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)
Just how long (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (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:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good comment (Score:4, Insightful)
I like V-Chip for a completely different reason (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*Assuming that you are living in the US.
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: (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 lis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't anymore, though. Sure, you might think you need it because of crime or whatever... But consider this: would there really be so many robberies and so much crime, if it was much harder to get ahold of guns? Would kids simply open their fathers closets, take the gun and shoot their classmates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Consider the fact that maybe you don't NEED guns for that? And should you ever DO need guns in an event like that, I'm sure there'd be no problem getting them.
I don't know of any country in the entire world with nearly as many guns as you, that are as afraid of yourselves that you are. Remember, Bush can't hold down 300 million americans alone. YOU have the power, you're just too lazy and afraid to admit it, rather relying on guns to do the talking and objecting.
Think about it. If 300 MILLION americans ros
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is false, an eye for an eye would leave the whole world with one eye. and i assure you people would be more careful when it came to eye hazards.
"It has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with there being guns all around them."
I thought it had everything to do with people living in fear.
There are other countries who have just as much gun onwership as america with a far lower crime rate.. why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much. The judge merely established a baseline in an offhand comment. The judge never said that if the content were worse than what is seen on TV then the game could be banned. It's also easy to argue that network TV restrictions are tighter than what could be reasonably expected for games. Television decency occurs because networks ceded
Re: (Score:2)
I know we're talking law here, so logic
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: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: (Score:2)
Go ahead try that and let me know how it works out for you...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Thompson said what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thompson said what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect he can be disbarred in any state where he practices pro hac vice, but I doubt other states bars will even want to hear it. And this case was in Florida anyway.
Now *there's* a game idea (Score:2)
Let's just make a game called Pro hac Vice City so he'll be against that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
So.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless I missed something, Thompson hasn't seen the game since it's unreleased and is criticising the judge who did see it. Amazing.
I'm starting to think that this guy is a clever guerilla marketer who brings attention and boosted sales to his clients via the media and legal system. Just look how well 2 Live Crew sold records after a protracted legal battle waged by Jack Thompson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So.. (Score:4, Interesting)
the game isnt the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the game isnt the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
well, i doubt real bullies would play this game anyways, since the objective is defeat bullies, not be one.
if anything, the game has the potential to have a strong message of empowerment for all those kids who spend recess stuffed into lockers.
Re:the game isnt the problem (Score:5, Funny)
Well, once they come out with the PSP version.
Way to go JT. (Score:3, Funny)
Anamotical distortions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Way to go JT. (Score:5, Funny)
Q: What do you get when you cross Ouroborous with a Klein Bottle?
A: Jack Thompson, the only man who can simultaneously put his feet in his mouth when he's already got his head up his ass.
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.
Re:Free Will (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll be hard-pressed to somehow say that people who make violent choices in video games transfer that to real life.
I'll assume that we'd rather not have judges making stuff up as they go along.
Re: (Score:2)
With some people you will find that there is no peaceful solution to a problem. There are just
choice quote (Score:2)
So, he's arguing the game is a public nuisance because you can choose non-violent solutions?
That guy is really an insane jackass.
Re: (Score:2)
So the game would be a public nuisance because the employee would be biased, then?
/sarcasm
Riiiiight. Sure.
Sigh. He's saying the employee would be biased? DUH!
Wow, your reply sure is super extra insightfull and not at all a useless stating of the obvious completely missing the point of what you replied to!
Thompson is trying to get the game banned on the insane notion that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly unsuitable for children; mandatory sterilisation for all!
I just don't know anymore... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> No - putting a hat on does not suddenly give you the real ability to cast fireball
Well, crap, why the hell am I wearing this thing then?
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think thats where alot of the hot coffee trouble started. If it was actually a mod, like CS, then they would be attacking the people who made the mod, rather than going after the softwar
Ever thought of this, Judge? (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? This "thinking person" takes exception to your statement that one form of fictional entertainment is "obvious"ly more disturbing than another.
Show, don't tell. If you have empirical proof suggesting one is more disturbing, please share it. But don't belittle those of us who draw different conclusions tha
TV (Score:2)
However, TV has already set a bar for which the majority public has accepted. The judge is saying that this game does not exceed or is perhaps under that current level.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few years ago my undergrad department was planning to build a new building. One of my professors recommended me for a committee that was designing the new labs. In the meeting, professors were scribbling on graph paper to show the layouts they wanted. I decided I could do better in WorldCraft, which I happened to have on my laptop. After a quick demo, they had my laptop on the LCD projector and were directing me to move equipment, furniture, lighting, etc., around until
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?
All work and no play... (Score:2)
Someone need to slip dear ol' Jack a chillpill before his head explodes. On the other hand... If it does explode, we can continue blaming lawyers for all that's wrong in this world while having proof: The heads of lawyers are prone to spontanious explosion! Keep all children at a safe distance!
Idea toshut up Jack Thompson (Score:2)
It could prolly be a build on fy_office....
Re: (Score:2)
Well how about that? (Score:2)
Finally, judges being clueless about software played into our hands for once. He probably took those two disks home and put them in his toaster.
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
This is great news comrades! (Score:5, Funny)
"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 t
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.
Thompson's response letter to the judge... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/thomps
Thanks for the link (Score:2)
lol!
How DARE you ask for the full, release game??? HOW DARE YOU!!!! OR ELSE!!!!!!!!
Someone... (Score:2)
The smartest thing Jack Thompson ever said... (Score:3, Funny)
"After the court session concluded, Jack Thompson told Ars Technica that the proceedings were a travesty. He characterized the judge's viewing of footage as nothing more than a couple of "Take Two operatives" showing the judge everything in the game they wanted him to see. "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine. But there's such a thing as due process," said Thompson. "And I was denied due process in court today."
A judge's permission (Score:2)
That's a relief (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all of Phelp's entire family is lawyers who act the same way in and out of the courtroom, and they all continue to practice with the exception of Freddie himself. As far as
Re: (Score:2)
What freightens me though is, how long will it take to have him disbarred? Are the standards so low that he actually needs to tell a judge to fuck off 42 times before he gets punished? I am far from very knowledgeable about law stuff, but from a lay man point of view, seeing a lawyer ridicule the justi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh... so THAT explains it! Someone get the man some Midol!
Re: (Score:2)
do you know how many completely frivilous lawsuits are brought to court every day? as long as you're willing to pay your lawyer and court fees you can sue anyone for anything. and if you lose, you might have to pay for their lawyer too. but nothing is going to stop this money making scheme, it pays the lawyers their hefty salaries and the salaries of the courts too.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, since it was a pre-release version, and since the judge was only shown what the Take-Two employee decided to demonstrate for him, it's hard to tell what the judge actually saw. I can't even count how many games can be played in a much less violent way if so desired (like not using fa
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If I was the guy sent to play the game I would ask the judge to tell me what to do. I'd be his hands in effect. That way the judge can see anything he likes and I just have to perform it. I see no other reason to pull this off and make the judge feel he saw everything he needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you he saw infinity-1 more than Thompson saw.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you, Thompson!
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me that you don't really think that a judge of Friedman's calibre and experience is too stupid to know whether or not he's having the wool pulled over his eyes just because what's in front of him happens to be a video game.
The next thing you're going to tell me is that the ruling was prepared on drool-proof
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I love it (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I care because I now see why so much news on Slashdot is so fsking old. They ask us, prompt us even, to send them news articles, then the stuff sits around for 2 days before making it's appearance.
If you don't care about how old news is, I can't make you.