Judge Clears Bully For Publishing 393
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.
First amendment. (Score:3, Insightful)
good comment (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Free Will (Score:2, Insightful)
If a game in which someone can make choices to make the game less violent and has defending other kids as a key game play element actually exists how is this a bad thing. Its Art/storytelling and a slap-dash of decent morality. Free will is important. Choices between good and evil in a game allow people to explore these choices without real world impact.
I just don't know anymore... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You did not see that game... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thompson seems to be implying that the judge is some kind of idiot who was completely unable to interpret what he saw happening on the screen while someone else, knowledgeable in the game, was playing it for him.
Now, I've never seen the game. But based on what games I have seen/played, I can't imagine that anyone with an above-room-temperature IQ and a heartbeat would be unable to interpret what's happening on the screen. I mean, games these days have fairly realistic 3D graphics; it's like implying that one can't figure out what's going on on the screen because it's anime.
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Must be running for president... (Score:3, Insightful)
After he gets his 15 minutes of national media to rant against violent video games, he's not going to continue his campaign against this "Columbine simulator" that will undoubtly increase school violence?
Re:good comment (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:good comment (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, having guns at home, at work, in shopping malls and now even in you classrooms (since apparently even teachers are supposed to carry guns now) is a much greater risk than videogames. Add to that the violence everyday on TV, and you get a society that's just waiting to tear itself apart in fear of itself.
Long story short, Jack Thompson is an egotistic fuckhead who cares nothing for the children. If he did, he'd get rid of guns and actually do something about the physical violence not connected to videogames.
Re:Free Will (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust me, I think JT is a major dumbass just like everyone else, but to say that a game like GTA does NOT promote violence is actually stretching it a bit
Technicality (Score:3, Insightful)
Virtual Reality is by definition a model for real life actions. Video games are meant for people to get away from their everyday lives. There are Virtual Reality simulators which are fully intened to teach people how to kill, most of them in use by the US goverment. Video games still strive for realism in some way. What makes them fun is where they deviate from reality, video games let you do things that you wouldn't be able to do in real life.
Yes - the grenades blow up and have realistic shrapnal due to the new physics processor.
No - that does not mean we are really being invaded by an alien lifeform.
Yes - you can see the new hat on your character when you equip it
No - putting a hat on does not suddenly give you the real ability to cast fireball
Incorrect Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the fervent wishes of certain unbalanced extremists, prior restraint in publishing is not recognized in US law, except in cases of national security, and only then when circumstances are extraordinary. Right to publish is automatic. Thus, the Judge did not "clear" anything for publishing, as judges do not have that right in this country.
A less misleading headline might be, "Judge Refuses to Block Publication of 'Bully'", or, "No Reason to Block Take-Two's 'Bully', says Judge", or,"Take-Two's 'Bully' No Threat to National Security".
Schwab
Re:You did not see that game... (Score:5, Insightful)
This case involves Jack Thompson and a judge that thus far has demonstrated his ability to act fairly. Despite Jack's reputation himself as an annoyance, the Judge agreed to actually look at the game before making a decision. Then, upon seeing it, he drew parallels to existing societal norms. So far these are the actions of a rational man; and they're just what we know from a news article.
I know what happens when you assume, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Judge Friedman felt he was being decieved, he would have stated so. If I may as well, I'll take the leap that if Jack felt Judge Friedman was being decieved, he would have no problems fufilling his obligation to the court to say so. In short, with lack of evidence to the contrary, and no history of foolish behavior in this case on the part of Judge Friedman -- I am going say that Judge Friedman did his job, and its judicial armchair quarterbacking on your part to think otherwise because a news article did not detail every step of the trial to your satisfaction.
~Rebecca (IANAL, but damn this is my second law related post today)
Re:I just don't know anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know this is Slashdot and no one reads that article, but please at least read the points of your post(s), because you only spread more FUD or at the very least misinformation.
Cheers,
TdC
"avoided making violent choices." (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't this a good thing? At least the player has a choice and not like tv/movies where you have to watch gore all the way through (unless you can make yourself to pick up the remote) . At the end of the day its parents responisbility to monitor what they buy their children and what their children do.
Avoid making violent choices. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is the most telling of Mr Thompson's state of mind.
He may not have realized it, but he just defeated his entire standpoint against any videogame. What he says is completely true about games, and about life in general. Yes, kids *can* do violent things, but it's up to the individual to "avoid making violent choices" in video games and in life. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach their kids how to deal with frustrating situations, and to be the prime example.
Mr. Thompson is really setting a bad example to the very kids he's trying to protect. Avoiding "making violent choices" involves restraint. But him lashing out at everyone and everything, using his lawyer status as a tool to frighten others not as knowledgable in law to do what he wants done, is sending the opposite message.
Re:good comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:good comment (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a judge's job to put his own personal feelings into the matter.
It's wrong on a lot of levels:
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.
What's next? People can ask a judge if TV show is okay? A magazine? A book?
Where does this power stem from to rule on the contents of video games? I've never heard of it before.
This is beyond a slippery slope; it's a cliff. Look, I get that this Jack guy doesn't like video games and violence. Great. Fine. He should be allowed to campaign against them. Free speech works both ways. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take this guy seriously. The judge actually took this guy seriously for a week. That should bother everyone. I'm not commenting on whether Jack has a point; I'm simply questioning this judge putting himself in a position to judge.
Re:good comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever hear the saying "Justice is blind"?
A judge is supposed to take EVERYBODY seriously. And because the judge took the complaint seriously and worked methodically in dismantling it, Thompson has very little room now to appeal the decision.
I wouldn't want a judicial system where the guy on the bench could deny me justice just because he thinks I'm a nutbag before I've even argued my case. I should have to PROVE I'm a nutbag before the court can deny me its good graces.
Re:good comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Great quote (Score:2, Insightful)
If true, this just goes to show that the game allows you the player to make moral choices. It allows you to choose a non violent path to certain situations.
After reading this fiasco for the past few months i'm actually wanting to buy the game. Prior to Thompson throwing a fit, i would have ignored the game on the shelf.
Re:good comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Under law.
Show me the law that gives prior restraint complaints standing. A judge is supposed to dismiss cases that don't have any. He has a reponsibility to take such cases with no more seriousness than that.
KFG
Re:good comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BULLSHIT! PROOF OR STFU (Score:4, Insightful)
SERIOUSLY. Show me proof because I am 100% sure you are full of shit. No judge in their right mind would allow a free speech law to stand like that. If they did, it would be struck on appeal (and it WOULD be appealed).
This is not a question of freedom of speech. If the laws barred such games from being sold/produced/owned at all then it would violate the first amendment (among other things) and therefore would be struck down. Which has already happened. However, the question of whether such material is to be allowed in the hands of minors is a seperate issue. Historically courts have upheld laws restricting minors' access to certain materials (such as pornography) without the consent of their parents.
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. The argument that it presents an undue burden on the retailer was not upheld, and the laws themselves do not directly challenge constitutional rights as currently interpreted by the courts since adults still have access to these things.
The wider question, where because of these burdens and economic factors retailers/moviehouses demand that media be censored to meet the standard of their market, as happens with movies needing a certain rating or the "Wal-Mart version" of a cd, sanitized so that it no longer has a "mature" rating, and its effect on the ability of content providers to create unhindered works of art and adults to access those works has not been addressed as far as I know. I'm not sure the courts are the right answer for that question, but it is a societal problem that must be faced as surely as the problem of unsupervised, unguided/misguided children and the damage they cause because their parents refuse to take responsibility and do their jobs.
Re:good comment (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
But that's the wrong test. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for restraining publication of anything. Even instructions for creating a nuclear bomb in the 50's.
That's just not the case. It's sad, but there is in fact ample precedent for restricting works wholesale. Think _Ulyses_ or _Lady_Chatterly's_Lover_ or _Lolita_ or anything else on the "banned books list." The legal standard established by precedent is exactly what the judge was following here. A work can be judged obscene and therefore unworthy of first amendment protection if it holds no artistic value, appeals to the prurient interest, and meets the community's standard of obscenity. I don't agree with that but that is how the law has been interpreted for a very long time. The judge's argument here is that the community already accepts a level of violence greater than what is contained in the game as valid entertainment, and there is nothing else objectionable in the game. Therefore it fails to meet the legal standard for obscenity and must be allowed.
Personally I am an absolutist when it comes to the constitution. I think when it says "shall make no law" that's what it should mean. None of this funny business about "reasonable compromises for society" and all that. The Constitution is not reasonable and does not compromise. It is not to be held to the standard of culture that was the product of millenia of oppression and ignorance. It stands above all and should be regarded in that way. I don't think it's even useful to go too far into what the "Founding Fathers" would have allowed. They could not possibly have completely imagined what they had unleashed. They had an idea, but even they were not ready to apply it as we have by freeing slaves, allowing non-landowners/non-whites/women to vote, etc. But despite the fact the government felt the need to amend it to accomplish these things, the law was already there in the constitution and the declaration of independance. "Society" was just not ready to apply it properly just as it was not ready to accept a world without kings where free men chose their own destiny and "class" no longer mattered.
Every time we try to apply the needs of "our heritage" and "society" to these things we take a step backward. That's why the constitution should be interpreted literally and followed as the supreme law of the land. It doesn't say "you have freedom of speech as long as you do not offend the most prudish of minds." It does not say you have the "right to be secure in [your] papers, effects" etc except when the government feels the need to pry. It says no and it means it. "make no law." Do not touch this area of life.
There have always been people who want to move backwards and want to change things back the way they used to be, especially people who once held more sway than they do now. They will always have an excuse, some reasonable argument why you should allow them to have their way. And that is why we should always follow the constitution. We should say that no means no, period. To believe this is alreday the case is to suffer from grave naivite and serious error.
Re:good comment (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really very simple: if the people don't want this type of thing, there will be no market for it. QED. Nanny state politics and overbearing government intrusion need not apply. If you must engage in lawsuit abuse and political hackery to prevent things like this from coming to bear, then you are merely using an abusive, authoritarian system to engage in anti-free-market tactics for the purposes of enforcing your minority view on a large number of free people.
While we're on the subject, let's point out to all our conservative friends that these very same people despised the very notion of traditionalism (one of the prime elements in a lot of current social and political debates) and rejected the idea that past behavior was a valid criteria for determining a future path. Funny how living under the affliction of the Divine Right of Kings will give you a (rightful) distaste for arbitrary tradition.
It really is sad to see how badly things have gotten away from us over the last 100 years or so. I feel bad that the framers did all that work for nothing.