Judge Clears Bully For Publishing

stupid_is writes "The BBC are reporting that Judge Ronald Friedman has cleared Bully for publication in Florida. Jack Thompson is, predictably, critical of the decision, stating "You did not see the game, you don't even know what it was you saw." after Take-Two gave him the game, along with someone to play the game for him to watch before he made a decision." This is a follow-up to our story last week about Take-Two handing over copies of Bully per court order.

Old news

[theaddkid.com]

I am sorry if I am wrong but wasn't this covered some 217 years ago........ "Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference." Or does this not apply to forums of speech that some people don't like.

Re:good comment

[EmperorKagato]

"I'm not so sure. Such an argument seems to imply that if the violence were worse than what you'd see on TV, there would be some grounds to have this game forcibly prevented from sales. So while I do agree with the judge's statement, I find it a very dangerous thing to be including such a statement in defense of the game from a legal standpoint."

If you remove Bully from publishing, you would also have to take every TV/MA TV/T show off the air.
I find the judge's defense is sound: The judge basically identified that the level of violence in this game is already approved by society.

Let's also not forget children cannot buy this game on their own nor rent it as well as parents still have the right to pre-view before purchase.

Re:good comment

[BlueCodeWarrior]

Children can buy or own the game. Game ratings are a reccomendation, not enforced by law.

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should take some of your own advice and make sure you know what you are talking about before commenting. "Hot coffee" that people are talking about here refers to a mod for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It has nothing to do with the McDonalds case.

Thompson's response letter to the judge...

[NC-17]

Pretty good reading, if you'd like to get a better sense at just how crazy JT really is:

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/thompso n-verbally-attacks-judge-207578.php [kotaku.com]

No, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you want the HONEST truth, you most likely got modded Troll because of the Amazon referral link. Kind of sleazy.

Although the Slashdot conspiracy against you is most likely true as well...

Re:good comment

[John Betonschaar]

It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world.

True, but OTOH, he might just as well have compared it with one of the 100s of other games already on the market, that have so much more violence in it. It's actually pretty rediculous if you think of it, that a judge even has to decide on this. I mean, you cannot even kill people in this game IIRC. Games like Postal, Hitman, GTA, etc. etc. etc, they're already here, and there's much more realistic violence in them.

The game has become controversial because it's title might give the impression it's about bullying people, but that's just not true, which you'll find out when you actually play the game. A member of parliament over here actually literally said in an interview the game should be banned 'because it rewards bully behaviour'. The fact that his comments were taken seriously by other members is quite disturbing, considering the fact that probably none of these people even saw the game and still formed an opinion on it. If you read reviews of it, you'll find that the game actually *punishes* you for bullying, and rewards you for following classes and gaining respect by doing 'the right thing' (tm).

Re:good comment

[Jabrwock]

1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence"
2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay"
3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.

Technically he did. He never actually formally ruled whether it was a "public nuisance" or not. He just made that offhand comment about the level of violence, and dismissed the case.

Officially, he wouldn't have been able to rule, since prior restraint in the US requires one of the following:

a) incitement to riot
b) obscenity
c) state secrets

Seeing as how Bully contained none of the above, he wouldn't have been able to rule on it.

Re:good comment

[apendrag0n3]

Actually, they have been challenged and DID survive... Small community municipalities sometimes are an ADVANTAGE. No one has said that parents can't buy the games for their children. As a matter of fact, they just make it MANDATORY that the parent/guardian DOES. Are there ways around it? Yep, sure there are... Much like the ways around buying alcohol or tobacco products when you are underage. But at least SOME communities are trying to put responsibility back in the parent's court.

Re:good comment

[apendrag0n3]

Limestone County, Alabama

Re:BULLSHIT! PROOF OR STFU

[apendrag0n3]

This is NOT a free speech issue... Our community lawmakers are NOT book burners, etc. We simply opted to enforce the ratings system in our community. Unrated Movies, etc have been and always will be available and those are left to the discretion of the particular venue. We have an Adult Bookstore in town, as well as several movie rental businesses and 1 computer store that sells video game software... All of these were consulted and were part of the lawmaking process so that undue damages would not be brought to bear on their businesses... Unlike you, who seems bent on making this a "free speech" issue, the shop owners/managers, etc were MORE THAN happy to work with the community of which they are apart. As the other reply to your enraged and enflamed post states: "The poster is correct in stating that laws that require vendors to be responsible for checking the age of customers who buy certain games/videos/music cds has generally been upheld for the same reason that laws requiring stores to check ages for cigarettes/alcohol/firearms/pornography." This is all that was being stated... nothing more... I apologize if something I said was unclear to you, however your use of profanity and feeling the need to write the post in such a manner begs the question of what I may have done to offend YOU? At least I wonder about that until I read some of your other posts and realized that profanity seems to be just a natural part of your vocabulary. Again, My apologies for your misinterpretation of the information being presented.

Jack Thompson flames the Judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Now why didn't you include the best bit, Jack Thompson attacking [kotaku.com] the Judge over his actions.

It is a great mine full of wonderful gems such as the following(the best bit is first, Jack gets PWNED!):
5. How dare you, Judge, promise a hearing today and then prevent that hearing from occurring. How dare you, Judge, petulantly order the production of the game after it is released on Tuesday morning. I didn't even ask for that. You did that out of spite, and you were smiling when you did that. You really enjoyed that one, didn't you, Judge?

Take-Two's lawyer, Rebecca Ward, lied in your courtroom when she told you that a "Teen" rating is an age restriction at the point of sale. That is an utter fabrication, and you are on notice that it is an utter fabrication. Ms. Ward is very good at fabricating things for a client that routinely engages in criminal conduct, and you bought all this hook, line, and sinker.

You were very nice to my other expert, Miami Police Chief Ken Harms, and then made it certain that your courtroom would not be graced with his real expertise. I would have preferred less courtesy and more due process, and so would the victims that are on the way.

You broke every promise made me. Disagree with me if you like, but don't refuse to hold a hearing you promised to have. Don't promise to view an entire game and then cut out after an hour.

Next time you promise a "hearing," I'll bring a parent with me whose kid is in the ground because of a kid who trained to kill him or her on a violent video game. Try mocking that person, I dare you.

Seriously, there is sooo much crap in there that I could end up quoting the whole thing!