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

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

[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

[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

[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".

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.

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: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: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

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.