Slashdot Mirror
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.
"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.
This guy's the limit!
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.
...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.
My blog
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.
A-Bomb
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
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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)
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.
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.