Miami Court Orders Take Two to Hand Over Bully 349
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."
Are they actually restricting sales of the game? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:2, Informative)
The ruling is so that it can be assessed by somebody within the court.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all publicity is good.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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?)
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Are they actually restricting sales of the game (Score:4, Insightful)
duh (Score:5, Funny)
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!
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.
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No one can really be effected by Bully as it hasn't been released so why are judges even hearing these cases?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jaysyn
(yes, I live in Florida)
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.
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]!)
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.
Re:Maybe it will backfire... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've been training hard, but I just can't get past the flying training in San Andreas!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is but one of many media outlets who have made Thompson a very wealthy man. Penny Arcade is another. Thompson has all of us to thank for his financial success.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No one has seen the obvious... the judge is a gamer, and wants to play it pre-release!
Brilliant!
Nephilium
"I was neat, clean, shaved and sober, and I didn't care who knew it." -- The Big Sleep (Chapter 1)
Re: (Score:2)
Judge plays game, gets ass kicked, orders easier (Score:5, Funny)
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!!!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Waltzing was a danger to the Swiss and Austrian communities too. It's a good thing they were smart enough to ban it, or lawlessness would have broken out and civilisation as we know it would be over by now.
And drugs. Now, it's a good thing we had that war on drugs so now nobody can buy them, get wasted and forment anarchy. If it hadn't been for the billions of dollars spent, and all those lives wasted rotting in jail, those damn po
Re:That's A Horrible Ruling: Wait For The Appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did the judge actually rule in any way to stop Rockstar/Take Two from doing anything? At least from the summary and the linked blog, it seems that the judge is only asking to see the game. I mean, he asked with some force behind it, sure, but still-- if someone is trying to bring a case regarding the game's content, it seems reasonable for the judge to want to see the content, don't you think? If games reviewers have already seen the game, is it so difficult for someone to produce a copy for a judge?
A huge Victory! (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously since nobody else has played this game yet, it will be a major loss to the gaming industry. Certainly there aren't already copies in the hands of video game reviewers, or any store or... wait? There are? *How* many people have played it?
I'm not quite sure how this is a major victory, other then that he found a(another?) judge to play ball with him.
Re: (Score:2)
It's downright ingenius
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How many parents do you know? 100? 200?
I've met at least 3000 parents over the last 10 years as a teacher. There are lots of incompetent folks out there.
Why is a video game a nuisance and not a book? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Standing (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Zing! Well said.
I'd like to see the GP in JRTC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whose the 'public nuisance'? (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Bewareness (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Judge doesn't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
This story makes *SO* much sense here! (Score:2)
So, before I RTFA, I just assumed that there was a "bully" that was to be handed over.
"News for Nerds," eh? A bully getting there just desserts would certainly be of interest to all us nerds who faced bullies throughout adolesence.
But, then, I suppose that after RTFA, the real bully here is that idiot Jack Thompson.
How soon before... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
More lawyers than engineers (again)... (Score:2)
Instead, all he can think to do is sue people for doing something he does not like. His is the violent and destructive action against a creative endeavor. The fact that the court is willing to indulge his infantile rampaging is indicitive of the corruption and facist tende
Re: (Score:2)
Civ is non-violent? Granted, it's not graphic but Civ does NOT teach non-violence or tolerence.
Prime example: A couple of weeks before Civ IV hit the shelves I loaded up Civ III for old times sake. I played on a huge map with 6-7 other civs and lead a fairly peaceful existence, only two minor wars. I never lost a city and only took over 3-4, one from warfare the others from influence. I was the largest civ, the most advanced civ and the most peaceful civ (
No, the problem is Jack Thompson (Score:2)
See the problem here is that America has more lawyers than engineers.
No, that's not the problem. The problem is one man. But he has tried this b.s. repeatedly in the past, and has a long history of failure. The "fascist" courts don't seem to have been very good the man, despite all his frothing at the mouth. Maybe they don't like the fact that he keeps suing the Florida bar [wikipedia.org].
As for the lawyers to engineers ratio, the reactionary, fearful, know-nothing mentality has been with humanity since long before
How much? (Score:2, Interesting)
Kind of a sneaky way (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Frankly, I think video games are idiotic bullshit (Score:2)
HOWEVER I will cheerfully defend the rights of others to play them. It is imperative that the free thinking among us stand up against this rising tide of intolerance and cluelessness.
This election is 1858 all over again... Stand up against the theocracy. Stand up for your rights!
RS
Who's really to blame? (Score:2, Insightful)
Where were the parents when these kids get the games, obtains movies, and accesses the porn sites? Jacky-boy. Put the blame where it is due. I have no problems with my kid and porn or video games because I monitor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's about bad parents... (Score:2)
Or else the judge will have to admit he forgot his son's birthday and didn't get him anything.
Grr! Goddamn Sony! Sue! (Score:5, Funny)
I DEMAND A PS3 SO I CAN
The convenience factor (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it beats driving to Best Buy, and is a heck of a lot faster than Amazon...
Thought they had to wait for a book to be publishd (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting that they are doing this to a video game- not sure it will be constitutional.
"We want you to provide copies of your newspaper daily before you go to press so we can approve or disapprove it."
The way things go (Score:3, Insightful)
Rockstar: We've got nothing to hide, want to see it?
Judge: Sure, that'd help.
Jack Thompson Self Serving Press Release: Hah! Because of MY great lawsuit, the judge ORDERED Rockstar to produce their evil game!!
Gullible Press: "Judge orders Rockstar to produce game!"
Slashdot: "fascist jugde orders rockstar to prodce game!"
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm getting curious. Might have to pick me up a copy.
It should be in the $20 "greatest hits" bin by now. It's a decent game, but it also doubles as a fun toy. You can just wander around the world and do things. It was the most immersive game I ever played until Oblivion came along.
Re:Given the average intelligence... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Given the average intelligence... (Score:5, Funny)
He makes everyone else named "Jack" look bad... (Score:2)
...so maybe we ought to sue him for defamation of character (hey, it'd be less friviolous than his lawsuit)!
repeating subject as body of text? (Score:5, Funny)