Gaming Companies Being Sued Over Columbine 800
Rajeev Raghavan writes: "According to this article at the Denver Post. One of the families of the slain teachers at Columbine is suing 25 game companies for $5 billion in damages plus damages of $5000 to $10 million for individual parties in the class action law suit. Great, lets blame more people for our problems, shall we."
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Don't you understand? Saying that guns do damage is even more stupid than saying that violent video games do damage. Guns are merely a tool; the problem is that there are some people out there that think that they should kill other people for no good reason. Violence in the culture may foster this belief, though personally I think that's a load of crap. Certainly, however, it is not the fault of the guns.
Besides, guns are probably less deadly than bombs... I personally think that if we can keep the crazy students trying to kill everyone with a couple of guns we'll be a lot better than if they figure out that a few bombs can do much more damage.
Re:Let's band together (Score:2)
Pack yer bags.
The legal system here is beyond control when I can sue because I'm an idiot.
It depends on who you are, who you're suing, who your lawyer is and how deep the defendents pockets are.
Don't stop with limiting video games.. (Score:2)
How is it if kids play Doom and shoot up a school, they're victims of the horrible video game industry.
And how is it that if kids read the Bible and bring violence against other people because of some message that says to do so, they're just crazy?
Get your priorities straight. The Bible has been the center of more violence than anything else in our civilization. Put an NC-17 rating on the Bible before you could even think of doing it for video games.
Re:Where will it end ? (Score:2)
Good question. If the games companies involved here lose the case, then who knows where it will end.
However, there's an optimistic view that says this court case is a positive thing: if the jury throws it out of court, and I really hope they do, then we have a precedent, and it may just turn out that the answer to the question "where will it end?" turns out to be "with this court case".
Here's hoping.
--
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Violence is bad. Please, can you explain to me how sex is bad?
He was referring to "porn", not sex. Which is different.
Arguably, not all porn is bad. But, a quick look at some newsgroups is enough to see that the over abundance of porn, most particularly the abusive and degrading one, can (and is) a factor in many sexual assaults.
It's as possible to be addicted to violence as it is to be addicted to sex as it is to be addicted to drugs (ranging from Flintstone vitamins to gasoline vapors).
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
AC has yet to mature enough to realize that the abuse are not posted on usenet, but ratter publicized on it.
And you have to realize that a person who's sexual dependency is heightened and excited by the abundance of imagery that teaches him(/her in rarer cases) "it's OK, everybody else does it" is a factor that will push that person across the line and commit those acts.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
I dont have to know that. It's been shown before. Read up on psychology and sexual behavior.
I know precisely what's on Usenet. What's your point?
Your mother was a hamster...
(Or do you actually read and not just pretend? Cause if you do read, then you missed the point; nothing goes on in usenet (aka, it's not a phisical place eh?); nor what's presented or it's users are in direct cause, but ratter, what's presented is a factor of enforcement of ill-constructed judgement that can lead to acting upon criminal sexual behaviour by some predisposed individuals).
Evidence, bucko, evidence. I'm quite sure that this is a conviction of yours, but that doesn't make it true.
It's not my conviction. I do support conclusions brought in my psychology specialists of any kind on this subject however. And you're right: because they said so, it doesn't make it true. But, I have to trust those who know infinitely more on the subject than I do. I just took psy for 3 terms or so.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:OT Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
> When one understands the nature of God, while not pulling the reality of violence out of context, you will understand that the Bible comunicates a loving God.
Your god, being omnipotent, had a thousand other options that would have harmed no one. He decided to send a series of plagues. If that's okay, then what's wrong with what the Palestenians are doing? They don't have good options, yet we get upset about them picking one of the few effective ones, the same one your god consisently chose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Parents of those slain are making matters worse (Score:2)
Do we blame the alcohol industry when someone dies as a result of drunk driving?
Unfortunately, bad example. $DEITY help me, but I've seen several lawsuits where the bar or liquor store was sued -- successfully -- for wrongful death in a civil court. Nobody's responsible for their own actions anymore. Why should they be?
I don't know about this "jury of your peers" bullshit -- I think I'd rather have a panel of three judges who understand the law deciding the case... I've just seen too much evidence that the people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty are sheeple, not my peers. And, most of the people who don't try to get out of it and want to be there, will be far more likely to vote guilty on anything.
No, I don't have evidence, I just felt the need to rant.
Re:Whatever happened to personal responsibility? (Score:2)
How about some 1.6 million abortions every year. If Mom and Dad can abort little Jessica, why can't I kill that gigantic prick at school?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:Whatever happened to personal responsibility? (Score:2)
It oughtn't be fashionable.. (Score:2)
For instance, in Muslim countries women aren't leered at and treated as sex objects, because society conditions them not to.
You are wrong. You don't see American women
shy away from a mastectomy (in case of breast
cancer) for fear of losing their husband's
favor. You do see that in Muslim countries.
Re:COUNTERSUE! (Score:2)
Looksee, it's the American Legal System at work here. Rationality doesn't enter the picture.
--
COUNTERSUE! (Score:5)
The reduction in sales has cost iD software millions of dollars. The parents are liable for that loss!
Hey, it's no more inane than what's being claimed by big bad John DeCamp...
--
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Then why don't children in Switzerland grab their Daddy's assault rifle and go shoot up their classmates? Every adult Swiss male has one, you know, they are required to.
Go ahead, come up with some flippant reply that will allow you to disregard this simple question so you don't have to think about what is wrong with these kids. People are not inherently evil and violent, there is something wrong with our culture. I don't profess to know what the real problem is, but taking away guns is not going to make it better (they'll just start making bombs).
Re:WHY HAVEN'T I GONE POSTAL!?!?!? (Score:3)
You really think you would have killed someone if you had a gun? I grew up with guns around and never shot anyone. Sure I thought about it, in a fantasy mode like the way you'd think about punching your boss in the nose when you're really pissed off, but I never seriously considered it or thought I might "snap" and do it. Hunting as a kid taught me what bullets do to flesh and bone and I knew damned well that I would regret hurting a person like that.
Do you really not trust yourself with the power of life and death over others? Maybe you should turn in your driver's license.
Where will it end ? (Score:2)
I think anyone, with even half a braincell, can see where this is going.
If we accept it as a fact that movies and videogames are to blame for peoples actions, then why not books, comics, radio and theater as well ?
If seeing someone beeing killed in a specific way, makes someone kill in a similar way, then it is just a small step from saying that 'hearing' about someone kill, will make someone to kill in the same way.
And just where will we get a change to say that enough is enough, that ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions.
Haven't we had enough of books beeing censored already, to be "political correct" for our children ?
Will the evil wizard/witch just take off to a long Vacation in the future ?
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Re:Let's band together (Score:2)
> a[m] I responsible?
Well, if by jumping off the bridge, I have a small
chance of survival, while staying on the bridge
with you, I do not, then yes, you are responsible.
I wonder if it makes a difference whether the killers bought the game or bootlegged it. If any of them paid retail for a shooter, I'll eat my hat.
Blowing up whole buildings is easy, no challenge (Score:2)
The point is, levelling the school and everything for a block around it is easy, and can be done with stuff that's difficult to impossible to ban and no special equipment. Getting a gun is hard. The risk won't go away if you ban guns.
Another point is, the person most likely to know how to level the school is wearing a collared shirt with pocket protector, not a trench-coat printed with a drunk Euro symbol. The risk won't go away if you terrorise minority groups, nor if you protect them.
In order to fix the problem, you must fix the people. You won't fix the people with more indoctrination, regimentation and random harassment. You'll fix the people by not crushing their individuality, creativity, authority and responsibility; by giving them less time in schools, not more; by letting the parents back into their lives instead of shutting them out as much as possible.
*NOT* something that they can fix (Score:2)
No, it's only something that they think they can fix. Schools are doing what they are supposed to do [afhe.org], this is only an inevitable side-effect.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Go you big red fire engine!
The court *really* shouldn't open that can o'worms (Score:3)
Re:Guns? (Score:2)
Second, saying that single-shot firearm is somehow useful for defense shows a misunderstanding of the reality of weapons used for defense. FBI statistics show that when firearms are used legitimately (this includes police officers), the rate of accuracy is low - something on the order of 20%. So, my "safe" single-shot pistol is virtually useless for defense. Only the most highly-trained marksmen would ever stand a chance of hitting a target - and police, like the military, don't get nearly enough firearms training.
Re:Let's see now. . . (Score:2)
Re:BullSh*T!!! (Score:2)
I'd buy a new gaming rig... <g>
C-X C-S
Re:Check out this quote from one of the lawyers (Score:2)
Re:While we're at it ... (Score:2)
Yeah, that's fair enough - but if the law really says that I'm not responsible for my own actions, then it needs to be changed.
What next - getting away with theft because the combination of the capitalist society we live in and the lack of a well-paying job meant that I was "forced" into it?
Cheers,
Tim
Re:While we're at it ... (Score:3)
Sue the tech support people who put the PCs together, and fix them when they break!
Hell, sue MS - it's their OS that the games run under!
What's next - suing people for not preventing people from doing things? Oh wait, that's already happened [bbc.co.uk]...
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Blame? (Score:4)
Plus, the publicity generated ensures him cases into eternity, even if he does lose.
He knows what he's doing.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
I'll - sort of - concede your point; one can become inured to violence. But I've spent years playing Manic Miner on my spectrum (and speccy emulator); so for it hasn't made me any more likely to jump over toilets. Equally, many nerd-hours spent on quake hasn't inculcated in me a desire to buy a shotgun (though I wouldn't mind a BFG).
My point: computer games aren't violent. Hands up everyone out there who's ever been hurt playing quake (RSI doesn't count)? Who, upon joining the army, was fasttracked into the special forces because they can kill the end-of-game monsters on Doom without dying once?
I like quake, for the same reason that I like Tapper. Both test my reflexes, and are fun to play. No-one dies when I play Quake, and no-one's teeth fall out after drinking soda when I play Tapper.
I'm not saying that people can't be adversely affected. But I am saying that those people were pretty close to the edge anyway, and that they could be tipped over by something as innocuous as a computer game, or as sinister as a game show. There's usually no way of knowing what the exact stimulus was, and there's never any point in blaming that stimulus.
Re:Whatever happened to personal responsibility? (Score:2)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Let's See Who Else We Can Blame (Score:2)
So, let's ask what other targets they can take on.
Or, of course, the people could take some responsibility for their lives and deal with that time-tested statement "Shit Happens."
With my sarcasm spent, let me note how lawsuits like these combine two of the worst parts of our society - a tendancy to blame others and a lawsuit-happy attitude. These people are blaming others for their problems, so they're going to take them down without caring about the repercussions or the ethics.
Some moral stance they're making.
Re:Game Ratings (Score:2)
In BC (not the rest of Canada) I believe there is law requiring vendors to actually enforce this rating. Everywhere else, it's just informational (as it should be).
All those bible-thumping the media-made-my-kid-a-satanic-postal-worker types should go live somewhere else, like China.
Let's see now. . . (Score:5)
Yep. Sounds like those darned video games are to blame to me. . .
Re:Check out this quote from one of the lawyers (Score:4)
Except for when he's not.
That is one transparent way of lying or self-deception. It's related to
--
Re:COUNTERSUE! (Score:2)
This lawsuit completely misses the point. (Score:2)
history have depicted violence; it is a facet of human life, and no artist can simply wish it away if he wishes to remain true to life. (Anyone who believes that violence in art is a new phenomenon should enhance their knowledge of human culture by reading The Illiad. Acbilles is as cold-blooded a killer as has ever appeared on a computer monitor, and the body count far exceeds any Hollywood film I have seen recently.)
Previous posters have created a tremendously simplified view of the world in which the media and electronic games condition and incite us (particularly children) to violence. In reality, even in the complete abseence of external media, man is an often-violent creature. One cannot eliminate violence from man; it is inherent to his nature.
The reasons for every mass-killing in the last few years are complex, but largely have nothing to do with art, music, the media, or computer games. Millions of pscyhologically balanced people enjoy these with no problems. Instead, we should be asking outselves why some members of our society are so incredibly estranged and angry that they are driven to commit such acts, and what we can do to help them. We should also be asking ourselves why it is that guns are so easy to come by in our society that even an average teenager has no problem getting his hands on a few. Going after the computer gaming industry is a sad attempt to focus attention, but it misses the point entirely, and in the end will bring us no closet to solving the myriad of problems which are responsible.
Deja-Vu (Score:2)
if i remeber correctly, before video games were a hit, rock-and-roll music was demonic, causing youngsters to missbehave. (70's).
Then in the 80's and 90's music from the metal persuasion caused kids to kill and kill them selves..
Then video games became populair, and now they are causing kids to go postal..
The only red line i see here is that parents will blame anything that
1) They don't know from there own childhood, since its strange and new, it surely must be the cause of this behaviour
2) Will find any reason why there kids are not well-behaved, other then there own responcibilities..
This in its self is human nature, we people seem to be very afraid of everything we dont know or grew up with. Think of the fear technology used to (and still does) bestow on people, think of rasism, think of gene modifications, etc
in the end its just the old 'monsters under your bed' syndrom, what we dont understand we fear.
So far ok i gues, its what makes us human, but to sue the game companies, rock bands, etc because we are collectivly in denial about our own responsibilities, and histories lessons, is a bit far fetched and has a frantic ugly smell to it
Hell, why not sue bed manufactures since they scare kids into thinking there can be monsters under the bed, and think of the violance that will cause!!
Ps, please sue the 8'oclock news as well, if that wouldnt turn anyone violent, i don't know what would..
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
Re:Kids must have killed the wrong people (Score:3)
Because silver bullets are way too expensive...
Re:BullSh*T!!! (Score:2)
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Euro Symbol is Twisted (Score:2)
Re:A finger to point with (Score:2)
Well, weren't the comics to blame for twisting the minds of the parents and grandparents before the Comics Code [sideroad.com] in the 1950s?
Re:Blame flying in every direction but the right o (Score:2)
The kids are the ones who committed the crime. The kids are dead. I can't really say for certain (not being a parent), but I imagine that the parents already a) feel like shit from this whole incident and b) they've already lost their kids.
No amount of money will bring the victims back from the grave. Any lawsuit over this sort of thing is just profiteering. Fuck that.
Re:Blame flying in every direction but the right o (Score:2)
Parents don't always know what's going on with their kids, and it's not always the parent's fault. Hell, when I was a teenager I frequently lied to my parents about my whereabouts, my friends, and activities whenever anything was happening that I knew they wouldn't approve of. I don't consider them bad parents, but I could have stockpiled weapons and gone on a shooting spree pretty easily if I'd gotten the urge.
I'm really getting sick of civil lawsuits in general. You want someone punished for their misdeeds, get a criminal case going.
A funny sidenote to all the anti-Doom sentiment...back in high school I used to play multiplayer Doom and Doom 2 via a BBS that would make a virtual IPX network (so's you could have 4 player over modems)...aside from other students in the area, know what the most common occupation of the players was? Lawyers.
Gap ads are probably more to blame (Score:2)
--
Re:Guns are worthless. Just like the NRA (Score:2)
Democracy depends upon many things, one of them being the ability of the people hold the government accountable for its actions. The people are senior to the government, not the other way around. Firearms provide the power to the people necessary to maintain that relationship. A people disempowered are a people disenfranchised. Something else that democracy depends upon is that the people be well informed. When information is controlled people are controlled. The first and second amendments to the constitution are, in a very real sense, the true foundation of our nation.
Why anyone would want to jeopardize either one is beyond me. I think that there are an awful lot of people out there who are simply not informed. They're ignorant, misled, and running as fast as they can towards a precipice that they don't know is there. The problem is that they're trying to drag the rest of us along with them.
One of the most valuable tools anyone can have is a knowledge and understanding of history. Of course the subject is itself riddled with political BS, but not everything is skewed, and its not too hard to see through the BS when it is there provided you seek out enough sources. Study history and an awful lot of things that are going on in the world and in our country today will seem almost comically familiar. Its the same old song and dance, just a different tune. History repeats itself because, while times may change, and situations may vary, human nature is static.
Lee Reynolds
Why aren't we blaming Harris and Klebold? (Score:2)
Why is anyone looking to blame video games, the internet, their parents, the music the listened to, the color of their socks, etc? Put the blame where it belongs, on the shooters themselves.
I don't remember anyone wanting to blame the practice of camping for the crimes of the Unabomber. I don't remember anyone blaming Jack Daniels for the crash of the Exxon Valdez. No one blames cigar companies for what Bill Clinton did with their products. So why are we looking to blame anyone and everyone other than those truly responsible, Klebold and Harris?
Now you might be thinking that the fact that they were young meant they weren't responsible for their actions. Bullshit. They were 17 and 18 YEARS old, not 17 and 18 months old. Neither had been a child for some time.
If you're old enough to understand your actions and the consequences of them, you are old enough to be held accountable for them. I don't think anyone can argue that the two didn't know what they were doing or what the end results would be.
I really do wish that just for once the public would place blame for a crime on the person truly responsible, the criminal themself.
Lee Reynolds
The search for money (Score:2)
Games Don't Kill People... (Score:5)
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Re:This lawsuit completely misses the point. (Score:2)
Well not the very beginnings, only since the monolith taught us how to use tools.
What really bothers me... (Score:2)
We really cares for the kids? (Score:2)
I personally blame the media. All they ever show on TV is real-life blood and guts, not the pretend stuff in movies and in games. Every damned time there is a shooting or a supposed threat they swarm the scene like flies on a fresh pile of shit. They make a mountain out of a mole hill. They never tell you that violence in schools is on a massive decline. That's right! Violence in educational institutions is dropping like a rock! You'll never hear that from the media though because that's a big source of revenue for them. When Columbine happened, violence in schools was less than half of what it was in the mid-70s. It's been going down ever since. Now you may not believe me since everything you hear on TV or read on the front cover of newspapers says otherwise. They have a new "incident" every damned day. Without the real numbers in front of you, an unknowing person that just watches the news would think that our country is going to hell in a hand basket. It is true though. Violence in schools is on the decline. Do the research. Find out for yourself. I have. The irresponsible actions are actually promoting violence in our schools. They present the kids with guns and their friends with the chance to become a martyr (or at least think they will be). I don't know what we can do to fix the problem though. If we try to hold the media accountable for their piss-poor actions, they will scream "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" from the highest hilltops. I love those freedoms as much as the next guy and I wouldn't want them taken away either. Still there is something that can be done, isn't there? What about simply requiring that the media record where every piece of information for an article came from so that if they are ever accused of being irresponsible, that info can be audited by a official power to determine if they were actually reporting fact of fiction. If they falsely reported something, I think they should be forced to print a retraction and the retraction should be placed in the same position in the paper. ie, if they accuse teacher XYZ of being a horrific sex offender on the front page and later it is found out that a couple of his students set him up, than the retraction should be displayed just as prominently on the front page.
This violence in schools issue is a very touchy subject for me. I have gotten in more hallway verbal brawls over it than imaginable. My mother is a elementary school teacher in a small district. I came from a rural community with a graduating class of 32. I've been brought up hearing all this about the media and the poor job many parents today are doing for years. It wasn't until I actually did the research that I could then believe it for myself. Do you realize that last year there were more suicides by teenagers claiming to be tortured at school than there were deaths by school related shootings? That gives you something to think about. How many of you have seen those commercials that go something like "Do you part. Mentor a child."? Maybe we should. If all /.ers see part of this problem as being a lack of appropriate guidance from parents, maybe we should step up to the plate and become a mentor. I'm willing. Are you?
--
Subject goof (Score:2)
I was so pissed when I started writing my comment that I goofed up the title rather badly. I meant to saw Who really cares for the kids? in reference to those people that are suing and just not letting it go for the kids sake.
--
Unlikely to survive as a matter of law . . . (Score:4)
Its very difficult to be liable under a negligence theory for the criminal intentional acts of a third party. The Plaintiff will have to prove that the defendants owed a duty of care to the particular plaintiffs (or in the case of wrongful death, the decedents), and further that the video game caused (not just in the "but for" sense, but also in the sense of legally, or proximally causing the result). This is an enormously tough row to hoe, both legally and factually.
In each case, the plaintiff will have to prove that it was forseeable that this particular individual would have injured these particular defendants, or similarly situated defendants. Unlikely. A substantial body of law tends to treat intentional torts, such as violent crimes, to be intervening acts that are not forseeable, perhaps even as a matter of law. Such an intervening act might well "cut off" the chain of proximate cause from prior conduct of a defendant.
While the abuse excuse might have (however unlikely) been a defense for those who actually did the shooting, had they lived, there is no law of which I am aware that would provide reasonable grounds for using abuse excuse as grounds in support of a plaintiff in a civil case to impute proximate cause to a vender of content for the intentional acts of a third party.
In other words, there may well be legal grounds that would, in themselves, preclude bringing the matter to trial, or admit judgment as a matter of law for the defendants. Even if it did survive summary judgment and motions to dismiss, and even if the tearful and sympathetic plaintiffs led a jury to find for them, the judge might well issue judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict. Even were the judge too timid to intervene as she should in the face of a meaningful verdict, there could well be rock-solid grounds for appeal.
All that from basic tort law issues, even presuming that the first amendment does not, itself, preclude the cause of action entirely.
Re:Tattoo the Symbol on Your Forehead! (Score:2)
Better not hire any boys named Sue, they've been known to go loco.
Now imagine the lawsuits from this one! How are you going to cope?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:Guns? (Score:2)
A sick and agile mind is more dangerous than any kind of brute force.
<joke>
Now if they'd been let loose with a dozen grams of
marijuana, who knows how many may have died.
</joke>
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
A Conditioned View (Score:2)
I've had access to erotica and pornography for quite some time. Granted - back in MY day, we didn't have this fancy-smancy internet to click-click for porn. We had to sneak MAGAZINES. But later I got into the BBS scene and eventually stumbled on content of a more adult nature than computer discussions and game software. It doesn't hold a candle to today's high quality stills and Divx movie caps... but it was something for its time.
Nudity and sex wasn't the only thing I managed to find. I made a fair collection of bomb making information. It ranged from the idiotic to some rather interesting and complex formulas. But it was all forbidden knowledge and I had a regular arsenal of it.
I also played video games. Lots of them. Days lost at the local arcade. I played computer games. Lots of those. What the game lacked in visual carnage, I made up in gleefull attempts to rack up more kills.
I played role playing games - lots of those, too. And the grand-daddy of them was Dungeons and Dragons. My grandparents sent concerned letters to my parents chock full of literature from their church warning of the psychopath I was becoming by being exposed to such filth. My parents were concerned. I rolled my eyes and played away.
I had an interest in "gun games". Despite my parent's best attempts to wean me away from any interest in guns... I still found them interesting. I played war games. I organized games of Assasin at my high school. Photon was simply amazing.
I was also a target for ridicule in high school. And I was none too happy with my experience there.
All this has not caused me to lash out in violence of any sort.
Today, I still watch porn (occasionally with my wife). I play video games - to include the violent FPS games that are so popular. I play online RPGs. I play dice-and-paper RPGs. I do both (openrpg.com [openrpg.com]). I play paintball. I find firearms facinating... though I don't own any.
I am now a husband, a father, and a career professional. I've served in the US military, and I'm a stable citizen in civilian life.
I failed to blow up anything or go on a shooting spree. I forget to treat women as sexual objects. You'll have to forgive me if I've failed to live up to my "conditioning".
People do destructive things. I've known a few in my life. But the vice is often just a symptom of a greater problem.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:3)
Err... yes, but in Muslim countries, women are also stoned to death for being the victims of sexual assault. Not your best example.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Not to get offtopic, but I think a lot of the dialog in Canada about bullying has arisen from a number of teen suicides that directly resulted from bullying. The number of suicides in teens far outnumbers the number of kids who go to school and try to shoot their classmates.
IIRC, Suicide is the #1 cause of death (or #2?) amoung people that are under 18, in Canada -AND- the United States.. and teen suicide isn't talked about seriously in the USA either, except in the context of "avoiding depression", and feeding the kiddies antidepressants..
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:5)
These people bringing the lawsuit are on the right track, they mailed John Carmack personally to demand that he personally prohibit any person under 17 from playing his game. He is a genius coder, he must be able to figure out a way to do it. Senseless auto-killing brainwashing ought only be reserved for those over 18
I have a personal pet theory of why school administrators and (some) parents are going apeshit about Columbine, getting kids booted for even mentioning guns, etc - That theory is that these parents / teachers / adminstrators know FULL WELL the kind of things that drive kids to shoot randomly, they know how bad it is, and they're scared shitless that their kid might get shot. (or hell, why stop with your classmates, might as well go for the office..)
That's why they want to crack down so hard, because it's something they can fix. The underlying issues are much harder. School shootings in Canada (on a smaller scale) have provoked national debates (on TV, even) about the nature of school bullying and what adminstrators can do about it. I saw no such coverage on CNN; the focus was on evil kids and black hearts.
Re:SO SICK OF THIS! (Score:2)
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:3)
The examples you gave are the conditioning of an individual to behave in a certain way because they see others behaving the same way.
Using your examples of muslim women and swearing etc, people behave that way because people around them behave that way.
Quite how you link playing a game with violence in it to actual violence is unclear. Muslims don't respect women more because they played a game about respecting women. Kids dont kill people because they played a game about it either.
If however, kids say others killing people in real life that would of course make them more likely to copy that behaviour.
Here's another example:
If the people a kid spends most of their time with (ie, parents) clearly demonstrate that they don't give a fuck about the kid then that conditioning will teach the child to behave in the same way to others. In extreme cases this can easliy end up with somebody getting shot. I expect when that heppend the parents would know deep down that it was their fault, but probably live in denial and try to blame others and convince the world it wasn't them via the publicity of a lawsuit against games companies.
Re:Whatever happened to personal responsibility? (Score:2)
Organisms (yes, including humans) adapt quite well to their environments. People do what is demanded of them. Ask a child psychologist that doesn't have a political agenda.
I'll probably get nailed by an American (US) moderator, ad nauseum. Carmack shouldn't have to put up with this.
If we shipped all the lawyers in the world to some island, what kind of society would they build?
"The first thing we do..."
------
Re:Games Don't Kill People... (Score:2)
------
This will help nobody (Score:2)
------
Re:Whatever happened to personal responsibility? (Score:2)
Your parents really make the difference of how well you take being a geek at school. I guess you didn't have the same support I did.
------
Re:Guns? (Score:2)
ROTFL. I suspect you don't even see the irony of this statement.
Or maybe it's just that nobody has "used a gun properly" toward you. The proper use of a gun still involves sending a projectile at high speed. Toward a living thing.
Proper usage of a gun is to KILL something. Last I checked, killing something doesn't qualify as "safe". Or do you want to go tell Death Row in Alabama that the state's electric chair is "safe"? Somehow I doubt that would affect their fears.
"But wait," you chime in, "you don't have to kill anything when you shoot a gun! I shoot at targets all the time!" Well, there are plenty of ways to do the same thing without launching lethal projectiles. Surely you can shoot a paintball gun for target practice, for example. Or fire rubber bullets (which are still lethal when used like the police use them - ie not firing them at the ground first).
The only purpose of a gun is to kill. I wouldn't call that "safe" in any manner. Perhaps when properly used they're safe to people not in the line of fire... which meant that there was nothing unsafe about their usage in Columbine.
---
Re:Look at the Lawyer (Score:2)
http://www.csicop.org/si/9609/conspiracy.html
My balony detector is going off hardcore.
Another articles that might pertain discusses the bullcr*p that is "Subliminal Messaging" http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/subliminal-persuasi
Does anyone know of a single peer-reviewed paper that has been published making the link from viewing violence to persueing violence that has since held up to scurtiny?
I've heard a lot of anecdotal eviedence, and occasionally about a poorly done study. I have yet to hear of one that has held up to a skeptics scrutiny though.
---
RobK
Look at the Lawyer (Score:5)
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Take your right wing views about the Big Bad Liberal Media "America Should Eat Itself" Conspiracy and put it somewhere painful.
Censorship is hardly limited to the right wing. In the last US election the loudest calls for censorship came from Joe Lieberman, and let's not forget Tipper's crusade against naughty words in music.
Easy to blame games (Score:3)
That's why they want to crack down so hard, because it's something they can fix.
No, they don't fix a thing by sending a kid that was bullied home for three days. The kid will only learn to keep his trap shut. And no, they don't fix a thing by banning videogames either, because most will ignore that ban anyway and only learn to hide things from their parents.
These kids have proplems. Some need professional psychiatric help. They need to be found. Many of those kids need people to talk to, their parents, teachers, social workers. That means time. Time many parents don't have because they work hard at two or three jobs, time the teachers aren't paid for and time of social workers which the richest country on earth choose not to employ. And time is money. Either money the hard working parents don't earn, or money professionals need to be paid with.
So there is the solution. Talk to the kids about their problems, have someone guard the schoolyard for bullies. Build places where kids can go after school and where some socialworker ensures that things don't get out of hand. But it's an expensive solution.
Now if you don't want to pay all that money, but want to quiet the parents worries there's an other option: do something, anything, and make a lot of mediaruckus about it. Pick out something like games and say "Hey, those games turned the child a killer", disregarding the fact, that in other countries children play the same games without killing half the school. And send children home for three days if they say the bad word at school (no, not "fuck", "gun").
A cheap solution, but one that won't help much i think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do I call these jerks? (Score:2)
You know. I have the hardest time figuring out who these people are politically, in reference to the people behind this rediculous class-action lawsuit. Are they liberal Democrats or fundy Replublicans? IIRC, the Democrats, liberal or not, are usally on the "stay out of my personal or family decisions" but "fund my needs" side of the argument. The republican fundies are "this is how you should make personal and family decisions" but "stay out of my capitol investment" and "fund it yourself" side of the argument.
The reason I muse over this is because I want to correctly address the right party when I curse them. Based on the above logic, I could say, "Fscking fundies," but I'll refrain. Instead, I'll call them "Fscking clueless jerks."
--
Sue the goverment! (Score:2)
When I looked south of border and see the americans wanting to ban sex and violence in the media and in the other hand is letting people get almost any guns they want, I'm not sure if I must laugh or cry!
It seems that the americans prefers to loose free speech as long as they keep the ability to kill the neighboors.
Great... (Score:2)
----
Re:Games Don't Kill People... (Score:2)
It's not the gun's fault nor the bullet's fault, nor most of all it ain't and just can't be, no no never, the fault of the guys who own the stock in the companies which sell the guns. It's their own fault, those whining losers that stop bullets, and I can prove it.
Logically. (You like logic dontcha?) First of all, why do they die anyway? Nine times out of ten they bleed to death. It's lack of blood that does 'em in. Now, is it or is it not, the so-called "victim's" own heart whichs pump, ejects, squirts all his entire supply of blood out on the pavement? Irresponsible litigious bastards, the blame is plain. After dying of their own free will, they have got the nerve to want to send my client to jail!
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Well, I would hope SO! (Score:3)
From the article:
I don't blame him, what with its blocky, 320x200x256-color graphics, 2.5D engine, MIDI music, and lack of any TCP/IP compatible multiplayer capability! Why, the game looks like it's, oh, six years old or something! I'd be appalled too!
(I shudder for the day when the media realizes the existence of Half-Life or Unreal Tournament...)
Our True Enemy (Score:2)
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
It is not the games industry's job to raise your children. It's not even their job to raise the children of those people you think are doing a bad job of raising their children. If society feels that selling these games to children under 17 is that bad, then they should lobby their politicians for a law preventing the sale of that material to children.
What bothers me is the increasing trying to sue and finacially harm companies which are selling legal products in a legal manner. This lawsuit should be dismissed, and the Sanders' should have to pay the legal fees of the game companies.
The Sanders' families suffered a great loss, but it's not the game companies fault. They and their greedy lawyers shouldn't be allowed to distort the court system in order to get some kind of warped revenge for this tradegy.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:2)
Ever hear about honor killings? This kind of murder is almost sanctioned by many islamic governments (although the Quran itself is not big on the idea at all). Here's a link to the first hit in Google on "honor killings:"
http://www.uchastings.edu/cgrs/campaigns/honor.
The short and ugly reason behind the way women are treated (forced to wear full-body coverings, not allowed to speak, etc) is that Islam considers men to be uncontrollable sexual animals. If they even get so much as a hint of a woman's sexuality, then they will not be able to stop themselves from assaulting her. Because of this attitude - this conditioning, women, especially unaccompanied women, are often in far more danger out in public in muslim countries than they would be in similar circumstances in a western country.
Game Ratings (Score:2)
In any case, if a kid is playing Quake for hours a day and parents don't know, then it's probably their fault. All they need to do is knock on the kid's bedroom door and see what's up.
Re:Let's band together (Score:3)
Ok, I don't post often, but this is too much for me.
First, there are no computer game companies responsible for the actions of anyone. If I tell you jump off a bridge and you do it, and I responsible? No! Next thing we see are going to be parents of teenagers who end up with children suing porn companies and book publishers because they publish sexual content. Monkey see, Monkey do. Monkey needs to get some common sense.
If these people win, I'm done with America. I'm moving to Canada. The legal system here is beyond control when I can sue because I'm an idiot. Don't get me completely wrong though, there are still some good law suits out there the help protect the American people, but when you are suing because you spilled coffee on yourself, or because you're reading a superman comic and you try to fly like superman. That's just too much. And people win these cases. How I ask you?
When this is over, can I sue my parents for getting a divorce when I was a young kid. Or sue my father for making me move around the country every two years? "It disrupted my life and I could have turned out better." I can just see the headlines now "Son suing father over incident that happened 20 years ago."
I think it's time for me to write a script to send the DOJ about six million emails telling them they need to work on this system a little. I don't think that what happened should have happened, but that doesn't mean this is how you deal with it.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? (Score:5)
On second thought, I guess it's not that amazing. It's just far simpler to point the finger of blame at others, rather than acknowledge that part of the problem might have been in the homes and family lives of the shooters.
(Preamble for below: I'm Canadian, and I live in the U.S. - have for some years now).
The American (it's primarily in the U.S. AFAIK and yes, I've travelled extensively off the north american continent) culture of victimization is an astounding thing. Personal responsibility takes a back seat to finger pointing and blame mongering. It's sad to see reasonable, mature adults, no matter how distraught they are, abdicating their responsibility as parents in order to blame others for the sad events that resulted largely from their home situations.
In the U.S. the media has helped entrench this culture, making it all right to blame external forces and people for everything from bad breath to
-drin
The sad thing.... (Score:5)
We are so used to it, this automatic satisfaction, we cannot begin to understand that things aren't always "fixable". That unlike the sitcoms we grew up on, not everything can be neatly wrapped up in a set period of time. When there is an absence of "justice", when there is no tit-for-tat, we freak out.
We have grown up believing hopelessness is not a white, middle class, suburban feeling. It is something felt by people half the world away, when we see them on the nightly news. Hopelessness is for people in some foreign-looking hellhole, not an upscale, midwestern community.
The parents in Littleton are trying to find something to fill the dark void in their life, the part of them that was ripped out by events beyond their...or really anyone's control. I have sympathy for their plight, but they should not continue on their quest to place blame where it doesn't belong. It's not easy to simply blame two people who are now dead, we can't get our ideal "justice"...but we have to realize and accept that we don't always get the satisfaction we want...or need. There will be no day in court, no explinations, no chance to scream at Eric and Dylan for the lives they ended.
There are far too many questions still lingering after two long years, and it seems we are nearly out of answers. No one will ever get to ask Why, to dig into the motivations of the killers, to get anything but the slightest hint of the thoughts behind the massacre.
Such is life.
With the inability to even begin to understand anything beyond what was seen in the hallways of Columbine on that afternoon, it is impossible and irresponsible to make assumptions about the deeper issues, the intangible aspects of what was going through their minds, what might of driven them to do what they did. Suing game publishers for billions of dollars is not justice, it does not punish anyone who was involved in any way, it does not bring back the dead, nor does it honor their memory. This is lashing out plain and simple. Lashing out against people who had no part in their troubles. Who didn't do anything, but who are simply convenent targets for rage, the rage of people without any answers, without any hope and who have a disabling inability to deal with the events in their life.
After all that has happened, you think people would have learned by now that no good comes from doing such things.
I implore the parents of the Columbine victims to stop this crusade...even if it suceeds there will be no tangible benefit...except the piece of mind that somebody paid.
I don't think we as a society can afford that. (Note: I strongly suggest people watch the film The Sweet Hereafter [imdb.com])
A point most posters have forgotten... (Score:4)
Remember that in America, everyone has identical access to redress of grievances. That means:
1] You can file a suit about anything or nothing.
2] If it IS about nothing, you'll be thrown out on your ear.
This is not a real lawsuit. It is not based on any law, statute, legal doctrine, or precident. The lawyer involved is simply using the legal system to try to make political waves.
In short: The Lawsuit Is A Troll Intended For the Media.
Slashdot bit, as did you. I'm sure a lot of radio talkshow hosts will be using it as a topic for their rants. This kind of pseudo-story is their bread and butter.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:5)
As a matter of fact, since millions of kids play these overly violent games everyday, we can now understand why millions of kids take guns to school and shoot millions of other, non-videogame-playing children and then kill themselves every day.
These people bringing the lawsuit are on the right track, they mailed John Carmack personally to demand that he personally prohibit any person under 17 from playing his game. He is a genius coder, he must be able to figure out a way to do it. Senseless auto-killing brainwashing ought only be reserved for those over 18.
Re:Let's see now. . . (Score:5)
hehehe
Check out this quote from one of the lawyers (Score:4)
Except for when he's not.
BullSh*T!!! (Score:3)
From the Article:
"But money may be the smallest part of the goal," said John DeCamp, the Sanders' Nebraska-based attorney. "This is a class action that says that, ultimately, money ain't gonna do it."
Then how come they already put a price tag on it? The fact that the attorney is the one that is saying this makes it even more unbelievable.
The ignorance of this world never ceases to amaze me
Strong, but right.. (Score:3)
Not having kids play cool video games is
having kids feeling uncool, boored, frustrated and easy to have a grip on, obviously.
It`s them having to search for cool alternatives on the web, like how to make H bombs and blow the pentagon or how to hack microsoft.be (again).
It`s them having to see these beautifull all-american documentaries (in technicolor) on tv or in the theatre on how to kill your neighbour in 30 movie shots.
It`s them sneaking around with books that no-on should read, including their own parents at age 16, but hey, they did so anyway.
One wonders what the point is of lawsystems and education if lawyers have even lost grip on the difference between imagination and reality.
I have been trashed with huge quantities of dangerous FPS radiation myself, yet, I wouldn`t ever think of actually shooting anyone. Come to think of it, where could I possible get a gun ? Fuck!.. Must be the shitty strict gun-license policies in my shitty country. Ah well..
Re:Whatever happened to personal responsibility? (Score:4)
ludicrous (Score:3)
I know it's not fashionable (Score:3)
If you consistently expose people to sex and violence they grow to accept it. It's as obvious as anything. It's conditioning. For instance, in Muslim countries women aren't leered at and treated as sex objects, because society conditions them not to. In Western societies, women are objectified through their portrayal as breasts on a stick on TV.
That's how conditioning works, and that's what's happened here. There is no way that violence has no effect. Just as kids exposed to lots of swearing swear more than those in environemnts where swearing is taboo, those exposed to violence are more violent. Anyone who says otherwise is only doing so because they enjoy violence and sex so much.
Re:I know it's not fashionable (Score:3)
Women aren't treated as sex objects in Muslim countries because society's conditioned them not to? Bah!
1. Yes, they are. Rape and incest in some areas of the Middle East are epidemic. Women may routinely be bought, sold, stolen or killed because of their sexual behavior or perceived sexual potential.
2. Conditioned? What do you mean by this? The pervasive influence of religion and a given cultural context? Funny, you ignore our religion and culture: a vengeful, violent biblical God who thinks nothing of wiping people out with plague, flood and famine on a whim; broken families where one or both parents are long since gone; abandoned children left by working parents with underpaid day care staff, all in the interest of affording a boat; parents who refuse to take the time to give their kids the tools to deal with a modern world full of sex and violence, preferring instead to fight against sex education and "godless" ethics-based guidelines...
You know, I was beaten up or beat someone up nearly every day in grammar school. My first day of kindergarten, I was knocked down at kicked silly.
Know what? This was decades ago before the prevalence of the video game industry or the media saturaion of ultra-violent Hollywood. Care to know what the causal factor was in my neighborhood?
-- Apathetic parents who couldn't be bothered to get upset when their kid beat someone up in school -- or couldn't even be bothered to find out that it was happening in their kids' lives to begin with.
-- Just enough "poverty" to keep people fighting for the middle class by working long jobs and keeping their children in day care.
-- A culture of judgmental administrators who were constantly making these kids feel worthless. After all, they were nothing but mindless, violent punks from broken families who would never amount to anything and thus weren't very important in the grand scheme of things anyway...
Sound like any recent cases you can name? Take your right wing views about the Big Bad Liberal Media "America Should Eat Itself" Conspiracy and put it somewhere painful.
And the world echoed as 1000s of /.ers said "WTF?" (Score:3)
I am so sick and tired of everybody whining about being a victim. The only people responsible for Columbine were the two shooters who are now dead. Grieve and get the hell over it! But no, we have ot drag it out ruin as many lives as possible, and provide lawers with millions in fees. Sure - some idiot KNOWs the brakes on a dump truck are defective but sends it out on the road cause he's lazy - that's liable. BUt suing someone because they SHOULD have known something was going to happen is a joke. I'm a parent - you think you know all that your kids do, but you don't and never will!
Columbine was terrible - but it is swinging the lawsuit pendalum even further.
--
Re:Parents of those slain are making matters worse (Score:4)
Common, except for the tobacco companies, who frequently trotted out their own experts to point out there was no proof that smoking caused $DISEASE. When it could be shown that the officers of the company knew that this was false, they became liable.
If Miller, Coors or Budweiser ran an ad saying "Have an extra beer before you drive home. There's no proof it'll make you crash" they'd be similarly liable.
--