Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Miami Court Orders Take Two to Hand Over Bully 349

Jabrwock writes " 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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by rdwald ( 831442 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:25PM (#16402237)
    Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      This kind of publicity will only increase sales for rockstar.

      The ruling is so that it can be assessed by somebody within the court.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Astarica ( 986098 )
        Take Two lost millions due to the Hot Coffee mod (repackaging cost, recall cost, lost sales, etc).

        Not all publicity is good.
        • by szembek ( 948327 )
          I disagree. They haven't even had to advertise Bully. I only heard of it from slashdot articles like this one.
    • by Steeltalon ( 734391 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:37PM (#16402379)
      What blows my mind is that this is the guy who suggested that someone should make a game where the president of Take 2 Interactive and her family are killed... and then blew off the $10,000 he offered should someone make that game. Where the **** does he get the moral authority, let alone professional authority -- I mean, he's a lawyer, and knows about the game industry only in an academic sense, and I say that using the loosest definition of academic possible -- to judge whether Bully is acceptable. He's a God fearing man. Would it be so bad for God to drop an anvil on him?
      • Jack Thompson has persuaded me to become a lawyer for this very reason. All I have to do is call myself an "expert" in a field, even if I know something about it... let's say "cars." Now I just walk up to my local dealership and say "I need to test this new Jaguar for the public good! Give me a brand new Jaguar or I'll sue you!"

        Then you can carry around special business cards. I'm a gourmet expert! My meal is free or I'll sue you! I'm a alcohol inspector. I'll need to sample and take away your finest wines to make sure they're safe for consumption. If you don't comply, I'll sue you for putting the public in danger!

        He's a dumbass nutjob, plain and simple, but he's also shrewed enough to convince people who, like him, also have no idea what the Hell they're talking about. That's the scary part.
    • Does this ruling actually affect sales of the game, or is it just to let the judge play the game himself and see if it's actually as bad as Thompson claims?

      Judge says he wants to see 100 hours of game play. Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...

      • by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @11:23PM (#16403775)

        Thing is - there isn't much more time than that between the handover deadline and the game's release...

        And perhaps you nailed it right on the head. Sometimes, when a judge wants to have a little fun with a particularly vexatious or obtuse litigant, he'll take their more absurd motions and put constrainst on them that make their fulfillment render the cause of action moot. So, perhaps this judge thinks it silly and so requested something (like 100 hours of gameplay) that can't be fulfilled before general release to make sure that he won't be placed in the awkward position of having to rule on the legality of its distribution. (And, anyway, wouldn't that be a flagrant case of Prior Restraint?)

  • Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kypper ( 446750 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:26PM (#16402245)
    You won't stop until someone who's played GTA actually kills you, will you?

    Honestly, we all want you to die not because we're violent, sadistic bastards, but because you just won't stop wasting our tax dollars on this horse-shit.
    • by kypper ( 446750 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:29PM (#16402289)
      Ahh Jack...
      (Score:1, Flamebait)
      by kypper (446750) on 20:26 Wednesday 11 October 2006 (#16402245)

      Hey, I didn't know Jack Thompson got mod points!

    • Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jackbird ( 721605 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:31PM (#16402313)
      Tax dollars? Jack Thompson is a private asshat, not a public servant.
      • Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cduffy ( 652 ) <> on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:34PM (#16402353)
        However, he's a private asshat who spends a lot of time persuading public servants (like the judge in question) to spend their time on his pet issues.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jackbird ( 721605 )
          Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree, and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            Who is he representing? I'm not a lawyer myself but I thought you can only bring up a case if you have been directly affected by an incident, or had an immeidate family member affected.

            No one can really be effected by Bully as it hasn't been released so why are judges even hearing these cases?
          • Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:32PM (#16402873)
            Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree, and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.

            Um, duh. But it's not in the public good for asshats to use the judicial process to sue over the same issue over and over again trying to use different laws or jurisdictions each time to achieve the same result whether our system makes that possible or not.

            I mean, it's a public good for 911 to respond seriously to every call. That doesn't mean it's a public good when people crank call 911 dozens of times.
          • You might have a point if this was a non-lawyer acting without counsel, but JT is a lawyer who is supposed to know better and not file frivolous, baseless lawsuits. [Insert usual disclaimer] but this seems to me an attempt at "prior restraint." Unless somehow this videogame is a threat to "national security" (e.g., containing top-secret material as opposed to containing potentially, morally objectionable material) then until Bully is actually on store shelves there shouldn't be any reasonable legal case r
          • Re:Ahh Jack... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:33PM (#16402891)
            Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree

            Don't think it even comes close, the law is expensive because lawyers like it that way.

            and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.

            As far as I have read, nobody has said that neither he nor anyone else should not have the right to make an ass of himself. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy or supportive of his actions. He's got a right to be an ass, and we have the right to call him an ass for doing it.
          • 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 [], shall we?

            He has:
            Sued the State of Florida to get the Florida Bar ruled unconstitutional.
            Repeatedly filed baseless criminal harassment [] 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 []!)
        • by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @10:17PM (#16403293) Journal
          The judge will get a copy of the game, not know what to do with it and flip it to his grandson, "Hey kiddo, is this good or not?"

          After a quick demo of the cool early release (and posting a torrent copy), sonny boy says "Yeah, it's really cool! Everyone will want a copy!"

          The judge will buy some Take Two stock.

          Case Closed.

      • But they're public courts whose time he continues to waste.
      • The court system is publicly funded. And I think judges would do better to spend their time keeping innocent people out of jail, than looking at litigation from hyper lawyers with grudges against a computer industry.
    • by Jackass Thompson ( 932628 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:16PM (#16402737)
      That'a a threat. Stop Threatening me. -- Are you threatening me? I am the Great Jackholio.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by antic ( 29198 )
      You won't stop until someone who's played GTA actually kills you, will you?

      I've been training hard, but I just can't get past the flying training in San Andreas!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by generic-man ( 33649 )
      Thompson won't stop until he stops getting media attention.

      Slashdot is but one of many media outlets who have made Thompson a very wealthy man. Penny Arcade is another. Thompson has all of us to thank for his financial success.
  • 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 [] of the game... Dear ole Jack won't be the first.
  • Nothing worse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <> on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:28PM (#16402279) Homepage
    than uninformed asshats with a cause all in the name of "saving the children."

    Why not protest the war or lack of education funding in the more poorer districts? I think children need more, oh I dunno, text books and trained staff than they need protection from "the boogie woogies" of video games...

    Oh right, cuz the guy is a press whore no-talent assclown who just wants to be known as the biggest loser in the world. /me loves me some video games...

    • by monopole ( 44023 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:50PM (#16402527)
      "Foley" in which you play a Congressman and the Chairman of the "Missing and Exploited Children Commitee". In the game you pursue pages and ...

      Just think of the children!!!
      • He's bringing the same suit against the same parties repeatedly in various different jurisdictions. Surely somewhere where he has filed as barratry laws...
        • by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @11:35PM (#16403861)

          Barratry charges are unbelievably rare, and the main reasons are:

          1. Everyone involved is a lawyer, so there is a version of that blue wall of silence that every profession has to some degree

          2. Our system needs to be accessible, and so it is better overall to err on the side of an occasional asshat filing a frivolous lawsuit and letting it slide, rather than an important casue of action being barred and a wronged person denied their day in court.

          3. Courts generally have better things to do than defenestrate annoying lawyers.

          Honestly, I think in many jurisdictions it's more number one than number two, but number two sure does make a dandy fig leaf. And number three is always a factor; many jurisdictions have dockets jammed to the hilt and extremely finite resources.

    • Why not protest the war or lack of education funding in the more poorer districts? Slashdot.
  • I don't just mean it reaches a bad result. This really is just bad law as well as bad policy.

    A fundamental bedrock of first ammendment jurisprudence is the principle of no prior restraint. Sure the court has unfortunatly carved some exceptions where individuals might be fined or even prosecuted for the content of their work (obscene material with no redeming literary/scientific value) but it has universally struck down anything that even smacks of 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.

    I suspect Thompson just found a sympathetic local judge who either didn't know or didn't like the clear first ammendment case law on prior restraint. Then again maybe the publishers didn't protest too loudly knowing they could have it reversed on appeal and it would get them great publicity. In either case I don't doubt that this will quickly be reversed.
    • You would be correct if the Judge had actually issued a ruling against Rockstar. All he's said is that he'd like to see the game. That can also be for an appeal so that when Jeck loses and appeals it, the lower court can demonstrate how fair it was to Jack's case.
    • 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. []

      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Babbster ( 107076 )
        What are you talking about? Since you decided to provide a wiki link to public nuisance, you should probably read the one on prior restraint []. JT is attempting to prevent publication of material based on its content - that is the definition of prior restraint. The idea that his suit could possibly have merit (the courts have made very few rulings upholding prior restraint, and usually only do so when the government makes national security claims) is just silly. One might as well have argued that "Kill Bi
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ozmanjusri ( 601766 )
        He's saying the game will create an ongoing danger to the local community

        Waltzing was a danger to the Swiss and Austrian communities too. It's a good thing they were smart enough to ban it, or lawlessness would have broken out and civilisation as we know it would be over by now.

        And drugs. Now, it's a good thing we had that war on drugs so now nobody can buy them, get wasted and forment anarchy. If it hadn't been for the billions of dollars spent, and all those lives wasted rotting in jail, those damn po

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:24PM (#16402797)
      This is precisely equivalent to a court ordering an author to hand over their soon-to-be published book beforehand so the government can scrutinize it. Since no anti-expression laws (such as defamation) apply until after publication, there is no fathomable basis for the government to have a pre-release copy of the software title. It is not like the government can do the prior restraint of stopping the games release. So this court has very much overstepped its bounds. Some (far too many?) judges just do not understand the law. You do not get to break the Constitution just because you wear a robe or get elected to Congress.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DeadChobi ( 740395 )
        IANAL, but it would appear that Thompson is arguing the case on the grounds that the game constitutes a public nuisance. If he's arguing on those grounds then the court has no choice but to decide on those grounds. Many people posting in this article have repeatedly pointed out that it is a violation of first-amendment rights to ban this game. If that is so, then it is not the Florida judge's duty to decide what is or is not a violation of the constitution. That falls to the US Supreme Court. The reason tha
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 )

      Did the judge actually rule in any way to stop Rockstar/Take Two from doing anything? At least from the summary and the linked blog, it seems that the judge is only asking to see the game. I mean, he asked with some force behind it, sure, but still-- if someone is trying to bring a case regarding the game's content, it seems reasonable for the judge to want to see the content, don't you think? If games reviewers have already seen the game, is it so difficult for someone to produce a copy for a judge?

  • A huge Victory! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PieSquared ( 867490 )
    Yes, that's right, a huge victory for Jack. He finally got his hands on a copy of a video game before release!

    Obviously since nobody else has played this game yet, it will be a major loss to the gaming industry. Certainly there aren't already copies in the hands of video game reviewers, or any store or... wait? There are? *How* many people have played it?

    I'm not quite sure how this is a major victory, other then that he found a(another?) judge to play ball with him.
    • It's pretty obvious what his plan it. Now that he's obtained a copy before release he can upload it unto the net where all the kids can download it and play it for free ensuring Take-Two doesn't make a profit.

      It's downright ingenius

  • by lemur3 ( 997863 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:32PM (#16402333)
    Maybe it is just me? It's the "think of the children" crowd who are a public nuisance.

    I think it shows a large amount of disrespect toward parents (and adult gamers) all over to have a Judge/Plaintiff deciding what is good or bad for the public when it comes to video games or art or entertainment.
    • How many parents do you know? 100? 200?

      I've met at least 3000 parents over the last 10 years as a teacher. There are lots of incompetent folks out there.

  • by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:33PM (#16402337) Journal
    Last time I checked the First Amendment was still in the constitution. How is a video game a public nuisance, whatever that means, and subject to extraordinary examination that would never pass constitutional muster if applied to a book or movie?
  • by KU_Fletch ( 678324 ) < minus caffeine> on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:33PM (#16402341)
    Thompson is bringing a claim to the court that the game constitutes a menace. Since the game isn't actually out yet, the judge has no way to proceed with this claim until he sees the product. I fully anticipate he'll view it for a few days, take a few days of consultation, and then reach a sumary judgement for the defendants. You'll be hard pressed to find a judge willing to prohibit free speech or free commerce of this kind. Blocking the sale of a legal commerical product won't pass much constitutional scrutiny and would be thrown out in an instant by a higher court.

    This is just Jack Thompson wanting attention for his upcoming book (hell, he called his co-author as a witness). Giving him attention is letting him win.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tehwebguy ( 860335 )
      the problem is, as far as i'm concerned, is that the judge shouldn't be able to order something like this.
    • by pcgamez ( 40751 )
      I understand and agree (in a way) with what you are saying. The problem here is that by ordering the game produced, he is in fact saying that a game CAN be a public nuisance. That in itself is a hirrible precedent.
    • by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      Surely the Goskomizdat [] must review the game before publication, eh comrade?
  • Other than Jerk Thompson's, how on earth does this case exist? On what grounds is the court asking for review? I am just at a lack here to understand how this would work. How does JT claim he deserves pre-release software for his own gratification? Not to mention that i doubt this would hold up on appeal with what I assume are amazingly specious claims.
  • by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:34PM (#16402359)

    If I were Take Two, my FIRST piece of evidence in defending my wares would be America's Army. "Hey it isn't just us making games that are violent. The very same government asked to pass judgement against us gives this shit away!"

    AA is designed to be as accurate as possible with regard to teaching people proper technique for assault, infiltration and causing strategic mayhem. All supported by our tax dollars. If the government is freely supplying this material to people, how the fuck can they ban it? Is this fucking insane or am I missing something?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Yes, run into a building without checking, running down the middle of the street, and shooting everything that moves is teaching me how to use military tactics.
      • Zing! Well said.

        I'd like to see the GP in JRTC.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It'll be a double-edged sword; America's Army can be used as evidence that videogames train people to be violent, because that's what the military uses it for.
  • Can they counter sue to have Jack Thompson labelled a 'public nuisance'?
  • by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:39PM (#16402399) Journal
    Why does this guy still have the license to practice law? He should have been disbarred years ago for the stunts he's always trying to pull.

    Hell, why is this guy still alive? After what he said about the gamefaqs community, he should have been struck down by God as an agent of the devil.
  • Bewareness (Score:2, Funny)

    by afz902k ( 1000622 )
    Bully is a game that no children should be exposed to. Clearly, It has been crafted by the Devil it/him/her-self, or probably a lesser Demon such as Orobas or Teeraal, to make the children who play it commit acts of violence against other children, and those who don't, against Jack Thompson and his lackeys.
  • by Facekhan ( 445017 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:42PM (#16402433)
    Since when can some random uninvolved third party with no standing sue to see an unreleased product? Is the judge JT's drinking buddy or just completely out of his mind?

  • So, before I RTFA, I just assumed that there was a "bully" that was to be handed over.

    "News for Nerds," eh? A bully getting there just desserts would certainly be of interest to all us nerds who faced bullies throughout adolesence.

    But, then, I suppose that after RTFA, the real bully here is that idiot Jack Thompson.

  • Jack Thompson is declared "public nuisance"?
  • Some Background (Score:5, Informative)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:48PM (#16402505) Homepage
    Some Background
    Thompson's rambling initial letter [].
    The Suit [], from Jack's Perspective.
    Ars Technica []'s take on what happened today.
    A little bit about Jack [] (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.

  • See the problem here is that America has more lawyers than engineers. If Jack Thompson and crew were engineers then they would write non-violent video games like civ and carmen sandiego, and more recently things like Katamari, or Mario.

    Instead, all he can think to do is sue people for doing something he does not like. His is the violent and destructive action against a creative endeavor. The fact that the court is willing to indulge his infantile rampaging is indicitive of the corruption and facist tende
    • they would write non-violent video games like civ

      Civ is non-violent? Granted, it's not graphic but Civ does NOT teach non-violence or tolerence.

      Prime example: A couple of weeks before Civ IV hit the shelves I loaded up Civ III for old times sake. I played on a huge map with 6-7 other civs and lead a fairly peaceful existence, only two minor wars. I never lost a city and only took over 3-4, one from warfare the others from influence. I was the largest civ, the most advanced civ and the most peaceful civ (
    • See the problem here is that America has more lawyers than engineers.

      No, that's not the problem. The problem is one man. But he has tried this b.s. repeatedly in the past, and has a long history of failure. The "fascist" courts don't seem to have been very good the man, despite all his frothing at the mouth. Maybe they don't like the fact that he keeps suing the Florida bar [].

      As for the lawyers to engineers ratio, the reactionary, fearful, know-nothing mentality has been with humanity since long before

  • How much? (Score:2, Interesting)

    So, how much are Take Two paying Jack Thompson at the moment in order to get him to stir up shit to drum up their sales figures? The whole thing seems kind of suspicious to me. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone's been paid off to act as an 'enemy' of another person in order to help drum up support and interest...
  • by BeeBeard ( 999187 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @08:59PM (#16402615)
    to avoid paying for a game. You'd think the judge could afford to just buy it when it comes out.
  • Thanks, Jack!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eepok ( 545733 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:05PM (#16402663) Homepage
    I would never have heard of this game had not Jack Thompson thrown up such a huff. Now, I want to play it.

    "Let's see... we'll just ban these books and NO ONE will ever want to read them... right?"
  • by bigskank ( 748551 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:08PM (#16402681)
    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.

  • and a bad habit best broken early.

    HOWEVER I will cheerfully defend the rights of others to play them. It is imperative that the free thinking among us stand up against this rising tide of intolerance and cluelessness.

    This election is 1858 all over again... Stand up against the theocracy. Stand up for your rights!


  • Funny how Jack's tried in the past over a school-shooting to get $33-mil for damages because the kid who did the shooting played "Violent" video games such as Final Fantasy, had a copy of The Basketball Diaries, and accessed porn sites. Parents no where to be found? I'm rather sick of this guy.

    Where were the parents when these kids get the games, obtains movies, and accesses the porn sites? Jacky-boy. Put the blame where it is due. I have no problems with my kid and porn or video games because I monitor
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AusIV ( 950840 )
      I certainly agree that parents have the responsibility for the actions of their kids, but I don't think games, movies or porn sites are going to cause a kid to go on a school shooting. I think kids likely to go on school shootings are attracted to violent video games, violent movies and porn sites, but that doesn't mean that those factors made the kid want to commit the crimes. Neither does it mean that every kid who plays violent video games, sees violent movies, or watches porn is going to go out and kill
  • [quote]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[/quote]

    Or else the judge will have to admit he forgot his son's birthday and didn't get him anything.
  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki@[ ].net ['cox' in gap]> on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:53PM (#16403085)
    I believe the PS3 is a threat to our children and our sacred ways of life.

  • by curecollector ( 957211 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @09:56PM (#16403111)
    ...must hand over a copy of the soon to be released game to the court within 24 hours.

    Well, it beats driving to Best Buy, and is a heck of a lot faster than Amazon...
  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @10:09PM (#16403223)
    Thought they couldn't stop you but could only react afterwards.

    Interesting that they are doing this to a video game- not sure it will be constitutional.

    "We want you to provide copies of your newspaper daily before you go to press so we can approve or disapprove it."
  • The way things go (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @10:31PM (#16403401) Homepage Journal
    Judge: I can't really rule without seeing the game.
    Rockstar: We've got nothing to hide, want to see it?
    Judge: Sure, that'd help.
    Jack Thompson Self Serving Press Release: Hah! Because of MY great lawsuit, the judge ORDERED Rockstar to produce their evil game!!
    Gullible Press: "Judge orders Rockstar to produce game!"
    Slashdot: "fascist jugde orders rockstar to prodce game!"
  • by Bones3D_mac ( 324952 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2006 @11:01PM (#16403615)
    From my understanding, Bully is actually not the type of game the title and Take Two's reputation in the game industry would imply. So much so, that the game has actually received surprisingly mild ratings from reviewers regarding any sort of violence in the game what-so-ever.

    The game literally has very little to do with going around GTA style, beating up defenseless weaklings at random. In fact, it's quite the opposite and promotes standing up to the adversity that bullies present in humorous ways. Honestly, I'd say parents have more to fear from your typical Mario title than they do from Bully.

    This movement is entirely motivated by who is making the game, rather than the content of the game itself.
  • 2 Live Crew (Score:5, Informative)

    by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT 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. []

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.