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.
Why would a judge be asked to condone prior restraint, and expected to do it???
"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!
Don't lawyers normally get into some sort of trouble for calling Judges incompetent twats who don't know how to do their job?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
''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.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
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...
stuff |
Now you've got both feet stuck in your mouth. Let's see if you can fit anything else in there.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
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.
I can't find my
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
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!
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.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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
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?
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
Better known as 318230.
will it be till we see a mod so that players can bully Jack Thompson, eh? :)
Ahhh... so THAT explains it! Someone get the man some Midol!
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
Honestly?
You are all a bunch of idots.
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)
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.
''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.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
Pretty good reading, if you'd like to get a better sense at just how crazy JT really is:
o n-verbally-attacks-judge-207578.php
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/thomps
"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."
CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
"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.
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.
Good thing a judge cleared before it was published. We wouldn't want something to get published without permission from the government!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
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.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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!