Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Entertainment Games

Scary Barry, Wacky Jack Continue War On Violent Games 72

Posted by simoniker from the oh-dear dept.
Thanks to the Palm Beach Post for its article discussing Florida-based lawyer Jack Thompson's teamup with Barry Silver to continue a war on violent videogames. Thompson's anti-gaming history is well-discussed, and Silver is no less flamboyant during previous lawsuits, since he "had a bikini-clad hot dog vendor deliver a subpoena to Palm Beach County Commissioner Mary McCarty during his well-publicized fight over the vendor's right to sell hot dogs while partly clothed." Thompson says: "You can call us Scary Barry and Wacky Jack", and is helping Silver with the Florida-based lawsuit again GTA developers Take Two, following furore over the alleged depiction of Haitians which is still simmering in North Miami, with a new local law to restrict violent games planned. The article also notes that the two lawyers have a lot in common, commenting: "Both are frustrated politicians - Silver, a former state legislator, and Thompson, a failed Miami-Dade County state attorney candidate. Both love the limelight, take cases that are destined to make headlines and are famous for publicity stunts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scary Barry, Wacky Jack Continue War On Violent Games More

Scary Barry, Wacky Jack Continue War On Violent Games

Comments Filter:

  • This is BS. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @07:56PM (#8038479) Journal
    Since when do people have a right not to be offended?

    • Re:This is BS. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wolf- ( 54587 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @07:58PM (#8038502) Homepage
      Think its in the US Bill of Rights next to "right to healthcare", right to "no interest down home loans", right to "everything everyone else has" and right "not to work if I dont want to but you need to help take care of me".

      • Don't forget "right to hire highly skilled workers for 3.75 per hour"
      • Some of what you said makes sense, but I call flamebait on "right to healthcare". Many people in this country want to benefit from public healthcare like people in other countries do. The only people who are apposing it are greedy doctors who want to charge as much as they can from poor sick people, and people who's minds are still stuck in the McCarthy era.

        And if your last statement is about welfare, statistics say that the majority of people who go on welfare only stay on it for 1 to 2 years. People want

        • Re:This is BS. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Pluvius ( 734915 )
          Many people in this country want to benefit from public healthcare like people in other countries do. The only people who are apposing it are greedy doctors who want to charge as much as they can from poor sick people, and people who's minds are still stuck in the McCarthy era.

          And people who realize that it would never work. Do you know how long the waiting lists and lines are for free healthcare in Canada, which has one of the best socialized healthcare systems in the world? Keep in mind that Canada on

          • Re:This is BS. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Senjutsu ( 614542 )
            And people who realize that it would never work. Do you know how long the waiting lists and lines are for free healthcare in Canada, which has one of the best socialized healthcare systems in the world?

            Yes, since I happen to live there. And the answer, in case anyone was wondering, is "Not particularly long". I've had relatives in the states wait much longer to have necessary procedures cleared by their profit grubbing insurance companies.
            • Yes, since I happen to live there. And the answer, in case anyone was wondering, is "Not particularly long".

              Oh, really [csmonitor.com]?

              Rob
              • So I'm supposed to believe an article written in another country, which quotes the hyper-archconservative Fraser institute (which has a huge "privatize health care so our wealthy members can make a killing off it" ax to grind) over my own experiences in my own country? Not fuckin' likely, my friend. Note that the article focusses on MRI and CAT waiting lists, which recent studies done by people more reputable than the Fraser institute have found to be largely the result of doctors refering patients to them
                • Thats funny.

                  Calling the CSM biased is like calling the Titanic unsinkable.

                  You may not live in this country, but, the CSM is the most unbiased source of news in this country. I just find it strange you called it biased as most Americans go to thier site to find the unbiased stories.
            • Obviously, you don't live in the Maritimes. I moved to New Brunswick in July and I still don't have a fscking doctor. Have to take advantage of the rare times I return to Ontario to talk to my old doctor.
          • I live in Michigan. Half the traffic accross the bridges around Detroit is people going into Canada to get health care because it costs $75,000 to get an angioplasty at Covenant Healthcare. The waiting lines aren't all that long. Hell, and ambulance took me over the border when I broke a leg in Cobo hall a few years ago because all the hospitals around Detroit were turning patients away.
      • I think that a solid argument could be made that a right to "life" and in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" includes healthcare.

        not saying it is a winning argument, just that a solid one could be made.

        Also, I don't think welfare is a right to have people take care of you if you don't want to work.

        It is for limited times, or requires you to have real problems and you need to look for jobs a lot of the time.

  • Not much to this... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rhetoric ( 735114 ) <rhetoricNO@SPAMcolumbus.rr.com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @08:01PM (#8038543)
    Both are frustrated politicians - Silver, a former state legislator, and Thompson, a failed Miami-Dade County state attorney candidate. Both love the limelight, take cases that are destined to make headlines and are famous for publicity stunts."


    And there you have it. This will get them attention, name recognition, and a number of supporters in the right, oh and it will save children from bad parenting... or not. I think political games should be banned, wish I could afford to win that suit...

    Aside: I do think the portrayal of Haitians in GTA:Vice City is quite unecessary and in bad taste, even in the context of the game. Whether or not this should be legally relevant is another post.
    • What about the portrayal of Cubans in GTA: VC and what about the portrayal of Italians in GTA III? What about the portrayal of Russians in your average Bond movie? What about the portrayal of white people in the miniseries Roots?

      I mean, honestly, do you want a group of enemies in your games/movies/television shows that are composed of one white guy, one black guy, one gay guy [any race], one Indian, one Canadian, one Asian, etc., etc.? If you do, you might want to check out the Village People, you might enj

      • What about the portrayal of Cubans in GTA: VC and what about the portrayal of Italians in GTA III? What about the portrayal of Russians in your average Bond movie? What about the portrayal of white people in the miniseries Roots?
        All of these are examples of innacurate portrayls based on stereotypes, and/or attempting to further stereotypes, and are generally in bad taste. Again, legality is another question.
        • Innacurate portrayals? You're going to tell me that no Cuban has ever been involved in gang violence? Or that no Italians have ever been involved in organized crime? Or that no white people ever beat slaves?

          The fact is that just because you show a black guy stealing a car, doesn't mean that you're trying to tell the world that all black people steal cars. It's people like you who jump to the conclusion that concern me. If I show you 20 Cubans who are in a gang, why does that lead you to believe that all Cub

          • Innacurate portrayals? You're going to tell me that no Cuban has ever been involved in gang violence? Or that no Italians have ever been involved in organized crime? Or that no white people ever beat slaves?
            When ALL the Haitians in the game are gang members, or ALL the Italians act like mobsters, etc. yes this is saying exactly that..

            • Re:Not much to this... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Danse ( 1026 )

              Umm... ALL the haitians aren't gang members. The gang happens to be called the Haitians, because its members are Haitian. This is what most gangs are like. They consist primarily of a single ethnic group. Again, its people who make moronic leaps of "logic" that are the problem. Just because there is a Haitian gang in the game doesn't mean that the developers are trying to portray all Haitians as gang members. That's just plain stupid and people like the jackasses that are causing all the trouble over

              • Like I said I'm not concerned with the fuss being made over it in regard to MY finding it to be in bad taste. If it's just a gang, why not call it the Latin Kings or something? Or base the name off a real gang anyways.. I mean really what if it was "Kill the Blacks!!" and gangs of "Blacks" walked around and were labeled as such..
                • The reason for this is that the gang does not have a black identity, but a Haitian identity. Most other gangs predominately composed of black people are not bonded by a black identity, either, so it wouldn't make sense to even call a generic black gang "The Blacks." Heck, I'm not sure a black identity even exists, considering how different black people can be from each other.

                  Rob (Oh, BTW, Haitians aren't Latin)

                • If it's just a gang, why not call it the Latin Kings or something? Or base the name off a real gang anyways.. I mean really what if it was "Kill the Blacks!!" and gangs of "Blacks" walked around and were labeled as such..

                  Because the game takes place in MIAMI!!

          • Christ Almighty.... I agree with the anti-liberal guy. (Funny sig, by the by.)

            So, rhetoric, Friends shows the stupidest group of white people I've ever seen. Ever. Far more stupid than the Senate and House put together. But I don't think it's saying that 'ALL' white folks are this stupid. Otherwise, as a white guy, I wouldn't watch it. Wait... I don't watch it... But that's my point. I have the choice to not watch Friends, and not watch C-Span.

            Jeffool.
            Though those C-Span cats can spout a funny l

    • This will get them attention, name recognition, and a number of supporters in the right, oh and it will save children from bad parenting... or not.

      And here we are about four hours after this was posted on Slashdot and only 16 comments - most of them replying to you. Slashdot damnit! Where there are at least 16 "frist opst" comments for each headline! I think this is an example of how much thinking (an assumption I know) people really care what these two spout. With any luck, this will further push the vie

    • "I do think the portrayal of Haitians in GTA:Vice City is quite unecessary and in bad taste,"

      This statement proves you have not played the game. Does this make you qualified to make an informed decision about the situation? No, it does not. All it means is that you can make in incorrect statement based on heresay and get modded up for it, because the moderators also haven't taken the time to research the issue.

      It's not a crime to have a wrong opinion, but there are laws against slander and libel. I th
  • I'll just say that they are simply trying to get their name out there and take on an "evil" cause to get votes.

    That said, I hope the judge in the case gets things right and PLAYS THE GAME to that point (it's not that far in) so that he can see how it really is portrayed in the game, and not just listen to some lawyer try to make things sound the way he wants. That way maybe he'll see that it's part of the game, and that it's not just anti-hatian speach. This case is like suing movie studios over anti-semet

  • Every generation that goes by is going to find this controversial issue harder and harder to swallow. "I grew up playing all kinds of games, myself and everybody I know came out fine. What a moron."

    Want to know what bothers me most? I don't think these guys genuinely believe in what they're spouting off. I really think their agenda is to villify gaming because it's a blurry issue to a good chunk of the voting public. Afterall, little Johnny couldn't possibly be a bad kid, it's got to be those gosh de
    • I give is twenty-five more years before people shut up about video games entirely.

      In the 17-1800's, they said that the novel was destroying the intellectual youth, and that you could never properly appreciate a story in writing. You had to actually go and see it played out to properly understand its import.

      Then, the movie comes along, and they say that that is destroying our intellectual youth, because you can't properly appreciate a story by watching it played out. You have to read it in full prose to fu

  • "Star Wars" banned in England! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm British-born, living in the US. Getting upset about Vice City is about as stupid as me getting upset that there are a lot of bad guys in American movies that have British accents:

    "The Empire commanders are played by British actors and Grand Moff Tarkin blew up Aalderan, committing mass genocide against the rebels, this makes all British people look like thugs, but then the Rebels won in the end and killed all the British people, thus encouraging their genocide. Ban Star Wars before this violence escape

  • sue 'em to death (Score:3, Informative)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) * on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @10:00PM (#8039441) Homepage
    Recently I ran across an interesting posting on Buzzcut.com Apparently, according to the article [buzzcut.com] Thompson recently appeared at U of Colorado. Afterwards, a student emailed him about what he thought should be done. His answer? Laws are nice, but he would rather see lawsuits. So it seems that rather than try to pass laws which would theoretically prevent videogame related violence he would rather wait untill something bad happens where people die and THEN sue to do something about it. Nice. Real compasionate. A cynical person would be tempted to think that he had an alterior motive or something...
  • If any Florida Slashdotters are reading this, do me a favor: get a girl you know (yourself, if applicable) to go each of these guys' offices with a copy of the U.S. Consitution (including the Bill of Rights, #1 being highlighted), a (legal) copy of an "infamous violent video game" (say, Quake 2... something that will work on the likely outdated and underpowered computers of conservative lawyers), and printouts of the following articles: This one [salon.com] and this one [avault.com].

    Also be sure to get the local television crews, and newspaper writers and photographers to follow (and make sure that they're informed of the one lawyer's bikini vendor stunt)... because the whole idea here is to embarass these two ugly fellows using their own tactics, except bolstered by evidence.

    The downside is that this will get these two the attention they crave; the upside is that it won't get them positive attention and might just make a laughingstock out of them.

    Or just hit them both with a pie in the face at a press conference. (Hey, it worked with Bill Gates for the French!)

    ~UP
  • I'm so happy that we have a few lawyers and religious people out there who have appointed themselves the guardians of morality. (Maybe this is why I dislike both groups.)
  • Just aggree on a standard classification system like there is for movies (best solution would be to just use the existing ESRB ratings system) then make that system legally binding on publishers, developers, stores and gamers?

    It means that if kids walk into EB or Wal-Mart or whatever and want to buy , they will need to show that they are old enough to play it.

    Then, it gives those who think that is too violent a way to complain. All they need to do is to complain to the ESRB that the rating is wrong and i
    • I don't think the government should be involved in a censorship issue that a parent has control over. It would be very difficult for a kid to buy and play a game without a parent knowing about it (assuming the parent pays any attention at all).

      The only mandatory rating system I support is that of the MPAA (though it does need a complete overhaul) because it's much easier for a minor to watch a movie in a theater without his parents' knowledge than it is for him to buy a video game or watch a show on TV.

      R
    • Uh, I hate to break it to you but the MPAA's rating system isn't legally binding. If Tim the Donkey, working at movie theatre X lets young Billy, age 12, into an R rated movie, there is no law that says Tim the Donkey is in big trouble. You might be able to get him on corrupting a child or whatnot but if you're going to use that, it's just as applicable in a situation where a child is sold a MA-rated game.

      The ratings systems for movies and video games is led and policed by the industry, not the government.

    • There are three problems with that: One, most 13 year-olds don't carry legal IDs, two, such a thing would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, and three, the ESRB ratings are not nearly complex enough to use them for any sort of law. They are "guidelines," and not meant to be set in stone.

      In order to do what you're proposing, those guidelines would need to be expanded by an order of magnitude; you'd have to have seperate ratings for realistic violence (ie Soldier of Fortune II), cartoon
      • I am just pointing out that if its possible for movies, why not for games?

        Are there people who are complaining that should be banned or restricted in ways other than by the self-regulated MPAA rating system (by which the MPAA assigns a rating to every movie and then most theaters seem to enforce that rating)?

        The industry should get together with the retailers and the various groups involved in this (including the "violent computer games are bad, ban them" crowd) and come up with a form of self-regulation
        • I am just pointing out that if its possible for movies, why not for games?

          Well, see, that's the thing... it isn't possible, even with movies. For instance, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was rated PG-13, yet I saw dozens of children well under 13 when I went to see it in the theatre, and that was not an uncommon thing for me to see, even in that particular conservative, small town. Movie theatres have been "supposed" to self-regulate and keep the kids out of movies rated "R," but they don't. As lo
      • That's what the national identification cards are for :(
  • Yes thats just what we need, lets fight fire with fire. Kids... You play those Violent video games and well come in there and BLOW YOUR FREAKIN HEADS OFF!!! MWAHAHAHA. Sounds wonderful.
  • The Palm Beach Post makes these guys out to be ambulance chasers. They pretty much laugh in the lawyers faces.

    Also, I would not be totally against stronger enforcement of ESRB guidelines. A lot of these games are just not meant for kids. Maybe a more acceptable sollution is the gaming industry enforcing better policies among retailers.
  • Somebody should carjack an Infernus and run these assholes over.

    If you keep saying that violent video games make us violent, I'll fucking kill you!

    LK

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close