October 12, 2006
"A major coup..."That's how Washington Post reporter Mike Musgrove characterized Jack Thompson's Bully win yesterday in a Florida courtroom.
"My view is that the game potentially impinges on public safety," Thompson told Musgrove. "I'm pretty sure that the game is harmful to minors."
Representatives of the video game industry defendants did not respond to the WaPo's request for comment.
In other coverage, the Miami Herald, which had a reported in attendance, offered insight into Judge Ronald Friedman's take on Bully.
According to the newspaper, Judge Friedman told the court that he needed to see how violent the game was before rendering a decision. Surprisingly, Friedman said that, while he could not change the ESRB rating, Bully "may be so bad that something has to be done.''
Thompson - accurately - called Judge Friedman's order unprecedented:
''I'm not aware of a judge ever ordering the production of a game prior to its release for any reason."
Judge Frieman also admonished an attorney representing Wal-Mart to have the mega-retailer reconsider sales to minors if he - Judge Friedman - decides it should carry a mature rating.
Wal-Mart exec John Simley told the Herald, ''There's no question we would do exactly that."
Comments
Yeah, Jack normally keeps just shy of lying. He twists facts and misunderstands reports, but there's generally some kernal of truth he's building on, even if it's completely obscured by the time he's done.
Which is why I was actually pretty shocked when, in a Joystiq thread, he told a completely 100% bald-faced lie. He claimed that the IGN review (it was actually a preview, most reviews don't come out until the shipping date) proved that Bully was as violent as he claimed it was. The only time the preview even remotely mentioned violence was commenting that some bosses would be hard to beat if you didn't increase your fighting skills by attending gym class. The preview spent most of its time talking about the social aspects of the game and the giant prank war mission that happens on Halloween.
I'm wondering if this is a fluke, or if he'll continue to spin tales out of thin air in the future.
1) Under the evil influence of the Sonytron and incapable of making reasonable decisions,
2) Under the table with Take-Two et al and had made his biased decision before playing the game,
or 3) Some sort of gay terrorist.
True, there are some limits to free speech, but most of them fall into certain specific categories. When one considers any form of speech, there are three main things to consider:
What is being said/conveyed
How it is being presented or conveyed
Where is it being said/conveyed
The government's authority over speech is usually restricted to the "how" and "where" aspect of it.
For your "Fire!" example, the reason it can get you in trouble is not just because of what you are saying, it's because of where you are saying it and how you are doing so. If I make an audio tape of myself yelling "Fire!" over and over again and decide to try and sell it, it won't get me arrested. I won't be able to make any money off it because the whole thing will be pointless, but as least it won't get me into legal trouble.
If I want to sing in the shower, it's fine, if I want to sing at the top of my voice in a crowded mall, it's another thing entirely.
The cases where the government can actually regulate the "what" of speech are extremely rare. Threats of violence and death are one example.
However, consider Thompson's complaints against Bully. They all involve the "what" aspect of it, and as far as I know Thompson hasn't claimed that Bully makes any direct threats against anyone, or that it leaks national security secrets, or that it does anything that would give the government the authority to regulate the "what" aspect of it.
I agree with you. On the most basic level, I agree with the logic of the judge actually taking a look at the game he was judging. However, as the more I thought about it, the more I realized I don't agree with it (my last post kind of showed how my opinions started forming as I went). I mean, what exactly does this judge think he might find? The idea that violent video games cause violent behavior has never been satisfactorily proven to a court, so what's going to make this particular game a nuisance?
What really irritates me is the fact that Thompson almost certainly waited until the last moment specifically in hopes of getting the game delayed in Florida. I hope if it is delayed, Rockstar can seek retribution for lost profits. Ideally, it should be coming out of Thompson's pockets.
Actually, I believe the decision as to whether a particular game does or doesn't belong in a particular child's hands should be the decision of that specific child's parents. And if that specific child's parents decides that a particular game is appropriate for their child while I feel the opposite in regards to that same game and my child, I don't condemn that parent for their decision. Whether they make an informed decision or not, that is still a decision of the that parent. They know their own child bether than I, any other individual, organization, or government official.
Such a decision is the same as a decision for a parent to allow their child to be home alone after school. Here in Wilmington, NC, the Fire code says a child of 8 years old may legally be left home alone for several hours (such as after school). However, as a Social Worker pointed out, there are actually several other factors to consider. And those factors are best identified by the person who knows the child best: their parent. Those factors include, but not limited to, mental maturity of the child and whether the child is physically capble of taking care of themselves for a short time (physical disability is a prime concern in that arena).
I can't pass judgment on another parent who makes a decision that I, myself, wouldn't make for my own child. Even if I thought I knew that other parent's child well enough to say "that's not a good idea", I can't FORCE my belief upon that parent. While I might speculate something bad will probably happen, reporting a mere speculation would appear as nothing more than uninformed harrassment. After all, for all I know, I could be wrong anyway.
So, no, I can't agree that games that are higher rated than a child's age shouldn't be in their hands. Any more than I could agree with 25 Cents who, some time back, appeared to say that children SHOULD play higher rated games. (I can't recall if he clarified that statement or not, but it did originally sound like he was suggesting that kids SHOULD play high rated games. I think he did clarify that he meant SHOULD BE ALLOWED if a parent decides to let their child play such a game. But then, I could be wrong about that too.)
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
"Wal-Mart would actually agree to abide by a judge’s interference with a private organization in a moral, not legal matter? The judge actually thinks he can force the ESRB to make a change to the game’s ESRB rating? Excuse me?"
Well actually, the judge never said he would enforce the rating change, he just mearly advises Wal-mart to make that change. And Since the ESRB ratings are completely voluntary, i think Wal-mart has the right to slap an M-rated sticker and/or treat it as an M-rated game if the CHOOSE too. The way he worded it, the judge is giving them a choice not an order.
I'm holding out some hope for the judge because as far as I can tell from the coverage all he has to go on are the ridiculous claims of JT versus those of Take Two. His comments about the possible threat of this game should be taken in that context. If he's even a vaguely reasonable and sane human being it's likely that his first reaction (within a few hours of starting to watch the game) will be "What the hell was Thompson -talking- about?".
@Xsorus, Mad Scientist, Beacon
Because I think I've made this point several times now, here are the specific definitions of circumstances or material that doesn't receive full first amendment protection:
Speech is likely to incite "Imminent Lawless Action":
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444
"the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Speech is "Obscene":
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=413&invol=15
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary."
Speech is "Defamatory" (there's no single test here, so I can't just cite one case, but here are the high points):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol...
NOTE: Hate Speech generally falls under the category of "Libel", BTW. While it's unconstitutional to criminalize here in the US, if I'm reading several of these precedents a member of a minority group -might- be able to -sue- someone producing hate speech if they could prove that it had caused them financial or professional damages.
Speech will reveal classified information on specific subjects:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----0...
Using that link, see also Title 18 sections 90 and 798, Title 42 section 2162.
Actually, everyone could do worse than to just start at this page on findlaw's annotations and start reading. It seems to be a pretty good grounding on the fundamentals.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/06.html
If that doesn't say it all, here's more - if a minor walks into a store and manages to buy it, blame the store. If a parent buys the game for his or her son or daughter (hey, there are woman gamers out there), it's not something for you to stick your nose into. Leave the games alone, for God's sake! Do something worthwhile with your life, Jack Thompson!
news...
yes indeed......
The built in proximity alert system lets you set alarms when you get close to these areas. That allows you to avoid the headaches that might come from traffic or speeding through a school zone....
Kanta Properties
http://www.eurocampings.net/main.html?tid=2