Grand Theft Auto Ban To Be Decided By Courts 758
Wingchild writes "Haitian civil rights groups in Florida have filed a lawsuit with the circuit court in Palm Beach County, which Rockstar Games has asked to be moved up to a federal court for a final decision on whether or not their game has to be banned from stores. This move happens as the court of media opinion begins weighing in on the subject (facts irrelevant, of course), a fact which Slashdot Games noted a scant two days ago."
A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents should just do their job.
AC
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to see how they play the cards.
(and yes, putting all the legalities aside, I rather agree with you - if the parents don't like it, they should just keep their kids from playing it. Doesn't mean they don't have a case, though.)
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Informative)
Man, that shouldn't even be an ethnic/racial issue. The reference was to the Haitian gang, not the entire population from that background.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
And, of course, "enemy combatant" refers to anyone the American government thinks is guilty of a crime against Americans. So, if the government thinks they are guilty, they are guilty until proven innocent. If the government thinks they are innocent, then they get protection of innocence until proven guilty. It only makes logical sense. Vote Quimby!
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry though, there's an easy solution: "kill the group of persons whom have a common trait of originating in a non-specific country." Come to think of it, "kill" is a strong word and probably offends those not living. Let's replace all instances of "kill" with "give a basket of kittens to." It's not so bad really, sure "give a basket of kittens to the group of persons whom have a common trait of originating in a non-specific country," isn't as to-the-point as "kill the Haitians," but at least no one gets offended. Then we can all sing songs and dance amongst the trees and kittens and give flowers to each other and everyone will be happy, or else.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like you to know that I own a pet store. I sell, among other things, kittens. If video games promote the willful act of freely distributing kittens with no means of compensation for the giver, then I could be out of a job. I would lose my house, my car, my boat, and my wife, so used to living the expensive lifestyle afforded her by my kitten sales, would leave me (and probably for one of those communist animal shelter bastards). My children, starving and shoeless, would be forced to prostitute themselves on the cold, wet streets of San Diego. Imagine my poor kids, street urchins all, the painful chafing of sand between their naked toes[*].
For shame. I can't believe you could be so insensitive, you, uh, insensitive clod.
Then we can all sing songs and dance amongst the trees and kittens and give flowers to each other and everyone will be happy, or else.
And my brother, the florist...
[*] On the behest of Mark Asparagus, Michael Jackson is excluded from this suggestion.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Informative)
However, inciting violence requires a lot more specificity than what is shown in GTA. They don't say "kill the hatians that live at 123 Maple Ave".
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Funny)
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us to think for ourselves!
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone tells me to thinks for myself, and I do it, then did I?
Ob Onion Article (Score:3, Funny)
Alarmed by the unhealthy choices they make every day, more and more Americans are calling on the government to enact legislation that will protect them from their own behavior.
''The government is finally starting to take some responsibility for the effect my behavior has on others,'' said New York City resident Alec Haverchuk, 44, who is prohibited by law from smoking in restaurants and bars. ''But we have a long way to go. I can still light up on city streets and in
You're missing a lot of gray area..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You're missing a lot of gray area..... (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzzt, wrong. The restrictions on commercial speech do not apply to the content of the game itself. Rockstar's commercials promoting the game, however, are subject to restrictions on commercial speech. Rockstar cannot claim, for example, that the game adds two inches to your penis, or helps you learn how to successfully deal with police.
Commercial speech has not appeared in many video games so far, and it's difficult to imagine how it really could. In Crazy Taxi, passengers get in the cab and always want to be taken to places like KFC (beautifully rendered, logo and all). If a game comes out where you have to go to KFC and gorge on buckets of greasy chicken to keep your health points from going to zero, then the game makers (along with KFC) might conceivably be playing with the possibility of commercial restrictions. But movies have been getting away with product placement payola for a while now, so I wouldn't bet on it.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not a politically expressive act protected by the First Amendment, though it may contain protected speech within it.
Here's the thing that gives me trouble. I've played GTA:VC, and I've enjoyed it. It's fun. It's funny. It's very, very well-produced and the voice acting is some of the best I've seen in a game (hell, with that cast, I'd hope so). And it's really no worse than Scarface, Miami Vice, the Sopranos, or any other pop culture creation based in drugs and organized crime.
The difference is that you
I don't know, and really the only thing that this whole debate has caused for me is a lot of soul searching about why I should derive pleasure from killing virtual Hatians and stealing virtual cars. Great game, great gameplay, bad context.
Then again, chess simulates war.
This will indeed be an interesting case to watch. The requested damages are so small ($15k?) that it hardly seems like a frivolous lawsuit. I guess the decision will come down to whether games are considered to be passive entertainment (in the same way that a play that requires audience participation might be), or an active extension of the real world, where an incitement to kill in the virtual world may carry over into the real.
One last thought: the Supreme Court tossed out a case against Hustler magazine which had published a parody ad which, basically, said that Jerry Falwell had done incredibly bad things to his mother. The grounds? That nobody could possibly believe that the ad was serious.
Who knows.
Heartburn (Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech) (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The offensive phrase apparently refers to a competing criminal gang made up of Haitians, not to the Haitian community in general.(?)
2) If incitement to virtual behavior that would be illegal in reality is deemed inappropriate, the entire genre of first person shooters and much of several other genres would be illegal as well.
3) If virtual child porn is legal, how can virtual racism be illegal?
On the other hand, Haitians have to be the most oppressed people in the western hemisphere. First, their home country is a wasteland, then they have to risk life and limb to get here, then (unlike Cubans) they have to hide from immigration because they don't get amnesty just for reaching shore. Finally, if they do get through all that, even African-Americans pick on them. In public HS here "Are you Haitian?" is the same as "Are you stoopid?" (see Disclaimer)
Finally, the parent comment is one of the best balanced discussions of this issue in the whole thread. It doesn't just discuss the specific issue of the lawsuit, but it addresses the broader issues of morality in media consumption.
Disclaimer: The phrase "even African-Americans" is used to indicate that this is a case of black on black racism (or nationalism), it doesn't mean "even the lowly black folks pick on the Haitians".
LOTR?? (Score:5, Funny)
Luckily for them, the Orcs are currently in charge of Congress so a ban on anti-Orc material should be forthcoming
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Source code is not free speech.
Religion is not free speech.
Anti religious speech is free speech.
Politics ARE free speech, except prior to an election, where anybody caught speaking at all will be run through with a spoon.
Pornography is free speech.
Pro gay speech is free speech.
Anti gay speech is not free speech.
Games depicting white people in futuristic battle gear, aliens, robots, skeletons, and other obvious "bad" people being killed are free speech.
Games depicting gay, athiest, Hatian politicians, turning tricks with alien robots, and then being killed with a sharpened religious symbol are not free speech.
The definition of freedom seems to be escaping me.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Source code is free speech as long as it doesn't violate the DMCA. And then it's not.
Speaking about religion is still free speech as long as you're doing it on your own dime. I've got 3 religious stations on my cable feed, and they can say all they want about God, the pope, Tammy Fay's makeup, etc.
Anti-Religious
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
>
>Why would you think that?
Because he doesn't understand the difference between exercising free speech and using the government to endorse his own religion.
It's a particularly ignorant statement, since religion doesn't even need to be free speech. The "free exercise" of religion gets its own specific protection, even if it only involves meditating by yourself (which would be neither speech nor expression).
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
A book is (usually) a commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets, through
A newspaper is (usually) a commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets, through... well paper again.
A song is (usually) a commercial attempt to engage our minds, hearts, and wallets through lyrics and musical sounds (or sometimes not so musical if you've ever heard any power noise)
Do you get my drift or shall I continue?
The difference is that you
I participate in books. I read them and I have to imagine what the world looks like and what the characters do. I can live out my fantasies in books, or even in television. I mean who wouldn't like to go ride around on the Starship Enterprise and almost kill people because to actually kill them would violate some principal or something.
There is no facet of life where we ever prohibit people from engaging in fantasy, and every indication is that it's a necessary part of the human mind. We act out an agression fantasy in a video game, or by reading fight club, or by watching fight club. We do this to get out the urge to really go kill people in the real world.
I have killed virtual hatians. I have derived enjoyment from killing virtual hatians. I don't hate hatians, or much of anybody in fact, but in the context of the GAME, it's quite fun. I go around and see how many cops I can kill before they get me, and it's a hoot. We have friends over and take turns going on violent rampages. And then we go home and sleep peacefully without ever a thought of grabbing a samurai sword and decapitating random passers by. I see nothing immoral in this act because IT IS A GAME.
There is zero scientific evidence to suggest conclusively that there is a link between people playing violent video games or watching violent movies and then being lead to commit those acts. Yes, some people, already posessing of violent tendancies will go and commit various acts inspired by these media. But it's never been proven to be the cause, it's always the symptom, and more often than not it's just a cheap legal excuse to try to get a lighter sentance (the game made me do it; how can you put me in jail for life?)
Before video games existed some of the greatest attrocities in human history were committed. People read Catcher in the Rye and decided to assassinate presidents. There's no sign that the violence in these games is hurting anybody, and it may in fact be helping. I know that logging on to a game and blowing the crap out of people for an hour or two is stress relieving. I do that and then I don't feel any urge to take my anger out on my wife or my pets.
So, relax and go kill some virtual hatians. It'll all be okay.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you're absolutely right. I addressed this in another reply, but I was merely drawing the distinction between the game as speech and the game's contents as speech. To me, no, a game isn't speech.
But you're absolutely right to bring up America's Army because it is so insidiously evil. Getting inside the heads of kids with a giveaway that depicts realistic combat, and using that as a recruiting tool? Hell, if that's not incitement to violence I don't know what is. I support the US military and the men and women who serve, but, to me, America's Army is a desperate and wrong-headed tool completely against the principles on which I thought the military was based (preventing war by being strong, considering war as the last alternative -- also, note I'm talking about the military here, not their political masters).
No, Comen, I agree. I completely agree. But we need to think very, very clearly about what it is that we're defending here. If too many people get it in their heads that free speech = killing Hatians, then free speech may fall in popularity.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this case is not about equating free speech with killing Haitians. It's about allowing someone to say "Kill the Haitians" -- and to say it within the context of fiction, what's more.
If freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it requires that government regulation of speech, when it occurs, be entirely content neutral. People are going to raise the "fighting words" and "fire in a theatre" exceptions, because people don't understand the extreme limitations that those "exceptions" labor under. The Court has been very clear that bans based on what someone said will almost never pass constitutional muster.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I saw that, too. I just don't buy it. Is a book "speech"? I think almost any First Amendment expert would say Yes. The "container" doesn't matter -- whether it's a book, a song, a poster, a video, a sculpture, or a videogame. Banning this game would be in fact an infringement on the free speech rights of the publishers -- and of people who might buy it.
And I don't see how
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Burning a church is handily covered under arson laws -- laws which prohibit the burning of buildings regardless of political "content". That is, it is illegal to burn down any building; therefore, it is illegal to burn down a church. On the other hand, the case in FL does not propose to ban all videogames -- only those that don't conform to someone's idea of what "should" be
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Informative)
Let me ask you something. Take "Catcher in the Rye." If someone burns the book, does that destroy the concepts contained in the ? No. It destroys a means of conveying them. Does destroying a flag destroy America? No. It destroys a symbol of America.
Free speech is probably more dear to me than anything else in the political world. The Constitution, taken as a whole (along with the Bill of Rights), is a close second. Why would I t
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
As a matter of law? Probably. As a matter of store policy? Probably not.
there are plenty of examples of violent, pornographic, hate-infested material out there that are "legal" but not "socially acceptable". They are shunned by commercial vendors and therefore more difficult to obtain. Some people get this sort of stuff through mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.
I just wanted to clarify that Wal-Mart's use of its commercial power in
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
This is game is no worse than allot of movies, I am 32 years old and I love the game,
I personally think its wrong that someone else can tell me what I can not watch or
play. If other go out and kill someone after playing a video game that their problem,
and sure as hell is! covered by the Constitution, you people cant pick and choose
what is cover and isn't covered, any form of communication between people should
be covered.
I persona
Re:4 g4m3 15 fr33d0m 0f 5p33ch!!!1 (Score:3, Informative)
At least the gaming industry's labels have several appropriate categories (unlike the RIAA [EXPLICIT LYRICS] that appears on practically every album...)
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
A video game is a form of expression, a work of art, just like a movie or music. I'm not trying to imply a "slippery slope" chronology here, which has been all too cliched recently, but legally, to permit a "ban" of this game would set a legal precedent permitting songs with racist lyrics or movies deemed "politically incorrect" to be banned just for insensitivity to certain cultures. You don't see anything wrong with that?
Haven't we lost enough of our civil liberties in the last two and a half years?
Conservatives still don't like big government. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because "Republican" has meant "conservative" for several generations doesn't mean they are now. Political parties change beliefs from time to time. The Republican party used to be the progressive/liberal party, if you recall.
Conservatives are stil Conservatives. Our Republican adminstration, however, isn't ver Conservative at all. Bush has a very large government that has sought to increase federal and executive power at every turn.
People need to dissociate their political beliefs from political parties. The party that used to represent what you personally believe may change to represent that which you abhor.
The downside is you don't get to vote in primaries. The updside is you can remain true to your actual beliefs, instead of subverting them to the cause of someone else.
Anyone who isn't an indepenent is a tool, or someone who wishes to wield tools.
Re:Conservatives still don't like big government. (Score:4, Interesting)
You can register for a party and still think on your own. You can also then vote for an independent in the real election.
So tell me again how registering under Democrat or Republican makes you a tool.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently in the USA, you have two choices, fascist and liberal. Forget centrist, you can't even be conservative, green, pro-business, or libertarian any more. Nope, if you're anti-fascist you're a dirty liberal, and if you're against unthinking socialism, you're a fascist. Get used to it, that's all the political subtlety the media and those force-fed by it can handle nowadays.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is a video game not free speech, but a book is? Or a television program, radio program, painting, song, sculpture, etc.
What is so different about a videogame that suddenly makes it non-speech? Is it that it's on a TV? no, can't be that because TV programs are on TV.
Is it that it is interactive (i.e. the end user can change the outcome)? No, it can't be that because I read several books as a child where one could change the outcome. And books are protected speech.
Is it that videogames are relatively new, and didn't exist at the time of the framing of the Constitution? No, it can't be that because TV and radio didn't exist then either.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say that that covers a character in a story (which is all GTA really is: an interactive story) saying "Kill the Hatians" (or whatever the actual quote is).
Also, there is precedence for interpreting "speech" in the first amendment to encompass the larger concept of "expression", for instance, when the Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act in U.S. v. Haggerty and U.S. v. Eichman. So, according to the Supreme Court, flag burning is constitutionally protected "speech"
--Supreme Court Justice William BrennanThere are other examples of non-verbal expression being interpreted as "speech". For example the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court said that the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War was protected by the First Amendment.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
The Constitution overtly restricts the government, not the people, and your post is exactly the sort of thing he warned an explict Bill of Rights would lead to.
Your view is radical, antiliberty and downright unamerican.
From your tone one might surmise you consider yourself a conservative. Well sir, I am a conservative. As an American that also makes me a liberal, as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are overtly liberal documents. I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and you sir, are an enemy of the Constitution.
KFG
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
While I aggree with your post, i wish people wouls stop using this phrase. The only way I can think of to be un american is to wish for America's demise. Expressing your viewpoint, despite being not popular opinion is damned american.
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Gah. Are you saying that something must be explicitly uttered to be "speech"? So songs are out, since you sing songs and don't "speak" them. Even explicitly political songs (like Tom Lerher or 1960s folk songs) would be unprotected.
Or, and so would written copies of speeches that were given -- since the written copy is not itself spoken, so it's not "speech". And don't go trying to hide behind freedom of the press -- a handwritten copy or han
Re:A Game Is Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe you are misinterpreting the point of the parental assertion. I am fairly confident, from your comments and position, that if your 13-year old daughter happened to play this game at a friend's house, she wouldn't immeadiately want to go out and murder Haitians. The point is that you have raised your daughter with a proper understanding of right and wrong and some moral foundation. THAT is parent
It's just a game..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's just a game..... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think that's a feature per se of any "capitalist system", but more a feature of a free market system. Of course, IANAE.
0th3r m3d14 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:0th3r m3d14 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:0th3r m3d14 (Score:5, Funny)
Q: What's the difference between pornography and art?
A: A government grant.
The Few, The Proud, The Famously Banned (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how I assume they picked the reading material for my English classes... not that I read any of it.
E.g. "Catcher in the Rye" -- possibly even "Naked Lunch". But these are minority cases: an enormous volume of hardcore porn, for example, has been published; but you won't find any of it in school.
Now, here's a wei
Banning ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Banned? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe I should wait, huh?
AC
Re:Banned? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which makes another interesting point, most people that want the game have it already, banning it isn't going to make it go away, it's just providing more free advertising for it.
Welll time to sell my car (Score:2)
Here we go again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hollywood? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting, but hardly supprising considering that revenue for the combined US videogames market exceeded revenue for the combined US film and television production market.
Also it's fairly interes
Re:Hollywood? (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG, Rockstar Games are gonna be rich (Score:3, Insightful)
HAHA... As usual, this kind of publicity will just sell more copies.
Tables turned (Score:4, Funny)
Hypocrisy
Re:Tables turned (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't recall reading anything in the U.S. Constitution saying "The right of the people to not be offended shall not be infringed."
If you don't like the game, DON'T BUY IT!!! Nobody's pointing a gun at you to force you to buy.
Oh knock it off... (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes too much sense.
Ben
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, that scene is in the next version of GTA.
Great News (Score:2)
The only sad thing is the amount of money that needs to be spent on lawyers on cases like these. The plaintifs should be paying those lawyer fees and court costs when this is all said and done.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
On exactly what grounds are they suing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why Tort Reform is neccesesary (Score:5, Insightful)
This case illustrates a deeper problem. The very nature of the legal system lets irate idiots inflict a death of a thousand cuts. There is no barrier to be overcome to bring a lawsuit. No penalty for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Just the sound of society grinding down, under the weight of too many lawyers.
Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Tort Reform (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy with the bigger wallet could just threatan to run the costs up so high that it's not worth the risk.. and basically bring us full circle to where we are now.
In other words the problem is trickier than that.
What are they trying to prove? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually.. (Score:2, Insightful)
What I Don't get... (Score:2)
Why is it games only tell people to snipe people. Just today I found a few more interesting ways to kill people in vice city...
1. Get a fast car, hit a motorcycle head on then run over the rider in one motion
2. Position yourself so cop cars chasing you will hit other cops [funny to see this happen]
3. Do a "punch/shotgun" combo [by getting upclose].
You don't see people imitating this in real life. No it's some jackass with a
Argh! NYPost Is Not Credible! (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot can REALLY get on my fucking nerves now and then. I think I'm going to have to use a Louisville slugger to beat this point into the editors' and submitters' thick skulls...
The NY Post is NOT a credible news source. The NY Post is a TABLOID RAG that INTENTIONALLY writes up utterly ridiculous bullshit for the sole purpose of entertaining and/or selling magazines (and, it might be noted that the NY Post sells like week old baked horseshit, and for good reason).
I'm in Pennsylvania and they sell the NY Post here. However, they pull a dirty trick - most places put it with the regular newspapers instead of with crap like National Inquirer and Weekly World News. Then, people buy it and mistake it for upstanding journalism with some level of integrity. They wrote the piece to incite people. I mod the entire NY Post staff, and the writer of that article in particular, with -1 Flamebait.
PLEASE stop thinking that the NY Post is a newspaper. It is a tabloid, nothing more. It doesn't represent popular opinion, and, in fact, when they write garbage like that, it doesn't even necessarily represent the NY Post's opinion. It's JUST A TABLOID.
Re:Argh! NYPost Is Not Credible! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Argh! NYPost Is Not Credible! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most "tabloids" in the newspaper business aren't intentionally inacurate like the Weekly World News or The Onion are, but they are using the tabloid paper shape to try to make themselves more attractive to riders on trains and buses, and other people on the go. As a result, most tabloids also tend to go for the "stories that move newspapers" more than stories that are of "news value" that broadsheet newspapers seem to prefer. Like it or not, more common New Yorkers will spend their subway rides talking about the story that is on the front page of the Post than the Times on any day that the two papers disagree on the top story. Nobody admits to caring about J-Lo, but somehow if you put a picture of her on the front page the newspaper does sell more copies...
The NY Times gets caught printing all sorts of inaccurate information all of the time, just read their corrections and retractions if you want proof. It's not really a matter of the credibilty of the Post so much as it is the story selection.
The fact is, nearly every media outlet in the world is trying their best to be unbiased and credible (and those who aren't really easy to detect, such as Weekly World News and The Onion) yet most end up failing because the opinion of the editors and reporters almost always shows up in the story selection and placement. There will always be complants from people with views on the extreme sides of the scale that every popular media outlet will is biased against them for allowing the opposite side from them to speak. A news outlet is doing its job properly when it's getting roughly equal complaints from both sides.
You can't just toss a news artcle out just because it appeared in the Post. Their telling of the story might be a little more sensationalized, but that alone doesn't make it untrue.
Re:Argh! NYPost Is Not Credible! (Score:3, Interesting)
As opposed to what? I have a hard time identifying much distinction in journalistic integrity among any of the major newspapers and television networks. Maybe in the old days your argument mattered.
Regulate, not ban (Score:3, Insightful)
Its lazy parents who can't read a For mature 18+ adults only on the box that make these stupid bans because they can't or won't reign in their children and tell them that they can't have something because they aren't old enough. These cowardly sheeply parents must be stopped.
Dear Mr. Byron, (Score:4, Informative)
I recently read your business editorial in the December 29 issue of the New York Post. I am glad to see that you are open to letters and responses concerning your rather harsh defamation of Take Two Interactive. Many in your position prefer to hide in semi-anonymity when writing such provocative words, but you rather than do so have included your e-mail address. I do admire your ability to present an argument irrespective of what I hold as my own position.
I am an average man living a rather average life in Toronto, Canada. I was born here, raised here and love living with the freedoms I have. Freedoms my grandfather fought for in the Second World War. I am a professional computer programmer and part-time philosophy major at The University of Toronto. I enjoy writing and reading among my hobbies. I am a very evident pacifist. I deplore guns. I despise violence. I am so against it that I can hardly stand to watch the news.
You may wonder why on Earth I was even reading your editorial at all. Well, the fact is, I am also an avid gamer. As you may have soon realized, as no doubt you have received many similar letters from other video game fans from around the USA and the World at large. A link to your article has been making the rounds through the gaming news world. After all, we are a passionate bunch, with strong views about our favourite hobby and many of us will defend our Right to purchase, play, and discuss video games of all sorts. It seems fair, if you ask me, since we do live in The Free World.
Now discounting the SEC's charges of fraud, of which I cannot really make any sort of argument against, I would like to take a serious posture against what you have said. I take issue with your skewed portrayal of video games, video gamers and the state of Take Two's production values. I am very tired of defending the video game world to obviously ignorant individuals. Not to take it personally against you, after all, you do seem highly educated, but rather misinformed. We must stop riding the Scare Tactics Train to the Media Circus surrounding many recent real-world violent acts through out the World and domestically and start taking a hard look at the real reason that they happen. Video games are not it.
I will grant the accusation that Take Two's Grand Theft Auto series of games depicts violent acts. If I attempted to deny such a fact would be just outrageous and quite impossible to do. Also the fact that much of the line-up of games that they produce for the Playstation 1 and 2, Gameboy, and PC contain some violent content would be equally difficult to ignore as fact. What I do want to say is that this is no different from the equally easily accessible media in the Western world such as movies and television and in books and newspapers.
Each year, from the hallowed studios of Hollywood, billions of dollars are spent on thousands of movies depicting gore, violent acts, sex, drug use, and all manner of objectionable activity that is portrayed in less detail in any of the recent Grand Theft Auto video games. To name only a few such as The Godfather would be an exercise in futility as examples of such films. Yet the same such movie is lauded as one of the all-time greatest movies.
In fact, just checking the heralded internet resource, imdb.com ( http://imdb.com/top_250_films ) names it the greatest by almost 700,000 more votes than its runner-up. In fact, a quick browse of the same list makes it evident that they find violent films to be quite highly regarded. It includes recent action flicks such as The Matrix, adventure films as The Lord of the Rings and older suspense movies such as Psycho and "Ultra-violent" dramas such as A Clockwork Orange. It would be quite arguable that these same movies are not as high quality as we grant them, and they all feature extremely graphic violence and other objectionable acts.
Yes, these movies are all rated R (Restricted) in the USA. The film industry is self-regulating in it's r
Revised line: (Score:4, Funny)
From an american italians perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time some idiot hears that i'm italian, suddenly they start thinking i'm some stupid mafia goomba, and they start doing the whole Robert Di Nero accent when they talk to me. Fact is, I was raised in California, and so many of my family members were trying to hard to be "American" that most of them talked like John Wayne.
But I do enjoy afformentioned films and shows, as well as GTA. It's not like rockstar made a game that promotes Haitian genocide. They just did the whole voodoo momma stereotype(which *IS* a part of Haitian culture, just like the Mafia is part of my heritige)
I think these people need to get a life. It's a game, liven up.
From the Post article... (Score:5, Funny)
So, by spending many entertaining hours playing Vice City, all the time aware that this is fantasy and the acts I commit in the game have no bearing on my real-life conduct, I have been committing acts far worse than fucking little boys? Sheesh, I had no idea!
In fact, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the New York Post. It is, of course, another lying gutter publication from Rupert Murdoch, the bloated impotent turd who's attempts to take over the world will hopefully fail when he dies of a extremely-painfull coronary.
If they want the game off store shelves... (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think after what happened with Napster that people in general would learn not to draw extra attention to something you hate so much.
Other games (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
From the NY Post article:
In Tennessee last summer a motorist was killed and his passenger wounded when two boys - aged 14 and 16 - played "Grand Theft Auto" and then decided to go out and take sniper shots at cars, just like in the game.
I find it peverse that GTA is held to blame in this particular case. More to the point, what the fuck were two underage boys doing with access to shotguns?
Ahh but you see (Score:5, Insightful)
So this means that underage kids have only two real methods of getting guns:
1) Illegal dealers.
2) Their parents.
This was a case of #2. Well then, that would mean that the parents are to blame for permitting their kids to have unsupervised access to firearms. That implies personal responsibility on the part of the parents. That is the one thing the world seems to not be about these days, is responsibility for ones own actions. Parents blame their kids behaviour on videogames or TV. Heck, leaders of dictatorships blame their countries' problem on the US.
Also note that the parents of the kids that did this don't hav a lot of money, not nearly as much as Rockstar Games does. So they are a perfect scapegoat. It's not our (our meaning parents) fault that our kids have no morals and access to weapons, it's those eveil video game companies that, conveniantly, we can try to milk for cash.
Same sort of thing happened with the firearm industry on numerous occasions. People sued firearm manufactures when a death occured and one of their guns were used. The lawsuits were almost universally unsuccessful so the shark lawyers ahve moved onto new targets, by and large, though firearm lawsuits are still tried from time to time.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
it's fine if you're not familiar with firearms - just dont go around telling other people what to do with them -- you're not qualified to do so.
wait a minute - are you a politician?
Welcome to reality (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just a tiny bit more concerned about these things actually going on in the world -- which they do -- than whether or not someone wants to explore the dark side in digital form.
Desensitizing? Yes. But hell, if we weren't already desensitized to that stuff, everyone would be too disgusted to buy or play the thing. How's it doing on the shelves?
When will people learn (Score:3, Insightful)
A well rounded indivudual with decent morals and values wouldn't think of doing the things potrayed in video games. It's not the publisher's fault that the content of their games could further warp a warped person. No more than you could hold Mead responsible for your child stabbing another child with one of their pencils, or hold Ford responsible because you killed someone with their truck.
I'm sick and tired of parents and lawmakers looking to hollywood and game publishers as the sole excuse for their corrupted children. You want to corrupt a kid? Make then watch C-SPAN or CNN and the news every night. Most of the time it's a free-for-all hoopla on who killed who, which politican screwed over who, or how many times can someone be put in and taken off death row. Among other nasty things that are true and actually happening.
Then people say to me "how can you support the mistreatment of women in a game, but yet you don't support it in real life?" It's easy. One is fake the other is real. If someone made a game that blurted the words "kill whitey" and got points for it, so what? Would i be offended, not really, it's a game. If a person of another racial background was going to mug me, and said he played the "kill whitey" game, right before he capped me, would i be cursing the game maker? Why bother? It's not their fault that this guy who's mugging me is a moron, he's the one who's about to cap me, not the game.
On another related note, why must games like these be hounded for their content? I'm sure there are many like myself who enjoy an escape from relatity once in a while. To be able to come home after dealing with annoying customers and have some shoot'em up fun for a little bit will not hurt anyone. This is pretty close to becoming the thought police. People need escapes to stay sane.
I like the court of public opinion! (Score:4, Interesting)
Gameboy version? When??? I have resisted buying the GB-SP, but this would be a reason to get one NOW. I'd like to thank the NY Post for letting me know I will be able to get this!
I kill all the Haitians I see... (Score:5, Funny)
I help scummy lawyers get their cocaine back, and run it for the Mafia. I often stand on rooftops and snipe at passerby with a rocket launcher. I sometimes will run around city streets with a flamethrower and burn random people.
I like to run into the police station and preceeded by grenades and clean up with a machine gun. I drive on the beach and run over people who are sunbathing.
I beat most hookers with a baseball bat, take their money, and buy guns with it. I can sometimes be found running over moped riders, waiting 'til they get back on, then elbowing them in the throat and stealing their bike.
I drive on the sidewalks. On golf courses. In parks and malls. I run over anyone I see. If I'm on foot, I'll run up to someone and kick them in the head. Sometimes I'll beat them until the blood spreads in a spreading pool.
I blame my parents.
Couple things (Score:4, Interesting)
Unforunately, as despicable a game this is, I have to agree with some of the fans taht are defending it. The Government shoud only try to keep the extremely immoral stuff off the market. For example, if there was a game that every person, even a Slashdotting gamer says is so horrific it makes them vomit, well, that should not be on the market. It would take a heck of a game to produce the effect strong enough that the SC should ban. The game in question, while violent, it's really no more violent then other games on the market. As immoral as the game is, it doesn't matter. The government shouldn't ban it. This is a consequence of freedom of speech. The SAD thing is that there is a section of society that thinks a game like this is great. THAT'S what' wrong about the game. People that are raising their kids by PS2, XBOX and Gamecube are the real problem. I have chosen not to buy a game such as this because I portend to be a moral person. I ain't a saint, but I do try to do what is right. But because I still want to be able to preach the gospel, praise Jesus in public and other activities befitting a Christian I have to let others say what they want to as well. Banning any speech is a bad thing. It does not let the person in question make their own decisions. This does not stop me from speaking against the game(as you can't stifle any speech...even if it's against what you believe in). I would stop short of asking kindly old Uncle Sam doing something about it and would go the direction of trying to convince others that they should not be messing with this game. Some may say this is brain washing but I disagree. If I convince enough people that this game is immoral and rubbish and not a good game to buy, then it won't be profitable for companies to make a game like this so they will make other games that will sell. IE, the market decides. There are enough people in this country that think this way to have the desired affect, but again, they are letting the game magazines and others guide them in their game purchase. Also, parents are just buying the game for thier kids instead of checking it out themselves first. If the PARENTS did their job (scoped out the M rating and or other items concerning the game), the GTA games would not have done as well as they did. If the parents did the job, the game would not be where it is today. So, in closing, the game is horribly immoral, but because I want the right to say what I want, I have to let them say what they want.
How about a parent rating system instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, what is this? My parents educated my brothers and I very well, and when they said "Don't watch this" or "Don't play this game" because they thought that this material wasn't appropriate for us, we didn't. We learned to obey our parents, to trust their judgement even if sometimes we disagreed with them. I am now 20 years old, I am an adult, they no longer really tell me what to do or what not to do: they know that I am responsible and that I will do what is right.
So instead of asking to ban games, give better parenting lessons to the future mommies and daddies, teach them how to educate their kids, how to make them understand that some things are not for them.
Here we got GTA3 about two years ago. Me an one of my brothers were old enough to play according to my parents, but not our baby brother. It didn't please him that he couldn't play, but as far as I know, he respected our parents' decision until they said that it was okay, that he could play.
Also, once kids obey parents, it's easier to convince them that Vim is the superior editor ;)
Games vs. Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
I am still stunned that some people fail to make the difference between reality and games.
I happen to enjoy playing GTA3 and violent games in general. Fourtunatly, I have been able to make the crucial difference between games and realty since the age 6 ( Hey! I can't remember exactly when but I'm sure that I understood that Mario wasn't real the first time I played Nintendo ;). However, what scares me is that adults ( theoredicaly mature humans ) fail to see the difference or are too lazy to properly supervise their children, and find nothing better than to blame games and tv.
To me, they are the ones making the damage to society since they do not even care or take the time to raise their kids.
What kind of society do you build with kids that didn't have adequate parenting?
Open your eyes. Take your responsabilities, but please don't blame it on everything else.
I have written this message as a reply to all the people blaming video games and tv. I think it would be a good idea to forward it to the author of the article.
wtf? Is this purely american? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does everybody in america need a cause?
Can't you just get up, go to work, come home, relax, spend time with family, and go to sleep?
Believe it or not you do not need a purpose to live, you just need to enjoy YOUR life; let others go about their respective ways
Insanity
Re:wtf? Is this purely american? (Score:5, Insightful)
But yes, you're right on the money. If folks would mind their own damn business, half this countries problems would go away. Imagine it, Political correctness and frivolous lawsuits could be a thing of the past!
From Ku Klux Klan rallies to Grand Theft Auto... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't what this game promotes and how it influences some people, but America was created with free speech in mind. Unfortunately, people with poor taste are also allowed free speech.
But then, I'm sure the British thought Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the mighty John Hancock had poor taste and poisonous words that should be silenced.
Besides, people still make the desicion to act violently.
Re:This is very simple. (Score:2)
The second amendment has to do with the right to bear arms and has its own political firestorm around it. That needs no help from video games.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go bear my BFG10k and vaporize my brother.
Re:This is very simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this issue should be decided anywhere, it should be in the marketplace, not the courts. Capitalism is a democracy in and of itself in that if something is too racist to be sold, no one will buy it and the company will either change its tactics or be put out of business. And the marketplace, unlike the courtroom or legislature, is a place where every person can cast their vote individually. Special interest lobby groups have no undue influence on the open market.
Re:Let me play devil's advocate (Score:4, Informative)
You're only saying that because you're a lawer who makes money on silly lawsuits like this.
The rest of us see this lawsuit for what it is - a pathetic attempt to extort money.
Re:Let me play devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel that a large part of the issue here is that all the parents of children who do these things is that the parents don't get involved in their lives, so in a somewhat desperate cry for attention, or perhaps to lash out at what they perceive to be a society that carries no love for them they act out the one thing that brings them comfort; a violent video game. While I don't think that the games are entirely to blame, I'm sure that with access to firearms and other weapons they would be quite capable of finding source material in movies or TV, the issue at the heart of all of this is parental involvement, moreso the appalling lack thereof which has come to be the norm in todays society.