Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Miami Court Orders Take Two to Hand Over Bully

Comments Filter:
  • A good read... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ack154 ( 591432 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:26PM (#16402247)
    Someone has already had a hands on review [feedburner.com] of the game... Dear ole Jack won't be the first.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:28PM (#16402275)
    This kind of publicity will only increase sales for rockstar.

    The ruling is so that it can be assessed by somebody within the court.
  • by Xiroth ( 917768 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:43PM (#16402453)
    Congrats, you fell into Thompson's trap. Now why don't you have a read of what the game is really about [arstechnica.com] (as linked in an earlier comment).
  • by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:47PM (#16402481) Journal
    Dear ole Jack won't be the first.
    I'm not sure if you misread the article summary (I did at first), but the court isn't ordering a copy of the game be turned over to "Dear ole Jack"

    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?
  • Some Background (Score:5, Informative)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:48PM (#16402505) Homepage
    Some Background
    Thompson's rambling initial letter [bit-tech.net].
    The Suit [residentgamer.com], from Jack's Perspective.
    Ars Technica [arstechnica.com]'s take on what happened today.
    A little bit about Jack [wikipedia.org] (including favorite classics like "claims Janet Reno is a homosexual. Repeatedly." and "tries to get Florida bar ruled unconstitutional.")

    Sooo... Take 2 has deep into Thursday to file an appeal. Thompson will likely retort on Friday, and a ruling made on Monday. 24 hours after this Take 2 will deliver a copy... on the release day.

    As the site is currently down, does anyone know what the legal grounds are for this ruling? How can there be "more copycat violence" if the game hasn't been released in the first place?

    For that matter, I'd like to demand a pre-release copy of Halo 3 to ensure that there isn't graphic violence and amazing multiplayer action.

  • by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:55PM (#16402577) Journal
    A fundamental bedrock of first ammendment jurisprudence is the principle of no prior restraint. ... Obviously any damages can be sought after the game is released and the only reason to submit it now is to achieve something like judicial approval for their game. Such an action flies in the face of long established first ammendment jurisprudence.
    Jack Thompson is attacking this game as a public nuisance.

    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.
  • by TrisexualPuppy ( 976893 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @10:35PM (#16403427)
    This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.

    That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment. Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
  • by ximkx ( 936957 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @10:36PM (#16403433) Homepage
    There's just not much else to say about him.
  • Re:Really...? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @10:39PM (#16403461)
    In the game, bullies are the enemies. You star as a new kid at school, trying to work your way through the school's hierarchy.

    Actually, here's a good review of it from the Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/arts/10bull.html ?ex=1312862400&en=f536b0ae84f0468b&ei=5088&partner =rssnyt&emc=rss [nytimes.com]

  • Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @10:41PM (#16403483) Homepage
    It's definitely a good thing to allow judicial access to anyone with a beef. And maybe the first time this happens, you listen to them intently, give them as much leeway as necessary to make their case, and finally rule against them when it's clear they don't have a clue.

    The fifth time, they should get a curt hearing, a cursory glance, and a "stop wasting my time" look. The tenth time...

    Let's see what Thompson has had beefs with [wikipedia.org], shall we?

    He has:
    Sued the State of Florida to get the Florida Bar ruled unconstitutional.
    Repeatedly filed baseless criminal harassment [penny-arcade.com] charges against radio stations, cartoonists, and other public figures.
    Ironically, is known for threatening and harassing behavior, and has been removed from trials for such.
    Charged Janet Reno with placing homosexual promotional material in public schools.
    Sued 2-Live-Crue over obsenity in their work, lost, then followed up suing over their victory song about the first amendment.
    Publically offered to make a 10,000 dollar donation to charity, then withdrew the offer as "satire."
    Repeatedly tries to get obsenity charges against music, losing pretty much every time.
    Has faced disbarrment charges. Was required by the Florida bar to prove self sane.
    Has had repeated high-profile civil cases on behalf of bereaved parents against the entertainment industry, and hasn't won a single one.

    With a list like that, the time for maximum allowable leeway has passed. Real people have real problems for the courts to solve. Wasting 100 hours of the court's time to play this game isn't going to help anybody.

    (Full disclosure, I make videogames. Oh the Evil [guitarherogame.com]!)
  • 2 Live Crew (Score:5, Informative)

    by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @11:17PM (#16403719) Homepage Journal
    This is 2 Live Crew all over again.

    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]
  • by PygmySurfer ( 442860 ) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @12:00AM (#16404033)
    In Europe, the UK (Isn't the UK in Europe?) and Australia, It's being called [ign.com] "Canis Canem Edit", which is Latin for "Dog Eat Dog."
  • A squad is assigned a machine gun. One person carries the gun. Another carries the ammo. Another carries a replacement barrel. When you fire the things pretty regularly, the barrel gets hot and can warp.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, 2006 @12:31AM (#16404243)
    America's Army has never been used as a training aid for soldiers. It's a PR stunt to get more people interested in enlisting.
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @01:41AM (#16404595) Homepage
    Wired.com had a neat article [wired.com] about it.

    Their take on the subject? Rockstar has pulled a coup with this one. They've made a game that people are preemptively blowing their tops about, and in reality, A) the messages are actually good, and B) it's a social critique on both those people and the principle that "power corrupts". In the first respect, it's opposite of GTA, but in the latter case, it's exactly the same.

    The game doesn't glorify bullying at all. Typical missions involve defending the helpless. One mission that looks bad -- accompanying a gang of toughs that are going to beat up a hobo -- reverses when the toughs flee, and you end up befriending the man. On the other hand, like in GTA, everyone in a position of power is corrupt. And, most importantly, by "lowering the stakes" to such a minimal level, where one of the greatest crimes you can commit is to stay out past curfew, Rockstar both embarrasses those who railed against the game while knowing nothing about it, and the society that puts these types of people in public office.

  • Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:2, Informative)

    by lgw ( 121541 ) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @03:10AM (#16404973) Journal
    No one can really be effected by Bully as it hasn't been released

    You keep using this word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...