good comment

[gowen]

Exactly -- so the stated purpose of the Second Amendment is completely irrelevant.
If you're intent on overthrowing a corrupt government, very few people care if the constitution approves of your means.

Re:good comment

[Apocalypse111]

The difference is in whether or not we have the means to accomplish this overthrow before the revolution, or whether we have to scramble after the fact to obtain some kind of home-made substitute that might cause as much danger to us as to the enemy.

The other half of the point of the 2nd Amendment is that the government should be AFRAID of its citizens. If they do not fear us, then they can feel free to tread all over our liberties. They can only take from us what we give them, but if those in power do not take for fear of the consequences, then the situation averted. They should fear us, and we need the right to maintain that situation.

Re:good comment

[gowen]

The difference is in whether or not we have the means to accomplish this overthrow before the revolution, or whether we have to scramble after the fact to obtain some kind of home-made substitute that might cause as much danger to us as to the enemy.

As presently interpreted, the 2nd Amendment give no legal protection to possession of the sort of weapons necessary to overthrow a 21st century government. As far as its stated aims go, its completely and utterly anachronistic. Nothing that a militia man would find useful in the fight against the standing army is covered.

Re:good comment

[Apocalypse111]

While technically correct, this disregards certain aspects of the situation that would evolve were this to be put into practice. For example, I can't imagine that every member of the military would be on the side of the state in this - in fact, those that left may well take some of their hardware with them. Also, while an individual militia-man may not have an advantage against a soldier in terms of training and equipment, he may well have an advantage in terms of terrain and numbers. The very same tactics used by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily be employed by those people, and to the same effect. A bullet from a hunting rifle is just as effective as one from an AK-47, if not more so.

But still, those are just details, and any such action would be terrible to both sides in terms of loss. And yes, you're correct, the 2nd is a bit anachronistic today. However, its what we have right now, so its what we'd have to deal with. I don't know what a good solution to this situation is, as I don't necessarily think its a good idea to allow the general civilian population to own automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds, but neither do I want our soldiers to be underequipped. I suppose the best solution would be to have a better informed voting populace and better quality leadership in the first place so we never have to deal with a real life version of such a scenario. I'd rather not find out if my assertions above are true or not.

You did not see that game...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you don't even know what you saw?

Does that make any sense to anyone?

Re:You did not see that game...

[morgan_greywolf]

...you don't even know what you saw?

Thompson seems to be implying that the judge is some kind of idiot who was completely unable to interpret what he saw happening on the screen while someone else, knowledgeable in the game, was playing it for him.

Now, I've never seen the game. But based on what games I have seen/played, I can't imagine that anyone with an above-room-temperature IQ and a heartbeat would be unable to interpret what's happening on the screen. I mean, games these days have fairly realistic 3D graphics; it's like implying that one can't figure out what's going on on the screen because it's anime.

Re:You did not see that game...

[Cpt_Kirks]

Jack never makes a hell of a lot of sense. I've seen him on TV practically drooling.

I think the poor guy really needs his meds adjusted.

Re:You did not see that game...

[Dan East]

You're taking it out of context. From the next sentence in the article, "Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."

In other words, since it was a pre-release version, and since the judge was only shown what the Take-Two employee decided to demonstrate for him, it's hard to tell what the judge actually saw. I can't even count how many games can be played in a much less violent way if so desired (like not using fatalites in Mortal Combat, or not doing head shots in TFC, etc). Entire areas of the map could also be avoided (like fighting inside of shcools).

Dan East

Re:You did not see that game...

[EmperorKagato]

The game has already been reviewed by the ESRB which they have already taken extra measures to ensure a justified rating.

Re:You did not see that game...

[rkcallaghan]

Dan East wrote:

You're taking it out of context. From the next sentence in the article, "Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."

In other words, since it was a pre-release version, and since the judge was only shown what the Take-Two employee decided to demonstrate for him, it's hard to tell what the judge actually saw. I can't even count how many games can be played in a much less violent way if so desired (like not using fatalites in Mortal Combat, or not doing head shots in TFC, etc). Entire areas of the map could also be avoided (like fighting inside of shcools).

This case involves Jack Thompson and a judge that thus far has demonstrated his ability to act fairly. Despite Jack's reputation himself as an annoyance, the Judge agreed to actually look at the game before making a decision. Then, upon seeing it, he drew parallels to existing societal norms. So far these are the actions of a rational man; and they're just what we know from a news article.

I know what happens when you assume, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Judge Friedman felt he was being decieved, he would have stated so. If I may as well, I'll take the leap that if Jack felt Judge Friedman was being decieved, he would have no problems fufilling his obligation to the court to say so. In short, with lack of evidence to the contrary, and no history of foolish behavior in this case on the part of Judge Friedman -- I am going say that Judge Friedman did his job, and its judicial armchair quarterbacking on your part to think otherwise because a news article did not detail every step of the trial to your satisfaction.

~Rebecca (IANAL, but damn this is my second law related post today)

Re:You did not see that game...

[Turn-X Alphonse]

MK is a funny old game though. Try playing the original trilogy these days.. the violence is hillariously B-movie.. yet we had all that screaming over it.. but that's off topic.

If I was the guy sent to play the game I would ask the judge to tell me what to do. I'd be his hands in effect. That way the judge can see anything he likes and I just have to perform it. I see no other reason to pull this off and make the judge feel he saw everything he needed.

Re:You did not see that game...

[Scrameustache]

it's hard to tell what the judge actually saw.

I can tell you he saw infinity-1 more than Thompson saw.

Re:You did not see that game...

[dthree]

Doesn't matter, Thopson is still a big fucking hypocrite for complaining that the judge didn't "see" the game when he was the one that complained vociferously for MONTHS about the game, threatened lawsuits loaded with lies and slander without having seen anything more than a marketing blurb and a handful of screenshots.

Fuck you, Thompson!

Re:You did not see that game...

[R2.0]

If what you propose actually happened, then Take 2 committed fraud on the court. JT would then be able to take the game after it is released and do a demonstration for the judge with his own player, demonstrating all the stuff the original demonstrator avoided. At which point judge smacks Take 2 *hard*.

More likely JT goes back to court with a lot of hand waving and mumbling about fraud, etc. Repeat 15 minutes...

Re:You did not see that game...

[morgan_greywolf]

In other words, since it was a pre-release version, and since the judge was only shown what the Take-Two employee decided to demonstrate for him, it's hard to tell what the judge actually saw.

Please tell me that you don't really think that a judge of Friedman's calibre and experience is too stupid to know whether or not he's having the wool pulled over his eyes just because what's in front of him happens to be a video game.

The next thing you're going to tell me is that the ruling was prepared on drool-proof paper.

Re:You did not see that game...

[MooseTick]

"I can't imagine that anyone with an above-room-temperature IQ and a heartbeat would be unable to interpret what's happening on the screen"

Farenheight or Celcius?

Re:You did not see that game...

[SillyNickName4me]

In itself? sure, but not after first claiming that he didn't see it..

Re:You did not see that game...

[jacksonj04]

Slow down with the logic there. You're making some people confused.

Re:You did not see that game...

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's a lot of violence," Judge Friedman said. "A whole lot."

Sounds like he saw at least 1 pretty violent way to play the game.

Re:You did not see that game...

[WilliamSChips]

Negative forty.

Re:You did not see that game...

[OneoFamillion]

it's like implying that one can't figure out what's going on on the screen because it's anime.

I'll be damned if I can figure out what all the long-winded philosophical discussions have to do with those huge robot battles and all the outbursts of high-pitched screaming :P

Re:You did not see that game...

[MooseTick]

You disappoint. I was expecting a response dealing with Kelvin.

Re:You did not see that game...

[WilliamSChips]

How about Rankine?

Re:You did not see that game...

[MooseTick]

That is acceptable.

Thompson said what?

[iainl]

Don't lawyers normally get into some sort of trouble for calling Judges incompetent twats who don't know how to do their job?

Re:Thompson said what?

[nuzak]

Jack Thompson is special. He's found that if the Florida Bar takes disciplinary action against him, he can simply sue them and they'll roll over onto their backs, whimper, and pay him twenty grand or so.

I suspect he can be disbarred in any state where he practices pro hac vice, but I doubt other states bars will even want to hear it. And this case was in Florida anyway.

Re:Thompson said what?

[Kierthos]

Yeah, it should be a contempt of court charge, at the very least.

Re:Thompson said what?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not contempt of court, it's merely out of order. If he said it again in court in violation of an order to conduct himself appropriately, that would be contempt. Could get him disciplined by the states bar association, but we all know how unlikely that is.

Re:Thompson said what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh... I hate Thompson, but he should be able to express his opinion on a ruling. IMO, too many judges are over zealous, power tripping asshats.

Re:Thompson said what?

[phorm]

Did this actually happened, that he sued the bar and they paid him out? Something is seriously wrong with the legal system (more than I expected), if this is the case.

Re:Thompson said what?

[theonetruekeebler]

This was in 1993, so be careful about using the present tense. And all that it says about the legal system is that somebody being sued by an obsessive crackpot did the math and decided that paying him $20K to STFU made much more economic sense than fighting it out in court. It was a smart move, actually: The Bar admitted no wrongdoing, and by taking the money the asshat probably signed away his right to pursue any of those points ever again, or even mention them in public. Crackpot silenced.

Re:Thompson said what?

[nuzak]

> Crackpot silenced.

Actually he's suing them again now. He's trying to get the whole thing declared unconstitutional -- how's that for raving crackpot nuttery? He's doing it in federal court, which is liable to smack him down, and THEN the Florida Bar might pile on. But it'll be a while before that one winds through the system.

I only say "might" because it's far from a given that they'll move against him. Frankly there's worse things in the world than Jack's frivolous lawsuits, because in the end he's just completely inept at it. While admittedly it would be nice to see him disbarred, the last thing we really want is for Jack to find out that he was cut out to be a politician and not a lawyer.

Re:Thompson said what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"IMO, too many judges are over zealous, power tripping asshats."

We don't really care about the opinions of people who whine about "activist judges".

Re:Thompson said what?

[Scudsucker]

And all that it says about the legal system is that somebody being sued by an obsessive crackpot did the math and decided that paying him $20K to STFU made much more economic sense than fighting it out in court. It was a smart move

It may have been the cheap move, but not the principled one, which is what they should have done. Bar associations are supposed to uphold the integrity of the profession, and when they let a loon like Thompson roam free they do everyone a great disservice.

Re:Thompson said what?

[Emetophobe]

Here's an old slashdot story, Jack Thompson Sues Florida Bar and a quick google search.

Y'know...

[Cleon]

I'm half-tempted to buy a bunch of them and give them out to 12-year-old kids just to piss off that obnoxious, self-righteous, arrogant, schmuck Thompson.

Re:Y'know...

[ctid]

Since the game has a Teen rating in the USA and a 15 rating here in Europe, I think that buying a copy and giving it to a twelve year-old would only be helping Mr Thompson's case!

Re:Y'know...

[SScorpio]

Yes, because a Teen rating is "suitable for ages 13+" and you know how the maturity ratings of children change so rapidly in a year. This is just like letting a 12 year old in to see a PG-13 movie.

Re:Y'know...

[WilliamSChips]

Don't you know? You magically become mature when you turn thirteen!

So..

[dr_dank]

''You did not see the game,'' Mr Thompson told the judge at Friday's hearing. "You don't even know what it was you saw."

Unless I missed something, Thompson hasn't seen the game since it's unreleased and is criticising the judge who did see it. Amazing.

I'm starting to think that this guy is a clever guerilla marketer who brings attention and boosted sales to his clients via the media and legal system. Just look how well 2 Live Crew sold records after a protracted legal battle waged by Jack Thompson.

Re:So..

[coolgeek]

I agree dr_dank. I think Jack is pulling a few pages from John Dvorak's playbook.

Re:So..

[DangerSteel]

I think you may be onto something. It would be brilliant to hire him to "fight" your game in court with obviously losing strategies like he has been applying. How much would that be worth to a company?

Re:So..

[Fly]

I think you are ignoring the point. The point Mr. Thompson is making is that there is a possible conflict of interest for the person who played the game for the court. The court wants to know what a typical game experience would be like to know whether it would incite angsty teenagers or angsty twenty-somethings to violence. The person playing the game does not share the motivation, and in fact that person is motivated to show that the game is not too violent. The person demonstrating the game has the power to influence what the evidence will be be for the court.

Re:So..

[MorderVonAllem]

"I'm starting to think that this guy is a clever guerilla marketer who brings attention and boosted sales to his clients via the media and legal system. Just look how well 2 Live Crew sold records after a protracted legal battle waged by Jack Thompson."

www.World 1-1.tv did this as their opening show. The last line was "this message brought to you by jack thompson media, a division of rockstar games"

i'm glad to see more people connecting the two...

Re:So..

[Hemogoblin]

Unfortunately, you did miss something. Jack Thompson was present, along with T2 employees, when the judge was viewing the game. The judge watched about 2 hours of different parts of the game, accessed through cheat codes provided by the T2 employees.

The "you don't even know what it was you saw" comment was in regards to the cheat codes. Jack Thompson is complaining that the judge didn't view the game in its entirety, played through from beginning to end.

Gamepolitics.com has full coverage of the case.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/13/bully-case-docu ment-dump/
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/13/breaking-jack-t hompson-reacts-to-court-defeat-in-bully-case/
http://www.destructoid.com/today-in-court-the-bull y-verdict-blow-by-blow

Cheers,
Jim

Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Pizentios]

Jack Thompson needs to settle down. We are getting tired of his constant law suits, which almost seem to be monthly at this point. When is he going to realize, we don't care and that people will buy the game off the net even if he got it baned from his state. Personally if i was the judge, after his remarks i would have thrown him in jail.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Enoxice]

I'm not tired of his crazy antics. They are a constant stream of entertainment. Watching him is practically better than playing video games!

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[soft_guy]

Fred Phelps (the "God hates fags" guy) behaved in a very similar manner to Jack Thompson over a long period of time. Eventually he was disbarred. Jack Thompson will probably get himself disbarred eventually.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[nuzak]

Phelps's behavior was and is several orders of magnitude more brazen and outlandish than Thompson's ... though I must say, even though he's not the living picture of restraint, Thompson's little bit about the video game depicting the murder of Take Two's CEO would indicate that he's lost a little bit more of his sanity recently.

Almost all of Phelp's entire family is lawyers who act the same way in and out of the courtroom, and they all continue to practice with the exception of Freddie himself. As far as I know, Thompson acts alone. I'm sure he has his supporters, but none quite so monomaniacal.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Turken]

which almost seem to be monthly at this point.

Ahhh... so THAT explains it! Someone get the man some Midol!

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Phisbut]

Fred Phelps (the "God hates fags" guy) behaved in a very similar manner to Jack Thompson over a long period of time. Eventually he was disbarred. Jack Thompson will probably get himself disbarred eventually.

What freightens me though is, how long will it take to have him disbarred? Are the standards so low that he actually needs to tell a judge to fuck off 42 times before he gets punished? I am far from very knowledgeable about law stuff, but from a lay man point of view, seeing a lawyer ridicule the justice systems like he does and not being disciplined, that's pretty amazing.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Ant P.]

I'd want him locked away, just out of pity for the people who have to put up with him directly.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[jspectre]

sorry, but this is the good old u.s.a. where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and everyone has the right to sue thy neighbor.

do you know how many completely frivilous lawsuits are brought to court every day? as long as you're willing to pay your lawyer and court fees you can sue anyone for anything. and if you lose, you might have to pay for their lawyer too. but nothing is going to stop this money making scheme, it pays the lawyers their hefty salaries and the salaries of the courts too.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Pizentios]

I can't wait for that day. He wastes just about as much of the court's time as SCO.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to my dad AND my Aunt AND my Uncle who were all poor growing up and while I was a kid.. who all made an effort to go to college even if it meant servering in the armed forces and selling blood to make ends meet and who are all now fairly wealthy and they all did it on their own and by working hard.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is a lazy persons excuse as to why they never have and never will go anywhere with their life.

Most of my family is still poor BTW. The lazy half who want things handed to them and don't want to work for shit.

Re:Jack Thompson needs to learn a lesson here.

[Dachannien]

Maybe it's less about eliminating an "evil" game and more about ego-stroking. I mean, just look how many times "Jack Thompson" appears in the comments for this article.

the game isnt the problem

[192939495969798999]

if your kid is playing the game, then that's at least X minutes he or she isn't out actually bullying kids. How about taking some measures against actual bullies, instead of just going "boys will be boys" when Jerk Junior beats up yet another kid for lunch money, or kicks yet another puppy, or lights yet another cigarette at age 9? I'd be more concerned about the kid who shows up at 9 am on a school day to buy the game...

Re:the game isnt the problem

[Frymaster]

if your kid is playing the game, then that's at least X minutes he or she isn't out actually bullying kids

well, i doubt real bullies would play this game anyways, since the objective is defeat bullies, not be one.

if anything, the game has the potential to have a strong message of empowerment for all those kids who spend recess stuffed into lockers.

Re:the game isnt the problem

[pi_rules]

if anything, the game has the potential to have a strong message of empowerment for all those kids who spend recess stuffed into lockers.

Well, once they come out with the PSP version.

Re:the game isnt the problem

[bcmg150]

That's the last thing we want. If games can inspire kids to rise up against bullies, we suddenly have a bunch of vigilantes in our schools. From what I remember from school, a lot of the worst bullies were kids who used to be bullied, taking revenge on everyone.

Way to go JT.

[Endo13]

Now you've got both feet stuck in your mouth. Let's see if you can fit anything else in there.

Re:Way to go JT.

[Tackhead]

> Now you've got both feet stuck in your mouth. Let's see if you can fit anything else in there.

Q: What do you get when you cross Ouroborous with a Klein Bottle?
A: Jack Thompson, the only man who can simultaneously put his feet in his mouth when he's already got his head up his ass.

Re:Way to go JT.

[tulmad]

I'm just amazed he can get both feet in his mouth when his head is stuck so far up his butt.

Re:Way to go JT.

[beta21]

A: Jack Thompson, the only man who can simultaneously put his feet in his mouth when he's already got his head up his ass.

Isn't this a Klein bottle

Re:Way to go JT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that was the joke, rather convoluted but very amusing :D

Free Will

[Nalanthi]

Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices.

If a game in which someone can make choices to make the game less violent and has defending other kids as a key game play element actually exists how is this a bad thing. Its Art/storytelling and a slap-dash of decent morality. Free will is important. Choices between good and evil in a game allow people to explore these choices without real world impact.

Re:Free Will

[iainl]

It's also possible to make it through most of the GTA games with minimal 'civilian' casualties. That little fact fails to stop Thompson insisting that they're rape and murder simulators, simply because the game carries on working when his sick little depraved mind continues to play out his own violent fantasies.

Re:Free Will

[Doctor Memory]

Thompson's criticism also presumes that the judge merely sat passively and watched. Who's to say he wasn't sitting there telling the player "Hey, that kid with the glasses! Punch him! Again! Kick him! Take his lunch money! YEAAAH!"

Re:Free Will

[endemoniada]

You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence. How about the assassination-missions in Vice City? How do you kill someone without violence?

Trust me, I think JT is a major dumbass just like everyone else, but to say that a game like GTA does NOT promote violence is actually stretching it a bit :)

Re:Free Will

[businessnerd]

The problem here, and also the problem in a lot of other cases where people tyr to ban games/movies, is that those who are demonizing these games, have no idea of what they are actually about. From what I have read about "Bully", the game is about making choices, not about murdering your classmates. The player is confronted with many common schoolyard situations and has to make the choice to either take the high road, or the low road. Furthermore, if one does take the low road and decide to harm his/her peers, bad things will follow. You are punished, people think you're a dick and don't want to be your friend, etc. Does this sound familiar? Possibly to what happens in real life? Given, the audience here at slashdot, I'm sure many of us were picked on by bullies during school. Where are we now, and where are the bullies? In my situation, I have a well paying job and a college degree from a well respected university, and one of my bullies is barely a high school graduate working at a supermarket and going nowhere. I think this game reflects this pretty well, from what I've been told. Also, Thompson claims this game is a "Columbine Simulator" yet I remember reading that there are NO GUNS featured in the game. The closest thing is a bat.

Addressing the bigger picture, we often see this with movies time and time again. Some titles that come to mind that were very controversial BEFORE being released: "Bubble Boy"(don't make fun of immune deficiacy people), "Saved" (don't let people know how self-righteous and hypocritical fund. christians are), "The Ringer" (don't make fun of the special olympics) and the list goes on. All of which were chastized for one reason or another, because they allegedly made fun of a group of one group or the other. Most of these groups were going off of previews and had not actually seen the movies, or talked to anyone involved in it like a director to find out exactly where this movie goes with the controversial topic. How can one disagree with a movie you have not seen!!!!!!!??????

A similar story I saw on Digg was that a man wants to ban "Fahrenheit 451" (yes that's right the book by Ray Bradbury about book burning) from his Texas school distric because his daughter told him that there was foul language and innappropriate material. He confirmed his daughter's claims not by reading the book himself (oh no heaven forbid), but rather by thumbing through the pages to the parts that had the innappropriate material outside of their context. Just for that reason I decided to pick up the book and start reading it. Honestly, although I'm only about halfway through, I have not found anything in the least bit offensive, in or out of context (although i'm hoping for a steamy sex scene in the second half of the book).

Re:Free Will

[Seraphim_72]

YEAAAH!

I am confused what was Howard Dean doing there?

Re:Free Will

[tkrotchko]

It promotes violence, but within the game. But so what?

I think you'll be hard-pressed to somehow say that people who make violent choices in video games transfer that to real life. ...and even if that were true, it's not up to judges to make the choices that would make that illegal. Presumably, that would be up to the legislature who would have to pass laws that are constitutional.

I'll assume that we'd rather not have judges making stuff up as they go along.

Re:Free Will

[Chosen Reject]

Come off it. All games are murder simulators.

Though I am a little surprised how long it's taking for me to reach "FLAK MONKEY!" glory. When is that announcer guy going to call it out?

Re:Free Will

[PakProtector]

You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence. How about the assassination-missions in Vice City? How do you kill someone without violence?

Trust me, I think JT is a major dumbass just like everyone else, but to say that a game like GTA does NOT promote violence is actually stretching it a bit :)

With some people you will find that there is no peaceful solution to a problem. There are just varying degrees of violence and threat of violence. If someone is of the mentality where they care so little for what is considered proper behaviour in a society to the point that they physically and psychologically abuse their peers, then they will probably not respond to peaceful means. If they were of the mindset to respond to peaceful means of crisis resolution, they wouldn't be acting this way to begin with.

When you're dealing with a bully, someone who initiates attacks of opportunity against others because those people seem weak or unable to defend themselves, there is only one way to curb that behaviour: It must be made clear to the person in question that their behaviour will be detrimental to themself. Either through legal or other disciplinary repercusions, or through threat or use of violence. If the reason you are being bullied is because you appear an easy or low-risk target, you must bluff to appear more threatening than you are, and should bluffing fail, you must respond through violence.

One thing I have observed, and I wish I could remember who said it, is that the vast majority of humanity only behaves when they're within slapping distance. This goes hand-in-hand with the saying, "Fear is the greatest motivator." The deterant effect of a law is the threat of punishment. But when you are in a school setting, where there is very little actual punishment that can be meted out to children these days, breaking the rules doesn't seem to do much. When I was in Junior High and High School, getting into a fight landed you a seven day vacation. In days of yore, it got you the strap at school, and then when you got back home.

What we need to do to curb this sort of misbehaviour in children is to start disciplining them again.

Re:Free Will

[Footix]

Damn, you beat me to it.

Re:Free Will

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to say 'funny, my experience was exactly the opposite' All the bullies I know got out and maybe didn't make something of their selves, but have decent paying jobs and girlfriends, while most of the 'nice' or 'good' people I know have either washed out, or drifted from one minimum wage job to another, when they didn't fall to drugs or suicide.

So uhmm yeah, some bullies do win and not every nerd or geek, or even average kid makes it into somebody, no matter how rosy a picture you'd like to paint.

- vranash

O.T My captcha was 'agitator'.

Re:Free Will

[SillyNickName4me]

The deterant effect of a law is the threat of punishment.

Laws don't convince because they threaten...

Re:Free Will

[nutshell42]

How do you kill someone without violence?

Death Yoga?

Re:Free Will

[heroofhyr]

You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence. How about the assassination-missions in Vice City? How do you kill someone without violence?

If you read the previews of the game, it's almost completely opposite the GTA games--save the recognisable style. There are fights, but there's no gory effects, nobody dies or ends up missing a limb or in a coma. The worst thing is maybe that you can hit someone with a baseball bat, but even then the repercussions are less severe than they are in a Tom and Jerry cartoon from "the good old days."

Trust me, I think JT is a major dumbass just like everyone else, but to say that a game like GTA does NOT promote violence is actually stretching it a bit :)

Don't compare it to GTA. This isn't about any other game but Bully. I loved GTA 3 and Vice City, but I'll also admit they pretty much glorify violence if not make it completely acceptable and encouraged. But you can go most of Bully without ever encountering any violent situations from what I've read on game sites. The lion's share of questionable gameplay are harmless pranks that may result in some destroyed property but are probably more common in movies about children than actual life (I've honestly never heard of someone really lighting a bag of dog poo on someone's front porch despite the fact that I've seen it in film and television maybe 100 times). And the situations that are violent are things like, "Rescue the weak nerd from a savage beating." Since when is helping someone who can't defend themself a lesson we shouldn't teach children? I think Take-Two found a really clever way to both: a) satirise the shitty social structures and situations everyone is forced into when they go to school; and b) encourage cooperation and sympathy. True it's not encouraging it by saying your character should go around handing out flowers to everyone, but if they tried making a video game out of that nobody would buy it let alone play it for 60+ hours.

As for the case, I'm glad to see nothing's holding up the release now. I've already set aside 40,00eu for it when it comes out at the end of the month.

Re:Free Will

[phrackwulf]

Judge Friedman: "I find this game perfectly within the bounds of societal norms. Furthermore, I sentence Plaintiff's attorney to one swirlie in the downstairs bathroom. Bailiff, see that this sentence is carried out immediately. Case dismissed!" [-)

Re:Free Will

[Roxton]

I'm tired of hearing people assert things that are purely the product of some imagined, desirable social framework. Take your truthiness and shove it.

Re:Free Will

[SillyNickName4me]

I'm tired of hearing people assert things that are purely the product of some imagined, desirable social framework. Take your truthiness and shove it.

So the USA is some imagined desirable social framework?

Maybe you should look up who said the thing I merely repeated.

Re:Free Will

[endemoniada]

I'm sorry, I was being vague.

I wasn't comparing anything with Bully, I was speaking of "violent" games in general. And since GTA has been made such a big example of in the past, I chose to address it.

I haven't played Bully (has anyone here?), so I couldn't compare it to GTA or anything at all even if I wanted to.

Re:Free Will

[Roxton]

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that was Plato. Do I win the prize?

Re:Free Will

[HarbingerKtS]

You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence.

Be honest. When was the last time you saw diplomacy stop someone from getting wedgied and then beaten up on the playground? When was the last time you saw a bully stop bullying someone, because the last time he tried he got a black eye? Now truly ask yourself if the game is wrong for showing the use of violence for stopping bullys.

Re:Free Will

[Roxton]

No seriously, are you trolling now? You made a reference to a carte blanche statement about human nature; what does that have to do with the US specifically? Nothing. It doesn't matter who said it.

Re:Free Will

[Anonymous Coward]

The smart bullies will become CEOs

Re:Free Will

[SillyNickName4me]

I believe it was Lucius Annaeus Seneca, http://www.egs.edu/resources/seneca.html

Re:Free Will

[SillyNickName4me]

You made a reference to a carte blanche statement about human nature

I made a statement about why generally people follow laws (or rules) in reply to a claim about the deterent of laws being the threat of punnishment.

what does that have to do with the US specifically? Nothing.

Not specifically, but the concept embodied in that statement seems to be present in laws in the USA (as well as many other modern democracies). I won't call those imaginary societies. Also, one can argue that many cases where large groups of people fail to comply with the law are often cases where the actual law is the problem, not the punnishment it puts on violations.

If you want an easy to grasp variation: People tend to not follow a rule when they don't see the point of the rule

It doesn't matter who said it.

Not objectively, but it is worth considering that the person who said it is considered to be a rather wise person before dismissing it out of hand. It seems that doing this helps many people understanding (read carefully, understanding is NOT the same as agreeing with!!!!!) statements that they'd otherwise have dismissed inmediately because of disagreeing.

Anyway.. why did I respond at all? because there is way too much focus on punnishment nowadays, and way too little focus on if things make sense to begin with.

Re:Free Will

[Apocalypse111]

GTA promotes violence.
Just like Harry Potter books promote Witchcraft.
Just like Star Wars movies promote use of the Force.
Just like Austin Powers movies promote implanting lasers on shark foreheads, and bad dental hygene.

Get a grip. Media doesn't cause bad things to happen, people do.

Re:Free Will

[Achromatic1978]

To quote TISM, a fantastic altrock-with-humourous-lyrics group from Australia:

The guy who's first to use cocaine,
The wild boy breaking free -
He'll end up in a court of law,
As a Prosecuting QC

Re:Free Will

[iainl]

You can't kill people in the game without violence, no. But that's why I put civilian in quotes - in the game logic, rival gangs aren't innocent bystanders, assassination attempts are on other murderers and drug dealers. Clearly that's not the real-world case from a legal perspective, I know.

The Government, via the Army, funds that online FPS whose name currently escapes me. So arguing that _all_ violence in videogames should be banned is going to be rather more of a challenge.

Re:Free Will

[Emetophobe]

If a game in which someone can make choices to make the game less violent and has defending other kids as a key game play element actually exists how is this a bad thing. Its Art/storytelling and a slap-dash of decent morality. Free will is important. Choices between good and evil in a game allow people to explore these choices without real world impact.

Sounds like Willy Beamish.

Can I send my cousin over to your house?

[with_him]

Then I won't have to buy one for him. I am sure that it would make his parents made if that helps your decision.

choice quote

[Scrameustache]

Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices.

So, he's arguing the game is a public nuisance because you can choose non-violent solutions?

That guy is really an insane jackass.

Re:choice quote

[k_187]

No, he's saying the employee would be biased.

Re:choice quote

[Scrameustache]

So, he's arguing the game is a public nuisance because you can choose non-violent solutions?

No, he's saying the employee would be biased.

So the game would be a public nuisance because the employee would be biased, then?
Riiiiight. Sure.

Sigh. He's saying the employee would be biased? DUH!
Wow, your reply sure is super extra insightfull and not at all a useless stating of the obvious completely missing the point of what you replied to! /sarcasm

Thompson is trying to get the game banned on the insane notion that videogames hypnotises kids and turns them into mindless killers unable to refrain from acting out the violent acts the game conditioned them to emulate.
That can't be if the game allows you to choose the peace&love way, then the kids would have to be concious entities making choices of their own free will.

Re:choice quote

[Anonymous Coward]

It occurs to me that a child playing with a Barney toy can make some pretty violent choices. (It's a friggin' dinosaur!)

Re:choice quote

[k_187]

No, he isn't able to illustrate that it would be a public nuisance because the employee would be biased.

Re:choice quote

[Atheose]

"Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."

I can make violent decisions or choose to avoid making violent choices in REAL life, so should we ban real life as well?

Re:choice quote

[Scrameustache]

should we ban real life as well?

It's certainly unsuitable for children; mandatory sterilisation for all! ;-)

Re:choice quote

[LouisZepher]

"Since it was found that life is niether beautiful nor true, it was held in contempt of court and the judge ordered it confiscated from all present." - Adams

I just don't know anymore...

[CUatTHEFINISH]

I'm tired of hearing, "Ban this video game!" "Sue that company." "OMZFG HOT COFFEE?!?!" A video game is a video game. The ESRB does a fairly decent job in giving them good ratings. They have no control over what users can do to alter the game. It's just a simple fact of what the parents allow the children to play. If the children can understand it's just a video game, you can't auto-aim in real life, etc., then I really don't see what the problem is. Maybe I'm just giving common sense the benefit of the doubt, but I think these stories are absolutely ridiculous. Virtual Reality is meant for people to get away from their everyday lives. It's not even in the slightest meant to be a model for real life actions. I guess this topic just grinds my gears.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[tdc_vga]

I wish people would read: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (or one of another billions sources or the actual case files) before always mentioning "the coffee case." I am studying to be a lawyer and 9 out of 10 people who reference a case have never read the case, the facts, or otherwise, but still are "horrified" at the results. I was speaking with a Federal Judge yesturday and he told me how people constantly come up to him and call him and activist judge for his decision in XYZ case, but when asked if they've read the case they more than 90% of the time will say no, but they heard about it on the news.

I know this is Slashdot and no one reads that article, but please at least read the points of your post(s), because you only spread more FUD or at the very least misinformation.

Cheers,
    TdC

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should take some of your own advice and make sure you know what you are talking about before commenting. "Hot coffee" that people are talking about here refers to a mod for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It has nothing to do with the McDonalds case.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[DoctorDyna]

Actually, as far as I know, "Hot Coffee" wasn't even a mod. It was coded into the game, just like everything else. Before release, the developpers "hid" it, by removing a few key lines, much like turning off PHP support in Apache. The "hack" that enabled it, simply reconfigured the game so that it was once again enabled.

I think thats where alot of the hot coffee trouble started. If it was actually a mod, like CS, then they would be attacking the people who made the mod, rather than going after the software designers who created the game.

The part I don't get is why some of these "video game sex and violence" crusaders are so afraid of life in general. Scene: Man and woman in a room. Woman is kneeling in front of man. Man has a gun to her head. He pulls the trigger. Blood and brain matter are scattered across the wall. Man grabs handful of leftover brain, eats it. End of scene. Hey! this is great TV! Rated R. Let's stick it in a video game! nobody cares. Now, Scene: Man and woman in a room. Woman is kneeling in front of man. Man unzips pants. Woman performs oral sex on man. Man does pants back up. Walks away grinning. End of scene. Rated X. Holy shit. Hide your kids. Do pennance. If it's in a game? Better look out, you'll be in court next time Johnny's parents walk in on him and little Suzi.

Bullshit double standards. Like George Carlin said one time, and I quote. "Don's act disgusted. Half of you are going to go home and go down on each other tonight. If you're willing to swallow cum, let's not make believe something I said was disgusting ok folks?"

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[SnapperHead]

I agree, but I disagree. I love video games, been playing games since the orginal Wolfenstein. (Actually earier, but hey) Games now are getting pretty damn violant. The violance is not the problem, is the many parents have NO idea what the game is about.

For example, my little cousin asked for Grand Theft Auto for Christmas. She got it. Of course, my grandmother didn't put really think the game was centered around killing police and stealing cars. Once she relized it, she removed the game from her. I agree with her, I don't feel a 12 year old girl needs to be watching that. Beyond that, I don't think she should be watching most of whats on TV.

I am not trying to blame the parents, but at the same time I am not trying to give them a break.

Now, I am not your typical nut job who claims video game violance is what made kids shoot up their school, started a war, made some jackasses crash a plane into a building, caused the price of oil to sky rocket, etc. They are just trying to push their silly religious belifs on to you.

I don't disagree with video game ratings, I think they do their job and they do it well. My grandmother has denied my cousin 4 times now on buying games since the ratings more properly discribe what the game is. However, I do disagree with banning these games. I am an adult, I enjoy playing games of all types. Don't look down on me if I enjoy shooting law enforcement in a video game. Its a damn video game! That doesn't mean I will do it in real life. In real life, I have a very fond respect for them, they have a hard ass job.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[SillyNickName4me]

As someone else already mentioned, it helps to know what you are talking about, and in this case, hot coffee most likely does not refer to the mcdonnalds case.

However, since you brought it up, let me point out some issues with the text you linked to:

Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

Coffee is hot, don't place it between your knees, something I learned as a small kid actually. McDonnalds cannot be blamed for stupidity of their customers there.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin.

That is bad luck, and the main reason why she actually got such bad burns. Sure, if the coffee had not been that hot, those burns would not have been there, but by the same token, if she would have thought about coffee being hot, they wouldn't have been there either.

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

You can argue that McDonnalds made a mistake here by not settling the case, but really, why were they to blame to begin with?

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

Oh my god! coffee is hot!

Uh.. anything new here?

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.

For me as European that would be 85 degrees celcius, which is indeed the optimum temperature for brewing and storing coffee (there is even an ISO standard saying so btw). Producers of decent coffee machines put in quite a lot of efford to get it at exactly that temperature for a reason..

He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Yes, and other then a few Italian coffee corners, I have yet to find any place serving a decent cup of coffee in the USA. At least while I was living there such a thing simply did not exist. McDonnalds coffee is not as bad as most and Starbucks has somewhat acceptable coffee, but none come anywhere near decent.

So, she was unlucky due to the clothes she was wearing sticking to her skin after absorbing the hot coffee, and for the rest, all that your text explains is that there are people who have no clue about making decent coffee and the temperature required for that, and there are people who are too stupid to be carefull with something which they can quite well expect to be hot. Your coffee at home might be around 135-140 degrees, but only if you have a very lousy coffee machine (which from what I observed is the case in your typical household in the USA indeed)

Your point was?

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[Dunbal]

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns)

      I love these "expert witnesses". As a physician myself, I would be a lot more comfortable if the expert was a plastic/reconstructive surgeon and not a vascular surgeon. Plastics are the ones who usually see burns. They don't just do boobs after all. Plus it's real hard to get 3rd degree full thickness burns from scalding liquids, as you're sort of limited to 100 degrees C as a maximum temperature. Steam, ok. Fire, ok. Electrical, ok. But coffee? Hmmm.

I haven't seen the patient, or the pics, but something is unusual here, as any medical text will tell you. But in medicine there are always exceptions.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[SillyNickName4me]

I love these "expert witnesses". As a physician myself, I would be a lot more comfortable if the expert was a plastic/reconstructive surgeon and not a vascular surgeon. Plastics are the ones who usually see burns. They don't just do boobs after all. Plus it's real hard to get 3rd degree full thickness burns from scalding liquids, as you're sort of limited to 100 degrees C as a maximum temperature. Steam, ok. Fire, ok. Electrical, ok. But coffee? Hmmm.

Well, they obviously didn't manage to get someone knowledgable about coffee either, so no surprise there...

I haven't seen the patient, or the pics, but something is unusual here, as any medical text will tell you. But in medicine there are always exceptions.

I think part of the issue here was the hot coffee getting soaked up by her pants and those then sticking to her skin, exposing her to the hot coffee for quite a bit of time.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[soft_guy]

Actually, as far as I know, "Hot Coffee" wasn't even a mod. It was coded into the game, just like everything else. Before release, the developpers "hid" it, by removing a few key lines, much like turning off PHP support in Apache. The "hack" that enabled it, simply reconfigured the game so that it was once again enabled.

Which just proves that the correct way to disable stuff like this is with the fscking preprocessor. If they had just used #if 0 #endif around the hot coffee code, then it could not have been re-enabled.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't drink McD's coffee expecting "premium taste", shithead. That coffee was being served way too hot, McD's knew it and did nothing about it.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[roscivs]

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_ and_stella_liebe.html

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[SillyNickName4me]

You don't drink McD's coffee expecting "premium taste",

Nope, but maintaining the right temperature alone is not enough for that. It does help however in preventing it from tasting like shit.

shithead.

Good arguing there..

That coffee was being served way too hot, McD's knew it and did nothing about it.

Not according to my standards, not according to the iso norm for this (silly that one exists but thats beside the point), and not according to about anyone who knows something about coffee for that matter.

For the record, bad is worse then 'acceptable' is worse then 'decent' is worse then 'premium taste'. I never even got as far as talking about premium taste.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[DoctorDyna]

I think perhaps they only wanted it to be disabled so that they could say "Yep, game is clean." but make it easily enabled so that more...skilled and knowledable adults could hack their way into it, which is exactly what happened. What the problem is, I suspect, is they underestimated the current generation of underage gamers and their inate intarwebs skills at finding crap out.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[SirWinston]

> I wish people would read: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (or
> one of another billions sources or the actual case files) before
> always mentioning "the coffee case."

And I wish senseless money-grubbing lawyers would stop treating an incorrect "lottery litigation" outcome as if it were good, when it isn't:

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_ and_stella_liebe.html

That case encapsulates all that is wrong about the current state of torts and the despicable lawyers who take advantage of their vagaries. Anyone who supports the decision in that case lacks common sense (almost all coffee even today is served at an equal or higher temperature) and is likely to be tort-abusing ambulance-chasing swine not worthy of the practice of law.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[soft_guy]

I think perhaps they only wanted it to be disabled so that they could say "Yep, game is clean." but make it easily enabled so that more...skilled and knowledable adults could hack their way into it

Somehow, I just doubt that. I think they probably disabled it in working code rather than pre-processor because of a combination of sloppyness and hubris. The reason why I think so is that it doesn't seem to me that a responsible person would think that it was OK for the hot coffee to execute in the wild. However, I DO think that it is entirely reasonable that a developer would think that disabling the code using something like a global variable would be OK. Many devs aren't suspenders and belt type engineers and most of the devs in the video game business tend to be very young. So, I could picture them just screwing it up rather more easily than I could see the company making a conscious decision to enable this to be used in the wild.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[mbourgon]

I think thats where alot of the hot coffee trouble started. If it was actually a mod, like CS, then they would be attacking the people who made the mod, rather than going after the software designers who created the game.

Not so. See Oblivion, which got changed to M even though they took the 3-D models and replaced the skins. The "nudity" was never in the game, but the ESRB still forced it to be pulled and relabeled.

Ever thought of this, Judge?

[krell]

"If you don't like it, don't play it". Keep this in mind and laugh the frivolous lawsuits out of the courtroom, please.

Re:Ever thought of this, Judge?

[soft_guy]

"If you don't like it, don't play it"

And if you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you are against drugs, quit taking them. Duh!

In case of Bully v. Bully FL Judge finds for Bully

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see that headine in a gaming magazine.

Anamotical distortions

[tygt]

We already know he's got his head up his ass, so with his feet stuck in his mouth, which is part of his head, which is up his ass..... damn, that's getting right convoluted!

Re:Anamotical distortions

[LindseyJ]

He might have a more lucrative (or at least entertaining) career as a circus performer.

Old news

[theaddkid.com]

I am sorry if I am wrong but wasn't this covered some 217 years ago........ "Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference." Or does this not apply to forums of speech that some people don't like.

Re:Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

Without getting into the depth of constitutional law, yes, you can ban speech that falls under certain classes. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater (to beat that horse to death), nor can you excessively protest around a hospital. You can even ban speech that is obscene (Thompson's argument), provided that the material would be considered obscene by the standards of the community. The problem is that the ban on speech that is obscene is generally a after-the-fact ban, not prior restraint. So at the very least he was unlikely to win this case. However, the freedom of speech is not as absolute as you believe it to be.

Interesting

[Bombula]

This Bully issue is interesting because it highlights the salient point so often missed by those who criticise violence in entertainment: context. To a thinking person, it is obvious that entertainment involving beating a schoolmate bloody with a bat is more disturbing than entertainment involving a bodybuilder blowing up aliens with a bazooka, despite the fact that - objectively at least - murder is worse than assault. The context being so much closer to home - a kid with a bat is much nearer to actual reality than a bodybuilder blowing up aliens - is where the disturbance factor comes in, and it's pretty much impossible to quantify closeness-to-home realism which makes it a challenge for the courts.

Re:Interesting

[poot_rootbeer]

To a thinking person, it is obvious that entertainment involving beating a schoolmate bloody with a bat is more disturbing than entertainment involving a bodybuilder blowing up aliens with a bazooka

Yeah? This "thinking person" takes exception to your statement that one form of fictional entertainment is "obvious"ly more disturbing than another.

Show, don't tell. If you have empirical proof suggesting one is more disturbing, please share it. But don't belittle those of us who draw different conclusions than you do.

Re:Interesting

[cvd6262]

This is anecdotal, but interesting.

A few years ago my undergrad department was planning to build a new building. One of my professors recommended me for a committee that was designing the new labs. In the meeting, professors were scribbling on graph paper to show the layouts they wanted. I decided I could do better in WorldCraft, which I happened to have on my laptop. After a quick demo, they had my laptop on the LCD projector and were directing me to move equipment, furniture, lighting, etc., around until they were satisfied. I then compiled the map, and ran it in Half-Life to get screenshots to show the interior designers what we had in mind.

Of course, for scale and realism, I inserted a couple Half-Life scientists in white lab coats.

Showing some of the professors, who were younger, and, I thought, less likely to be offended, I typed "/impulse 101" into the console (that's the grant-all-weapons cheat), and blew away one in-game scientist with the rocket launcher. The scientist's body gibbed, with half of the skull skidding to my character's feet. Then I went up to another scientist, pulled out the shotgun and shot him. Blood splattered on the terminal behind him, he staggered, and then collapsed.

Far and away, most professors I tested felt the shotgun was more offensive/disturbing than the rocket launcher. (And, yes, I did randomize for the order effect.)

I attribute this effect to the fact that the shotgun was much more realistic than the rocket launcher.

Re:Interesting

[Bombula]

I assume you're being sarcastic, and that you don't actually think that blowing up aliens is less disturbing that beating someone with a bat, in which case you make my point very well for me: there IS no empirical proof either way. That is precisely what makes the issue impossible to quantify, and which is why it is therefore a serious challenge for the courts.

Re:Interesting

[john83]

Whoosh

You've no right to claim that you speak for all "thinking men", thereby implying that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Your post might or might not be wrong, but it was certainly arrogant and inflammatory.

Must be running for president...

[__aaclcg7560]

Mr Thompson told Miami newspapers that he did not plan to continue his campaign against Bully.

After he gets his 15 minutes of national media to rant against violent video games, he's not going to continue his campaign against this "Columbine simulator" that will undoubtly increase school violence?

Re:Must be running for president...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a scary thought: What if he is planning to run for some sort of public office? So far he's been the crusader against violent games that turns our kids into remorseless killing machines. You slap that on a campaign poster, you are going to get a lot of votes from the "family values" voters.

It doesn't even matter that he really hasn't made much of an impact. It's the press coverage we've seen so far. There's enough evidence for an average joe to do a simple google search to see that Jack Thompson has indeed stood against the "evil" game developers.

Regardless of how big the ego of the slashdot crowd have, we don't quite cover a significant amount of the registered voter populations. The ones that vote on family values and conservative ideals are a lot more likely to win elections(especially in Florida), and that is exactly the crowd Jack Thompson is playing his tunes to.

I sincerely hope that I am just being paranoid.

Re:Must be running for president...

[ArmyOfFun]

You're not being paranoid. Thompson is behind at least some of the state laws that attempt to enforce age restrictions of video games. Hillary Clinton also has granted him an audience, so he may have been the one that got her going after Rockstar. I wouldn't be suriprised if there was some connection between him and Gore and Lieberman and their old censorship crusades.

As much as the gaming community hates Thompson, he is much more effective than either the gamer community or the game developer/publisher communities at getting his voice heard where it actually matters (state and national legislatures).

Re:Must be running for president...

[chrisbtoo]

He also has good hair, which I gather is a requirement for office in the US.

Is this coming out on Xbox?

[mei_mei_mei]

I'd never heard of the game before these lawsuits but now I MUST have it. Anyone know if it'll be out on Xbox? Some sites say it's been cancelled. May hev to finally buy a PS2 :-(

All work and no play...

[endemoniada]

Seriously, now he's not only telling parents they no longer are responsible for parenting, but he's even going up against a judge saying he doesn't know how to do his job!

Someone need to slip dear ol' Jack a chillpill before his head explodes. On the other hand... If it does explode, we can continue blaming lawyers for all that's wrong in this world while having proof: The heads of lawyers are prone to spontanious explosion! Keep all children at a safe distance!

Just how long

[Anonymous Coward]

will it be till we see a mod so that players can bully Jack Thompson, eh? :)

I love it

[with_him]

I honestly had not heard of the game until this story and now I honestly comtemplating buying the game. Honest perspective here is treated with Troll and Overrated moderation. Seems like I have better Karma when I keep my thoughts to myself.

Re:I love it

[krakelohm]

Honestly?

Re:I love it

[with_him]

Yeah, Honestly! I am not a closet gamer just a guy who is really busy with wife and kid at home. My gaming extends to about 1-2 hours total in any given week. Only after reading the story on the front page was I able to read the back story on the other posts. So while ignorance is no excuse, it is the only explaination I have.

Lucky for me I did watch the Matrix and know from Cypher that Ignorance is Bliss. So will return to my deluded sense of reality.

Idea toshut up Jack Thompson

[gorehog]

How about someone actually produces a Columbine Simulator? And trademarks the name, and then sues Thompson for trademark infringement?

It could prolly be a build on fy_office....

Re:Idea toshut up Jack Thompson

[businessnerd]

unfortunately, I think Jack's got prior art :(

Re:Idea toshut up Jack Thompson

[MooUK]

As I recall, trademarks don't require originality in the same way as copyrights.

Re:Idea toshut up Jack Thompson

[mmalove]

It wasn't too long ago Jack made the proposterous suggestion that someone make a video game about killing violent video game producers. Not surpristingly, it happened:
http://www.gamehippo.com/category/new_title_3.shtm l#2181

Sadly, this did nothing to curb Jack from the errors of his ways. He's still preaching that inattentive parenting isn't as important a factor on kids' behavior as their virtual entertainment.

Re:Idea toshut up Jack Thompson

[theghost]

It's been done: http://www.columbinegame.com/

The best part will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when JT turns around and claims that after some high-profile bullying incident that clearly the game was at fault. Because obviously, nobody ever bullied anyone before this game came out.

Re:The best part will be...

[endemoniada]

The best part will be when he realizes his mistake, and starts rightfully blaming the parents for not doing their god-damn job.

Re:The best part will be...

[B3ryllium]

I'm sad to say, you live in more of a dream world than he does. Heh. :) "Realizes his mistake", that's a good one. :)

Technicality

[Alchemar]

You made the point that "Virtual Reality is meant for people to get away from their everyday lives. It's not even in the slightest meant to be a model for real life actions."

Virtual Reality is by definition a model for real life actions. Video games are meant for people to get away from their everyday lives. There are Virtual Reality simulators which are fully intened to teach people how to kill, most of them in use by the US goverment. Video games still strive for realism in some way. What makes them fun is where they deviate from reality, video games let you do things that you wouldn't be able to do in real life.

Yes - the grenades blow up and have realistic shrapnal due to the new physics processor.
No - that does not mean we are really being invaded by an alien lifeform.

Yes - you can see the new hat on your character when you equip it
No - putting a hat on does not suddenly give you the real ability to cast fireball

Re:Technicality

[CUatTHEFINISH]

Touché. You got me there if you want to use the technical definition of "Virtual Reality." But I'm also sure you have an idea of where I'm coming from, even if I did not word it 100% correctly. Curse that Webster and his definitions *shakes fist*. -_-

Re:Technicality

[bunions]

> Yes - you can see the new hat on your character when you equip it
> No - putting a hat on does not suddenly give you the real ability to cast fireball

Well, crap, why the hell am I wearing this thing then?

Re:Technicality

[Herkum01]

Well, crap, why the hell am I wearing this thing then?

You need to wear the wizard robe too.

Oops! Sorry, that is before you have online sex!

Re:Technicality

[mbourgon]

Here's the reference (parts of it are on bash.org, but this had several others I hadn't read):http://www.adamchance.com/funny.htm

Well how about that?

[Weaselmancer]

Finally, judges being clueless about software played into our hands for once. He probably took those two disks home and put them in his toaster.

Incorrect Headline

[ewhac]

If any are watching, I wish to request of the editors that the headline to this article be changed.

Despite the fervent wishes of certain unbalanced extremists, prior restraint in publishing is not recognized in US law, except in cases of national security, and only then when circumstances are extraordinary. Right to publish is automatic. Thus, the Judge did not "clear" anything for publishing, as judges do not have that right in this country.

A less misleading headline might be, "Judge Refuses to Block Publication of 'Bully'", or, "No Reason to Block Take-Two's 'Bully', says Judge", or,"Take-Two's 'Bully' No Threat to National Security".

Schwab

Re:Nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have this story still pending from when I typed it in on Saturday morning.

Why do you care? The story got posted, stop whining that it wasn't yours. And why should *we* care?

This is great news comrades!

[Hamster Lover]

The glorius courts of the Motherland have done their work and examined the game in question and approved it for the new communist man. In response, the Central Committee has increased the vodka ration to two bottles a month in celebration of this great triumph! Once again the Motherland supports your right to freedom by ensuring that only the best books, magazines, movies and games are available to the mindless sheep tireless workers of the revolution.

Re:This is great news comrades!

[singingjim]

This wouldn't even be an issue if Wacko Jacko wasn't such a putz. You don't see a huge groundswell of support for this man. Just a few likeminded loonies.

Re:This is great news comrades!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Bully play YOU!

In typical fascist style...

[singingjim]

Wacko Jacko is probably the one who hasn't even seen the game. Like a religious loony will criticize a TV or radio program without every seeing or hearing it.

"avoided making violent choices."

[future assassin]

''You did not see the game,'' Mr Thompson told the judge at Friday's hearing. "You don't even know what it was you saw." Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices.

Isn't this a good thing? At least the player has a choice and not like tv/movies where you have to watch gore all the way through (unless you can make yourself to pick up the remote) . At the end of the day its parents responisbility to monitor what they buy their children and what their children do.

Re:"avoided making violent choices."

[MoralHazard]

Isn't this a good thing? At least the player has a choice and not like tv/movies where you have to watch gore all the way through (unless you can make yourself to pick up the remote) .

You seem to miss the point of JT's comment: since the game is interactive, with multiple paths of play through it, the judge cannot be sure that he didn't miss some content that was much, MUCH more violent. That would nullify judge's conclusion that the level of violence was less than on prime-time TV.

Unfortunately, this is logically correct. There, I said it--JT was right, on this point, that the judge can't possibly make a factual conclusion about the content of the game based on watching an agent of Take Two play it through for him. The fact that choices exist means that the judge could have been fooled.

Relevance to the debate? Well, if Jack is trying to get the game banned on the grounds that it meets the definition of "obscene material", his point is quite relevant, because the judge can't determine whether something is obscene or not if the judge never saw it.

At the end of the day its parents responisbility to monitor what they buy their children and what their children do.

This sentence is a complete non sequitur to the previous sentence. WTF?

Before I get attacked as being complicit, I'd like to point out that I don't agree with JT.

Avoid making violent choices.

[icejai]

Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices.

I think this is the most telling of Mr Thompson's state of mind.
He may not have realized it, but he just defeated his entire standpoint against any videogame. What he says is completely true about games, and about life in general. Yes, kids *can* do violent things, but it's up to the individual to "avoid making violent choices" in video games and in life. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach their kids how to deal with frustrating situations, and to be the prime example.

Mr. Thompson is really setting a bad example to the very kids he's trying to protect. Avoiding "making violent choices" involves restraint. But him lashing out at everyone and everything, using his lawyer status as a tool to frighten others not as knowledgable in law to do what he wants done, is sending the opposite message.

Re:Avoid making violent choices.

[Trespass]

He's not trying to protect anybody. He's using fear to garner attention and increase his prestige to the point he can influence policy. Essentially he's using the nation's own ambivalence about violence, youth, and technology to make him into an important guy. His message is just a sham. A sort of media trojan, if you will.

Re:Avoid making violent choices.

[noidentity]

I just want to point out that there are no choices of violence when playing a video game. The only thing the player is ever actually doing is pressing buttons. Nobody is every being violated while playing a video game. There is virtual violence, but like virtual unicorns, it is not real.

Thompson's response letter to the judge...

[NC-17]

Pretty good reading, if you'd like to get a better sense at just how crazy JT really is:

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/thompso n-verbally-attacks-judge-207578.php

Re:Thompson's response letter to the judge...

[mmalove]

I think I've finally read something more whiny than a post on the World of Warcraft forums. I never thought I'd see the day.

Re:Thompson's response letter to the judge...

[endemoniada]

So... If he feels so strongly about helping all the poor, misguided children who obviously can't tell the difference between their real-life, three-dimensional friend with non-scripted speech and movements that weren't pre-recorded, why doesn't he step up and actually help their parents with parenting?

Help the parents explain the paradox in that other children are NOT two-dimensional, pre-scripted and pre-animated contrary to what every child in America must believe by now.

Am I the only one who thinks drea 'ol JT is only making things worse? He's forcing the image that games are more real-to-life than they actually are. He's telling kids that there is no difference in playing a game and beating up their friends.

If his mouth is the gun, he's the one pointing it at the kids while tugging the trigger.

Re:Thompson's response letter to the judge...

[Chris Burke]

Nice link.

So Ol' Jackie Boy thinks he was denied due process, eh? Well it turns out there's a perfect mechanism in place for him to bring his grievences to, which is the Appeals Court. If he really suffered as badly as he described, and the Judge so obviously was remiss in his duty to provide Jackie with fair and impartial access to the law, then he should easily be able to get the Court of Appeals to rule in his favor.

So we'll see what the appeals court has to say. I'm willing to bet most of his grievances in that letter don't show up in the appeal.

No, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you want the HONEST truth, you most likely got modded Troll because of the Amazon referral link. Kind of sleazy.

Although the Slashdot conspiracy against you is most likely true as well...

Re:No, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you want the HONEST truth, you most likely got modded Troll because of the Amazon referral link. Kind of sleazy.

Although the Slashdot conspiracy against you is most likely true as well...

What are you replying to?

What Amazon referral link?

You are not making any sense.

Slashdot badly needs thread continuity. It grows more and more inchoherent with every moderation action. Please keep this in mind when you post; your post has absolutely zero context other than it being posted under a particular story. We have no idea who you are replying to or what you are talking about unless you tell us.

Re:No, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot badly needs thread continuity. It grows more and more inchoherent with every moderation action. Please keep this in mind when you post; your post has absolutely zero context other than it being posted under a particular story. We have no idea who you are replying to or what you are talking about unless you tell us.

Or... you could click... the parent button. Which shows you who he's replying to, and therefore what he's talking about.

My advice? Invest in a helmet, before you hurt yourself.

Re:No, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

People really overreact about the sleeze factor of Amazon referral links... the vast majority of the time it just goes down like this... someone has an Amazon account, and they look up a title on Amazon. They think the information there is relevant, so they just cut and paste the URL without even thinking that them being logged in could be traced back to their Amazon account. I haven't heard word one that people actually get any sort of credits or anything when people click through... if someone DOES have some reliable information I would be interested in checking it out. Otherwise I get the feeling this "Amazon referral link" is just some form of meta-trolling.

This doesn't matter!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have Lieutenant Horatio Caine of CSI Miami to protect us!

In the future, if you're gonna watch somebody's back, let me know about it so I can watch yours.

Child Serial Killer for the PS3

[Isaac Azathoth]

Yup,

That's going to be the name of my game.

The game will consist of a child racing to eat as many boxes of breakfast cereal as possible in an eating contest. I'll blame the name screw up on the folks in marketing.

It should prove to be entertaining watching the media feeding frenzy....

Re:Child Serial Killer for the PS3

[Kankraka]

That's actually not a half bad idea. I'd even buy it knowing that it's just a game about eating cereal.

Re:Child Serial Killer for the PS3

[Dunbal]

eat as many boxes of breakfast cereal as possible in an eating contest.

      And you can unlock special levels where you have to solve a puzzle by matching the correct serial numbers...

Re:Child Serial Killer for the PS3

[Doppleganger]

Do you know how much sugar is in cereal these days? You're promoting childhood obesity!! Think of the childeren!!!!111!!

MOD PARENT UP

[ThatsNotFunny]

There's a big difference between Publishing and Distributing...

Someone...

[oahazmatt]

Someone please give Mr. Thompson a Fudgesicle and a hug. Thank you.

Now *there's* a game idea

[nobodyman]

I suspect he can be disbarred in any state where he practices pro hac vice, but I doubt other states bars will even want to hear it. And this case was in Florida anyway.

Let's just make a game called Pro hac Vice City so he'll be against that, too.

submission whine

[illegalcortex]

I really don't get the submission process. I sent this in on Friday. It was pending all weekend. Now it's rejected and they post someone's submission that links to an article published this morning. So it wasn't a matter of not being first to the punch. And my submission text was short and to the point with all the relevant details, linking to two different sources. It even had a better quote from Jack: "When kids start showing up in ERs with slingshot wounds at the hands of Bully enthusiasts, don't blame me."

I wouldn't have said anything, but having the main page load saying "Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop" at the top was a bit too much. What a crock.

Re:submission whine

[Anonymous Coward]

if you would have posted your actual submission I would give it 30 seconds or so of my time and then decide if you should be modded up

but since you didnt bother to do that: NOBODY GIVES A SHIT

Re:submission whine

[illegalcortex]

I really wanted to do that, but as far as I know it's impossible to get your submission text in slashdot. Do you know of a way?

For once...

[Footix]

...the system works!

Re:For once...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Footix - President, Society For Putting Things On Top Of Other Things

I thought you disbanded in the early 1970s?

The smartest thing Jack Thompson ever said...

[CowsAnonymous]

From arstechnica

"After the court session concluded, Jack Thompson told Ars Technica that the proceedings were a travesty. He characterized the judge's viewing of footage as nothing more than a couple of "Take Two operatives" showing the judge everything in the game they wanted him to see. "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine. But there's such a thing as due process," said Thompson. "And I was denied due process in court today."

TV

[phorm]

The judge compared it to TV, where yes there are bodybuilders with bazookas, but also kids being beaten, taking drugs, are killed (see CSI or many other crime shows), beaten, raped, and various other such things. For that matter, perhaps see: Real Life (tm).

However, TV has already set a bar for which the majority public has accepted. The judge is saying that this game does not exceed or is perhaps under that current level.

office humor

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I would love to see what sorts of humorous nasty pictures and effigies of Jack Thompson litter the Take 2 and Rockstar offices/email servers.

Thanks for the link

[Scrameustache]

How dare you, Judge, petulantly order the production of the game after it is released on Tuesday morning. I didn't even ask for that. You did that out of spite, and you were smiling when you did that. You really enjoyed that one, didn't you, Judge?

lol!

How DARE you ask for the full, release game??? HOW DARE YOU!!!! OR ELSE!!!!!!!! :-P

Re:Nice...

[ackthpt]

I have this story still pending from when I typed it in on Saturday morning.

Why do you care? The story got posted, stop whining that it wasn't yours. And why should *we* care?

I care because I now see why so much news on Slashdot is so fsking old. They ask us, prompt us even, to send them news articles, then the stuff sits around for 2 days before making it's appearance.

If you don't care about how old news is, I can't make you.

A judge's permission

[British]

Since when does a company need a judge's permission to publish anything? Seems like the game's name is incredibly ironic in this sense. Has ANYTHING else happened like this before? Has a judge cleared something controversial ahead of time? I honestly can't think of any legal process that explains this.

Re:A judge's permission

[photomonkey]

I have a feeling that we (as a country) are still trying to figure out whether the First Ammendment applies to video games. For me, and likely many others, I think they are covered under the First Ammendment as an expressive, albeit interactive, means of communicating.

Working in the news business, I am fairly well aquainted with the notion of prior restraint.

Generally (speaking to the US), prior restraint is allowable (at a court's discretion) only in a VERY narrow margin of cases where publishing certain information could result in a catastrophe of great magnitude. As my old media law prof described, such a piece of information could include a newspaper publishing strategic battle plans which could tip off the enemy and result in great loss of life. The holding of 1931's Near v. Minnesota (also the first case in which prior restraint was really challenged) sets this precedent.

The rule-of-thumb that is applied is to allow nearly anything to publish (be it libelous, inflammatory or even illegal) and let the people/courts sort it out after the public has a chance to view it.

The above-linked Wikipedia article also gets into (surprisingly) the court's ruling on 2600 'publishing' DVD Jon's DeCSS program on their site. Although this doesn't directly correlate to a videogame, the courts DID rule that prior restraint would be allowed here, because the code was not an expression of thought or concept, but rather an actual instrument designed to violate the DMCA.

I don't necessarily agree with that assertion, because publishing the actual text of the code (as opposed to an executable or compiled binary) allows for anyone to see how the code works. Think of it as education. If a person decided to do a copy 'n' paste job and compile the code HIMSELF, I could see where that gets into illegal territory (at least in terms of the DMCA).

My fear is that someone could essentially argue that a videogame is a collection of code designed to inflame, defame or otherwise 'do harm' intentionally and, using the above principles, prevent it from ever seeing the light of day.

I don't see how a videogame could be argued to produce a catastrophe of great magnitude, and I'm sure judges don't either. We can all hypothesize about games where the goal is to kill a teacher or fly a plane into a building, but there would have to be some compelling evidence that the game CAUSES people to do such things or otherwise incites them to act out the game in real life. And that is the crux of the argument against violent videogames. No one knows, as a matter of legal certainty or probability, what effect videogames have on their users.

What I get from seeing this recently renewed interest in 'banning' or regulating videogames is that the courts have taken over ruling where families/society/parents/guardians/siblings/etc. used to.

I don't have children, but you can bet dollars to cents that my child would only be playing games that I feel are appropriate for his age and, more importantly, maturity level. I wouldn't worry about whether my kid's xbox 360 had parental controls because certain games wouldn't be allowed in my house; or at least wouldn't allowed to be played without supervision. But that's my decision and not the courts'.

All this being said, the US doesn't recognize children as full citizens, nor does it afford them the same application of the law as adults. That is a good thing. I'm all in favor of making it a crime to sell games/movies/etc. with certain ratings to minors. We already do it with some publications (teh pr0n).

From a legal standpoint, I am anxious to see where all this goes.

Jack Thompson - Corporate Shill for Game Companies

[Techguy666]

Has anyone noticed that every time Jack Thompson complains about something, whether it be video games or music CDs, those products do really, really well?? I mean, his attack on Grand Theft Auto seemed to keep it in the public eye forever. It wasn't until he started railing against Bully that GTA fell out of the public attention. Then there was "2 Live Crew" - their sucky lyrics made them a joke but then Jack Thompson made a public stink in the media and warning stickers were placed on the CDs and every teenaged boy in North America had to have a copy.

I'm convinced that Jack Thompson is a corporate shill for the various media companies. I mean, he's too harmless to do any damage to the products in question, he's too laughable to be taken seriously by anyone, and yet he can whip up public attention like nobody else. I wouldn't be surprised at this point if Rockstar starts/is funding Jack Thompson's campaigns.

JACK!

[Karem Lore]

I wonder if Jack Thompson would be as happy if someone attempted to remove all the gruesome bits of (questionable) history from the bible, as that is just another piece of violent artistic fiction?

In reality I don't care what this born-again Christian is spouting (apart from verbal crap) as he has no right to sit there and judge what is morally good for other people...

That's like the US telling the rest of the world what to do....Oh Wait....

Karem

Great quote

[Devir]

"Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."

If true, this just goes to show that the game allows you the player to make moral choices. It allows you to choose a non violent path to certain situations.

After reading this fiasco for the past few months i'm actually wanting to buy the game. Prior to Thompson throwing a fit, i would have ignored the game on the shelf.

Re:Great quote

[Dunbal]

Prior to Thompson throwing a fit, i would have ignored the game on the shelf.

      If Thompson isn't on Rockstar's payroll he soon will be. This guy boosts their sales incredibly.

Re:Jack Thompson - Corporate Shill for Game Compan

[singingjim]

It's the same with all those anti pop culture types. Whatever they decide to rail against ends up being the most popular thing soon after.. Marilyn Manson owes his career to lunatic fringe religious nuts. Nobody would have ever heard of 2LiveCrew without idiots trying to ban them way back when. Yeah, so I'm dating myself.

DUH!

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy fighting it is wasting the court's time.
The judge ruled correctly, stating that this video game contains less violence than the common tv show. There are more than ample cases regarding tv shows being pursued to get shut down, and many have failed.
In fact, there is a rating system on tv shows now which stemmed from all of the past suits.

That is real freedom, you don't like it? don't watch it.
If you cannot be responsible for what your kids watch or play, then video games are going to be the least of your concerns.
Just because it's a video game does not mean it's for kids.
Ratings on vid games and tv shows are for that particular reason, to keep these stupid law suits from happening.
Really, this whole thing is like blaming Ozzy because some kid wants to commit suicide to a sound track and the music happens to be Ozzy singing

More Jack BS

[Clever7Devil]

I find this to be the definitive article chronicaling the pure stupidity of one Jack Thompson. Plenty of links, good commentary.

http://www.grumpygamer.biz/index.php/2006/09/23/ja ck_thompson_thinks_he_s_jesus

He really is a nut job.

Wasn't that on the C64?

[Anonymous Coward]

Played it.

I wonder

[Some_Llama]

Do you think Jack sees the irony in trying to force a company to not release a game called bully by using strong arm tactics (like suing them in court)?

Probably not, but i'm loving it...

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you're looking for is hypocrisy, not irony. This is not ironic at all.

Re:I wonder

[Some_Llama]

Hmm, could it be both?

It's worded correctly...

[Anonymous Coward]

He said "model for real life actions", not "model of real life actions". Virtual reality, in the way you are talking about it, is a "model of" real life. When he ssid it's not meant to be a "model for" he was effectively saying that the users aren't meant to copy the in-game actions in real life.

says Nelson Muntz:

[smitty97]

Judge Clears Bully For Publishing

Ha-ha!

Regarding Jack T.

[Grimmreaper74]

I think everyone should just completly make this guy a laughing stock of the world, he must of been one of the kids that was picked on not only the kids at school but his own parents.... I think that all gamers should harass the hell out of him till he moves to the south pole or something, here is his E-mail if you would like to send him your opinion jackpeace@comcast.net

For a good laugh call?!?!?!?

[Grimmreaper74]

Man how are you gonna just put the # for the White House out like that???? I called it just to see whatit was and now they are probably tracing my number... Damn it...Good way to get some one in trouble... You got me Props....

Re:BULLSHIT! PROOF OR STFU

[rifter]

SERIOUSLY. Show me proof because I am 100% sure you are full of shit. No judge in their right mind would allow a free speech law to stand like that. If they did, it would be struck on appeal (and it WOULD be appealed).

This is not a question of freedom of speech. If the laws barred such games from being sold/produced/owned at all then it would violate the first amendment (among other things) and therefore would be struck down. Which has already happened. However, the question of whether such material is to be allowed in the hands of minors is a seperate issue. Historically courts have upheld laws restricting minors' access to certain materials (such as pornography) without the consent of their parents.

The poster is correct in stating that laws that require vendors to be responsible for checking the age of customers who buy certain games/videos/music cds has generally been upheld for the same reason that laws requiring stores to check ages for cigarettes/alcohol/firearms/pornography. The argument that it presents an undue burden on the retailer was not upheld, and the laws themselves do not directly challenge constitutional rights as currently interpreted by the courts since adults still have access to these things.

The wider question, where because of these burdens and economic factors retailers/moviehouses demand that media be censored to meet the standard of their market, as happens with movies needing a certain rating or the "Wal-Mart version" of a cd, sanitized so that it no longer has a "mature" rating, and its effect on the ability of content providers to create unhindered works of art and adults to access those works has not been addressed as far as I know. I'm not sure the courts are the right answer for that question, but it is a societal problem that must be faced as surely as the problem of unsupervised, unguided/misguided children and the damage they cause because their parents refuse to take responsibility and do their jobs.

Ban all sports!

[giafly]

Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices.

Just because players normally choose to use a baseball bat or pool cue to hit a ball doesn't mean they couldn't make more violent choices. Ban everything!

I can understand Jack's point.

[phrackwulf]

Obviously the judge didn't get a look at the deleted "hot cocoa" mod for this game. Apparently, there is some code included in the unreleased build that if you re-enable it, lets your character choose whether to hire an unscrupulous lawyer character to "sue" the abusive bullies who are attacking the weaker NPC's. The mini-game basically has your character run back and forth between some piles of burning objectionable games, CD's and copies of the Bill of Rights and the more you fan the flames the higher your score and the more the lawyer pays you. Heck of a coincidence, huh?

And does anyone else notice that Jack is kind of naive? I mean, if he's after a Columbine simulator, I'd bet he'd wet his pants if he saw F.E.A.R. combat, which you can play for free. He's kind of sweet and old fashioned I find.

[-)

Color me unsurprised

[LindseyJ]

Did anyone really think this case would end any other way? This is the way I think it went down:

"Goddamnit, it's Jack Thompson again. I've had a migrane ever since I had to deal with that Litigation guy an hour ago... Well, let's get this over with. Bring in the guy to play the game for me."

3 hours later...

"Hot damn, did you just bean that guy in the face with a slingshot. Hahaha! That's hillarious! Hey, can I try for a bit? Huh? Why not? Oh, it's not actually relased yet. Well, what are you waiting for?! Hurry up and release it; case dismissed!"

Re:Jack Thompson - Corporate Shill for Game Compan

[Dunbal]

dEar rOCkStaR,

      PlEAse DEpoSiT tWO MillIOn DoLLaRS (US$2,000,000.00) In THe folLOWinG ACCounT oR I wiLL fAIL to MAKe COMMents ABOut YOUr laTEST GAme RelEAse.

      YouR FRIenD - JAck

That's a relief

[Sloppy]

Good thing a judge cleared before it was published. We wouldn't want something to get published without permission from the government!

Re:Nice...

[toadlife]

Chill out dude. Without your submissions, Slashdot wouldn't be able to bring us so many dupes. I'm sure your submission will be approved soon.

On another note, my recent submission was rejected. I guess the release of another firewall based on another firewall based on FreeBSD is more newsworthy than a FreeBSD based desktop OS getting corporate backing.

Rhetoric for the masses

[DeltaCrash]

"Guns don't kill people, controllers do."

Re:BULLSHIT! PROOF OR STFU

[apendrag0n3]

This is NOT a free speech issue... Our community lawmakers are NOT book burners, etc. We simply opted to enforce the ratings system in our community. Unrated Movies, etc have been and always will be available and those are left to the discretion of the particular venue. We have an Adult Bookstore in town, as well as several movie rental businesses and 1 computer store that sells video game software... All of these were consulted and were part of the lawmaking process so that undue damages would not be brought to bear on their businesses... Unlike you, who seems bent on making this a "free speech" issue, the shop owners/managers, etc were MORE THAN happy to work with the community of which they are apart. As the other reply to your enraged and enflamed post states: "The poster is correct in stating that laws that require vendors to be responsible for checking the age of customers who buy certain games/videos/music cds has generally been upheld for the same reason that laws requiring stores to check ages for cigarettes/alcohol/firearms/pornography." This is all that was being stated... nothing more... I apologize if something I said was unclear to you, however your use of profanity and feeling the need to write the post in such a manner begs the question of what I may have done to offend YOU? At least I wonder about that until I read some of your other posts and realized that profanity seems to be just a natural part of your vocabulary. Again, My apologies for your misinterpretation of the information being presented.

Not in the slightest.

[Kadin2048]

No, because all you've done then is leave the real criminals with guns, and eliminated the means with which a whole lot of non-criminals have to defend themselves.

More (legitimately owned) guns are used in self-defense every day than in crime; it's just that the crime gets more publicity so that's what people associate.

If you took away all the legitimately purchased guns, you would eliminate the small amount of crime that's committed with them, but you'd also eliminate the much greater number of self-defense (and general crime deterrence) that they also do.

Re:Not in the slightest.

[Taevin]

This is a good point. The "5 shot dead by crazed gunman" gets the bigger headline than the "Woman chases home invader away with gun" story which is very unfortunate (although not surprising given our obsession with violence and death).

The threat of force is sometimes all that is necessary to deter crime. For some reason most strong gun control advocates seem to have never heard about the countless situations were a homeowner causes a criminal to flee without so much as a drop of blood spilled or a bruise on either party (I always like the little old ladies with a shotgun stories myself ;) ).

While it's true that guns possess a great amount of force and can kill fairly easily, it's common knowledge that this is the case so who in their right mind would want to fight against that if they don't have to? The psychological urge to avoid personal injury and death is usually stronger than whatever urge that would cause a person to commmit a crime.

I like V-Chip for a completely different reason

[WilliamSChips]

Because when those little white or black squares show up in the top left corner, it means you should hit play on your DVR because the commercials are over.

Jack Thompson flames the Judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Now why didn't you include the best bit, Jack Thompson attacking the Judge over his actions.

It is a great mine full of wonderful gems such as the following(the best bit is first, Jack gets PWNED!):
5. How dare you, Judge, promise a hearing today and then prevent that hearing from occurring. How dare you, Judge, petulantly order the production of the game after it is released on Tuesday morning. I didn't even ask for that. You did that out of spite, and you were smiling when you did that. You really enjoyed that one, didn't you, Judge?

Take-Two's lawyer, Rebecca Ward, lied in your courtroom when she told you that a "Teen" rating is an age restriction at the point of sale. That is an utter fabrication, and you are on notice that it is an utter fabrication. Ms. Ward is very good at fabricating things for a client that routinely engages in criminal conduct, and you bought all this hook, line, and sinker.

You were very nice to my other expert, Miami Police Chief Ken Harms, and then made it certain that your courtroom would not be graced with his real expertise. I would have preferred less courtesy and more due process, and so would the victims that are on the way.

You broke every promise made me. Disagree with me if you like, but don't refuse to hold a hearing you promised to have. Don't promise to view an entire game and then cut out after an hour.

Next time you promise a "hearing," I'll bring a parent with me whose kid is in the ground because of a kid who trained to kill him or her on a violent video game. Try mocking that person, I dare you.

Seriously, there is sooo much crap in there that I could end up quoting the whole thing!

He must suffer from some mental disablity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I would consider the following actions to be continuing "his campaign against Bully."

But considering his other past antics & actions, I am not surprised at all by the contradictory statements he makes.

Re: Free Speech

[Dudukain]

Admittedly, this game is disgusting and puerile, but it is protected by free speech.

Maybe they should stop naming games 'Bully'

[Anonymous Coward]

and instead call them 'Fluffy pink bunnies'. That oughtta be good enuf for Jacko Thomo.

yep

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of gun crimes in the US are committed with stolen weapons. When A gun owner has their weapon stolen, they tend to replace it... This leads to an increase in the number of weapons, an increase in criminals with weapons, and an escalation of social anxiety, which encourages use of weapons. To me, that's freaky.

You think they wanted the Alabama case?

[Anonymous Coward]

What good does it do Take Two and Rockstar to have Jack Thompson bring cases like the Devin Moore(dispite dropping JT, case is still on going last I checked) and Cody Posey? I would also think that his other favorite targets, Sony and retailers like Wallmart & Gamestop would have problems with these kinds of fraudulent actions, not to mention the courts and the government.

Yeah, Jack does give companies publicity, but I wouldn't think someone would be stupid enough to pay him off to do crap like this. The only one I can see doing this would be Acclaim, and look how far it got them. The only PR stunt I see here is Rockstar letting critics like Jack and the media spew FUD over a game they know nothing about.

Maybe there is more to JT?

[Tinman_au]

I, like many others, always thought JT was just a nutcase with a chip on his shoulder, but maybe theres more to the guy and he's not really as inept as he seems?

*plucks conspiracy theory from bum*

Maybe he's secretly in the employ of a game publisher or perhaps a marketing company?

There are a lot of companies around these days that arrange viral marketing campaigns, and something like this would just be an extension on that type of thing.

Consider the sheer amount of coverage his antics recieve. And he always seems to lose the case (has he ever actually won a games related case??) even when they look like they might have some sort of merit at the start of the case.

Of course, maybe I'm just reading too much into the guy and he really is what he seems /shrug

Jack Thompson a marketing tool?

[lcllam]

Just curious... is it just me, or would the 'Jack effect' positively affect sales the same way a 18SX rating would? Isn't Jack his own worst enemy?

awsome judge

[sniperawd]

this judge put jack thompson in his place at the bottom, a worthless piece of shit. i am so glad i live in michigan away from jack thompson... I love this judge!!

Subject

[Legion303]

Jack Thompson raped my dog.

Re:In case of Bully v. Bully FL Judge finds for Bu

[Grand High Wonko]

I prefer Jackass v. Rockstar