Jabrwock writes "GamePolitics.com reports that a judge in Miami ruled that Take Two Interactive, makers of the controversial title Bully, must hand over a copy of the soon to be released game to the court within 24 hours. Jack Thompson, the plaintiff, called the ruling a 'huge victory against the violent video game industry', although Take Two can still appeal the order. Thompson filed a lawsuit asking the court to label Bully a 'public nuisance' and restrict its October 17 release in Florida."
Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?
What blows my mind is that this is the guy who suggested that someone should make a game where the president of Take 2 Interactive and her family are killed... and then blew off the $10,000 he offered should someone make that game.
Where the **** does he get the moral authority, let alone professional authority -- I mean, he's a lawyer, and knows about the game industry only in an academic sense, and I say that using the loosest definition of academic possible -- to judge whether Bully is acceptable.
He's a God fearing man. Would it be so bad for God to drop an anvil on him?
Jack Thompson has persuaded me to become a lawyer for this very reason. All I have to do is call myself an "expert" in a field, even if I know something about it... let's say "cars." Now I just walk up to my local dealership and say "I need to test this new Jaguar for the public good! Give me a brand new Jaguar or I'll sue you!"
Then you can carry around special business cards. I'm a gourmet expert! My meal is free or I'll sue you! I'm a alcohol inspector. I'll need to sample and take away your finest wines to make sure they're safe for consumption. If you don't comply, I'll sue you for putting the public in danger!
He's a dumbass nutjob, plain and simple, but he's also shrewed enough to convince people who, like him, also have no idea what the Hell they're talking about. That's the scary part.
- The anvils will use Pixel Shader 3.0 for a more realistic metal look. - A new "Pimp My Anvil" mode will allow extensive anvil customization. - Iron Maiden contributed 2 exclusive songs to the heavy metal soundtrack.
Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?
Judge says he wants to see 100 hours of game play. Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...
Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...
And perhaps you nailed it right on the head. Sometimes, when a judge wants to have a little fun with a particularly vexatious or obtuse litigant, he'll take their more absurd motions and put constrainst on them that make their fulfillment render the cause of action moot. So, perhaps this judge thinks it silly and so requested something (like 100 hours of gameplay) that can't be fulfilled before general release to make sure that he won't be placed in the awkward position of having to rule on the legality of its distribution. (And, anyway, wouldn't that be a flagrant case of Prior Restraint?)
Wired.com had a neat article [wired.com] about it.
Their take on the subject? Rockstar has pulled a coup with this one. They've made a game that people are preemptively blowing their tops about, and in reality, A) the messages are actually good, and B) it's a social critique on both those people and the principle that "power corrupts". In the first respect, it's opposite of GTA, but in the latter case, it's exactly the same.
The game doesn't glorify bullying at all. Typical missions involve defending the helpless. One mission that looks bad -- accompanying a gang of toughs that are going to beat up a hobo -- reverses when the toughs flee, and you end up befriending the man. On the other hand, like in GTA, everyone in a position of power is corrupt. And, most importantly, by "lowering the stakes" to such a minimal level, where one of the greatest crimes you can commit is to stay out past curfew, Rockstar both embarrasses those who railed against the game while knowing nothing about it, and the society that puts these types of people in public office.
Rockstar is clearly thinking these issues through ahead of time, creating weapons for the legal battles. But then, what else would you expect from a company that could sucessfully release an update to pong! If only the Southpark guys would take on Jack...
You won't stop until someone who's played GTA actually kills you, will you?
Honestly, we all want you to die not because we're violent, sadistic bastards, but because you just won't stop wasting our tax dollars on this horse-shit.
This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.
Yes. But why let the technical details stand in the way of a provocative message? The war that both sides are fighting is not localized to this event.
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment.
Not this one, otherwise Jack Thompson would have been allowed to enjoin Rockstar from releasing the game much earlier in this proceeding without as much evidence gathering.
Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
Sadly, I think you fail to describe the edge case.
Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree, and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday October 11 2006, @08:32PM (#16402873)
Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree, and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.
Um, duh. But it's not in the public good for asshats to use the judicial process to sue over the same issue over and over again trying to use different laws or jurisdictions each time to achieve the same result whether our system makes that possible or not.
I mean, it's a public good for 911 to respond seriously to every call. That doesn't mean it's a public good when people crank call 911 dozens of times.
Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree
Don't think it even comes close, the law is expensive because lawyers like it that way.
and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.
As far as I have read, nobody has said that neither he nor anyone else should not have the right to make an ass of himself. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy or supportive of his actions. He's got a right to be an ass, and we have the right to call him an ass for doing it.
It's definitely a good thing to allow judicial access to anyone with a beef. And maybe the first time this happens, you listen to them intently, give them as much leeway as necessary to make their case, and finally rule against them when it's clear they don't have a clue.
The fifth time, they should get a curt hearing, a cursory glance, and a "stop wasting my time" look. The tenth time...
Let's see what Thompson has had beefs with [wikipedia.org], shall we?
He has: Sued the State of Florida to get the Florida Bar ruled unconstitutional. Repeatedly filed baseless criminal harassment [penny-arcade.com] charges against radio stations, cartoonists, and other public figures. Ironically, is known for threatening and harassing behavior, and has been removed from trials for such. Charged Janet Reno with placing homosexual promotional material in public schools. Sued 2-Live-Crue over obsenity in their work, lost, then followed up suing over their victory song about the first amendment. Publically offered to make a 10,000 dollar donation to charity, then withdrew the offer as "satire." Repeatedly tries to get obsenity charges against music, losing pretty much every time. Has faced disbarrment charges. Was required by the Florida bar to prove self sane. Has had repeated high-profile civil cases on behalf of bereaved parents against the entertainment industry, and hasn't won a single one.
With a list like that, the time for maximum allowable leeway has passed. Real people have real problems for the courts to solve. Wasting 100 hours of the court's time to play this game isn't going to help anybody.
(Full disclosure, I make videogames. Oh the Evil [guitarherogame.com]!)
Or even better, the Apocalypse Mr Thompson has been predicting all this time will occur and after a 60 hour gaming binge the judge will come to court, hopped up on Mountain Dew and pound the living daylight out of our dear lawyer friend. Oh well...win/win situation?:)
than uninformed asshats with a cause all in the name of "saving the children."
Why not protest the war or lack of education funding in the more poorer districts? I think children need more, oh I dunno, text books and trained staff than they need protection from "the boogie woogies" of video games...
Oh right, cuz the guy is a press whore no-talent assclown who just wants to be known as the biggest loser in the world./me loves me some video games...
Barratry charges are unbelievably rare, and the main reasons are:
1. Everyone involved is a lawyer, so there is a version of that blue wall of silence that every profession has to some degree
2. Our system needs to be accessible, and so it is better overall to err on the side of an occasional asshat filing a frivolous lawsuit and letting it slide, rather than an important casue of action being barred and a wronged person denied their day in court.
3. Courts generally have better things to do than defenestrate annoying lawyers.
Honestly, I think in many jurisdictions it's more number one than number two, but number two sure does make a dandy fig leaf. And number three is always a factor; many jurisdictions have dockets jammed to the hilt and extremely finite resources.
I don't just mean it reaches a bad result. This really is just bad law as well as bad policy.
A fundamental bedrock of first ammendment jurisprudence is the principle of no prior restraint. Sure the court has unfortunatly carved some exceptions where individuals might be fined or even prosecuted for the content of their work (obscene material with no redeming literary/scientific value) but it has universally struck down anything that even smacks of prior restraint. Obviously any damages can be sought after the game is released and the only reason to submit it now is to achieve something like judicial approval for their game. Such an action flies in the face of long established first ammendment jurisprudence.
I suspect Thompson just found a sympathetic local judge who either didn't know or didn't like the clear first ammendment case law on prior restraint. Then again maybe the publishers didn't protest too loudly knowing they could have it reversed on appeal and it would get them great publicity. In either case I don't doubt that this will quickly be reversed.
You would be correct if the Judge had actually issued a ruling against Rockstar. All he's said is that he'd like to see the game. That can also be for an appeal so that when Jeck loses and appeals it, the lower court can demonstrate how fair it was to Jack's case.
A fundamental bedrock of first ammendment jurisprudence is the principle of no prior restraint.... Obviously any damages can be sought after the game is released and the only reason to submit it now is to achieve something like judicial approval for their game. Such an action flies in the face of long established first ammendment jurisprudence.
Jack Thompson is attacking this game as a public nuisance.
He's saying the game will create an ongoing danger to the local community & because of this, the game should not be sold (in that Florida jurisdiction).
This isn't prior restraint because he is not attacking the content of the game, merely its ultimate effect on the community.
His legal action very cleverly does not have to even go near the issue of Constitutional Law.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday October 11 2006, @08:24PM (#16402797)
This is precisely equivalent to a court ordering an author to hand over their soon-to-be published book beforehand so the government can scrutinize it. Since no anti-expression laws (such as defamation) apply until after publication, there is no fathomable basis for the government to have a pre-release copy of the software title. It is not like the government can do the prior restraint of stopping the games release. So this court has very much overstepped its bounds. Some (far too many?) judges just do not understand the law. You do not get to break the Constitution just because you wear a robe or get elected to Congress.
Maybe it is just me? It's the "think of the children" crowd who are a public nuisance.
I think it shows a large amount of disrespect toward parents (and adult gamers) all over to have a Judge/Plaintiff deciding what is good or bad for the public when it comes to video games or art or entertainment.
Last time I checked the First Amendment was still in the constitution. How is a video game a public nuisance, whatever that means, and subject to extraordinary examination that would never pass constitutional muster if applied to a book or movie?
Thompson is bringing a claim to the court that the game constitutes a menace. Since the game isn't actually out yet, the judge has no way to proceed with this claim until he sees the product. I fully anticipate he'll view it for a few days, take a few days of consultation, and then reach a sumary judgement for the defendants. You'll be hard pressed to find a judge willing to prohibit free speech or free commerce of this kind. Blocking the sale of a legal commerical product won't pass much constitutional scrutiny and would be thrown out in an instant by a higher court.
This is just Jack Thompson wanting attention for his upcoming book (hell, he called his co-author as a witness). Giving him attention is letting him win.
If I were Take Two, my FIRST piece of evidence in defending my wares would be America's Army. "Hey it isn't just us making games that are violent. The very same government asked to pass judgement against us gives this shit away!"
AA is designed to be as accurate as possible with regard to teaching people proper technique for assault, infiltration and causing strategic mayhem. All supported by our tax dollars. If the government is freely supplying this material to people, how the fuck can they ban it? Is this fucking insane or am I missing something?
Since when can some random uninvolved third party with no standing sue to see an unreleased product? Is the judge JT's drinking buddy or just completely out of his mind?
Some Background Thompson's rambling initial letter [bit-tech.net]. The Suit [residentgamer.com], from Jack's Perspective. Ars Technica [arstechnica.com]'s take on what happened today. A little bit about Jack [wikipedia.org] (including favorite classics like "claims Janet Reno is a homosexual. Repeatedly." and "tries to get Florida bar ruled unconstitutional.")
Sooo... Take 2 has deep into Thursday to file an appeal. Thompson will likely retort on Friday, and a ruling made on Monday. 24 hours after this Take 2 will deliver a copy... on the release day.
As the site is currently down, does anyone know what the legal grounds are for this ruling? How can there be "more copycat violence" if the game hasn't been released in the first place?
For that matter, I'd like to demand a pre-release copy of Halo 3 to ensure that there isn't graphic violence and amazing multiplayer action.
This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment. Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
From my understanding, Bully is actually not the type of game the title and Take Two's reputation in the game industry would imply. So much so, that the game has actually received surprisingly mild ratings from reviewers regarding any sort of violence in the game what-so-ever.
The game literally has very little to do with going around GTA style, beating up defenseless weaklings at random. In fact, it's quite the opposite and promotes standing up to the adversity that bullies present in humorous ways. Honestly, I'd say parents have more to fear from your typical Mario title than they do from Bully.
This movement is entirely motivated by who is making the game, rather than the content of the game itself.
There was a lawyer who pissed all over free speech and the Constitution in Florida, making it illegal to sell 2 Live Crew tapes in Florida, and making it illegal for them to perform.
Congrats, you fell into Thompson's trap. Now why don't you have a read of what the game is really about [arstechnica.com] (as linked in an earlier comment).
Are they actually restricting sales of the game? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:5, Funny)
Then you can carry around special business cards. I'm a gourmet expert! My meal is free or I'll sue you! I'm a alcohol inspector. I'll need to sample and take away your finest wines to make sure they're safe for consumption. If you don't comply, I'll sue you for putting the public in danger!
He's a dumbass nutjob, plain and simple, but he's also shrewed enough to convince people who, like him, also have no idea what the Hell they're talking about. That's the scary part.
Parent
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:4, Funny)
- A new "Pimp My Anvil" mode will allow extensive anvil customization.
- Iron Maiden contributed 2 exclusive songs to the heavy metal soundtrack.
Parent
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?
Judge says he wants to see 100 hours of game play. Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:5, Interesting)
Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...
And perhaps you nailed it right on the head. Sometimes, when a judge wants to have a little fun with a particularly vexatious or obtuse litigant, he'll take their more absurd motions and put constrainst on them that make their fulfillment render the cause of action moot. So, perhaps this judge thinks it silly and so requested something (like 100 hours of gameplay) that can't be fulfilled before general release to make sure that he won't be placed in the awkward position of having to rule on the legality of its distribution. (And, anyway, wouldn't that be a flagrant case of Prior Restraint?)
Parent
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:5, Informative)
Their take on the subject? Rockstar has pulled a coup with this one. They've made a game that people are preemptively blowing their tops about, and in reality, A) the messages are actually good, and B) it's a social critique on both those people and the principle that "power corrupts". In the first respect, it's opposite of GTA, but in the latter case, it's exactly the same.
The game doesn't glorify bullying at all. Typical missions involve defending the helpless. One mission that looks bad -- accompanying a gang of toughs that are going to beat up a hobo -- reverses when the toughs flee, and you end up befriending the man. On the other hand, like in GTA, everyone in a position of power is corrupt. And, most importantly, by "lowering the stakes" to such a minimal level, where one of the greatest crimes you can commit is to stay out past curfew, Rockstar both embarrasses those who railed against the game while knowing nothing about it, and the society that puts these types of people in public office.
Parent
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
duh (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, we all want you to die not because we're violent, sadistic bastards, but because you just won't stop wasting our tax dollars on this horse-shit.
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Funny)
(Score:1, Flamebait)
by kypper (446750) on 20:26 Wednesday 11 October 2006 (#16402245)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Hey, I didn't know Jack Thompson got mod points!
Parent
Re:Ehh, trial stipulations (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. But why let the technical details stand in the way of a provocative message? The war that both sides are fighting is not localized to this event.
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment.
Not this one, otherwise Jack Thompson would have been allowed to enjoin Rockstar from releasing the game much earlier in this proceeding without as much evidence gathering.
Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
Sadly, I think you fail to describe the edge case.
Parent
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, duh. But it's not in the public good for asshats to use the judicial process to sue over the same issue over and over again trying to use different laws or jurisdictions each time to achieve the same result whether our system makes that possible or not.
I mean, it's a public good for 911 to respond seriously to every call. That doesn't mean it's a public good when people crank call 911 dozens of times.
Parent
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't think it even comes close, the law is expensive because lawyers like it that way.
and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.
As far as I have read, nobody has said that neither he nor anyone else should not have the right to make an ass of himself. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy or supportive of his actions. He's got a right to be an ass, and we have the right to call him an ass for doing it.
Parent
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Informative)
The fifth time, they should get a curt hearing, a cursory glance, and a "stop wasting my time" look. The tenth time...
Let's see what Thompson has had beefs with [wikipedia.org], shall we?
He has:
Sued the State of Florida to get the Florida Bar ruled unconstitutional.
Repeatedly filed baseless criminal harassment [penny-arcade.com] charges against radio stations, cartoonists, and other public figures.
Ironically, is known for threatening and harassing behavior, and has been removed from trials for such.
Charged Janet Reno with placing homosexual promotional material in public schools.
Sued 2-Live-Crue over obsenity in their work, lost, then followed up suing over their victory song about the first amendment.
Publically offered to make a 10,000 dollar donation to charity, then withdrew the offer as "satire."
Repeatedly tries to get obsenity charges against music, losing pretty much every time.
Has faced disbarrment charges. Was required by the Florida bar to prove self sane.
Has had repeated high-profile civil cases on behalf of bereaved parents against the entertainment industry, and hasn't won a single one.
With a list like that, the time for maximum allowable leeway has passed. Real people have real problems for the courts to solve. Wasting 100 hours of the court's time to play this game isn't going to help anybody.
(Full disclosure, I make videogames. Oh the Evil [guitarherogame.com]!)
Parent
Maybe it will backfire... (Score:5, Funny)
After a quick demo of the cool early release (and posting a torrent copy), sonny boy says "Yeah, it's really cool! Everyone will want a copy!"
The judge will buy some Take Two stock.
Case Closed.
Parent
Re:Maybe it will backfire... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
A good read... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't misread the article summary (Score:4, Informative)
The Judge ordered Take Two to provide a copy of the game so the Judge can sit around and make up his own mind over the contents of the game.
Maybe Take Two should provide the Judge with the same footage that they provided to the ESRB?
Parent
Judge plays game, gets ass kicked, orders easier (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Nothing worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not protest the war or lack of education funding in the more poorer districts? I think children need more, oh I dunno, text books and trained staff than they need protection from "the boogie woogies" of video games...
Oh right, cuz the guy is a press whore no-talent assclown who just wants to be known as the biggest loser in the world.
Tom
Just wait until the see the sequel: (Score:4, Funny)
Just think of the children!!!
Parent
Re:Just wait until the see the sequel: (Score:5, Interesting)
Barratry charges are unbelievably rare, and the main reasons are:
1. Everyone involved is a lawyer, so there is a version of that blue wall of silence that every profession has to some degree
2. Our system needs to be accessible, and so it is better overall to err on the side of an occasional asshat filing a frivolous lawsuit and letting it slide, rather than an important casue of action being barred and a wronged person denied their day in court.
3. Courts generally have better things to do than defenestrate annoying lawyers.
Honestly, I think in many jurisdictions it's more number one than number two, but number two sure does make a dandy fig leaf. And number three is always a factor; many jurisdictions have dockets jammed to the hilt and extremely finite resources.
Parent
That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal (Score:4, Insightful)
A fundamental bedrock of first ammendment jurisprudence is the principle of no prior restraint. Sure the court has unfortunatly carved some exceptions where individuals might be fined or even prosecuted for the content of their work (obscene material with no redeming literary/scientific value) but it has universally struck down anything that even smacks of prior restraint. Obviously any damages can be sought after the game is released and the only reason to submit it now is to achieve something like judicial approval for their game. Such an action flies in the face of long established first ammendment jurisprudence.
I suspect Thompson just found a sympathetic local judge who either didn't know or didn't like the clear first ammendment case law on prior restraint. Then again maybe the publishers didn't protest too loudly knowing they could have it reversed on appeal and it would get them great publicity. In either case I don't doubt that this will quickly be reversed.
Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nuisance [wikipedia.org]
He's saying the game will create an ongoing danger to the local community & because of this, the game should not be sold (in that Florida jurisdiction).
This isn't prior restraint because he is not attacking the content of the game, merely its ultimate effect on the community.
His legal action very cleverly does not have to even go near the issue of Constitutional Law.
Parent
Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What ever happened to parents? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it shows a large amount of disrespect toward parents (and adult gamers) all over to have a Judge/Plaintiff deciding what is good or bad for the public when it comes to video games or art or entertainment.
Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds Worse Than It Is (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just Jack Thompson wanting attention for his upcoming book (hell, he called his co-author as a witness). Giving him attention is letting him win.
Defense Exhibit A: America's Army (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Take Two, my FIRST piece of evidence in defending my wares would be America's Army. "Hey it isn't just us making games that are violent. The very same government asked to pass judgement against us gives this shit away!"
AA is designed to be as accurate as possible with regard to teaching people proper technique for assault, infiltration and causing strategic mayhem. All supported by our tax dollars. If the government is freely supplying this material to people, how the fuck can they ban it? Is this fucking insane or am I missing something?
Jack still has license to practice law? (Score:3, Funny)
Hell, why is this guy still alive? After what he said about the gamefaqs community, he should have been struck down by God as an agent of the devil.
Re:Jack still has license to practice law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Judge doesn't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some Background (Score:5, Informative)
Thompson's rambling initial letter [bit-tech.net].
The Suit [residentgamer.com], from Jack's Perspective.
Ars Technica [arstechnica.com]'s take on what happened today.
A little bit about Jack [wikipedia.org] (including favorite classics like "claims Janet Reno is a homosexual. Repeatedly." and "tries to get Florida bar ruled unconstitutional.")
Sooo... Take 2 has deep into Thursday to file an appeal. Thompson will likely retort on Friday, and a ruling made on Monday. 24 hours after this Take 2 will deliver a copy... on the release day.
As the site is currently down, does anyone know what the legal grounds are for this ruling? How can there be "more copycat violence" if the game hasn't been released in the first place?
For that matter, I'd like to demand a pre-release copy of Halo 3 to ensure that there isn't graphic violence and amazing multiplayer action.
Kind of a sneaky way (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks, Jack!! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Let's see... we'll just ban these books and NO ONE will ever want to read them... right?"
Actually...he can't appeal this (Score:5, Insightful)
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment. Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
Grr! Goddamn Sony! Sue! (Score:5, Funny)
I DEMAND A PS3 SO I CAN
Unnecessary Fear of an Otherwise Innocent Title (Score:5, Interesting)
The game literally has very little to do with going around GTA style, beating up defenseless weaklings at random. In fact, it's quite the opposite and promotes standing up to the adversity that bullies present in humorous ways. Honestly, I'd say parents have more to fear from your typical Mario title than they do from Bully.
This movement is entirely motivated by who is making the game, rather than the content of the game itself.
2 Live Crew (Score:5, Informative)
There was a lawyer who pissed all over free speech and the Constitution in Florida, making it illegal to sell 2 Live Crew tapes in Florida, and making it illegal for them to perform.
I believe his name was Jack Thompson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Live_Crew [wikipedia.org]
Re:makes my head spin (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Given the average intelligence... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Given the average intelligence... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
repeating subject as body of text? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent