• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Florida Judge to Take-Two: No Bully until I get to play it first

winter

Member
mre said:
You've got to be kidding me? You do realize what rights are actually guaranteed by the Constitution, don't you? Here's a quick summary:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I: Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly.
Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia.
Amendment III: Quartering of soldiers.
Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.
Amendment V: Individual debt and double jeopardy.
Amendment VI: Speedy trial, witnesses and accusations.
Amendment VII: Right for a jury trial.
Amendment VIII: Bail and fines.
Amendment IX: Existence of other rights for the people. [The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.]
Amendment X: Power reserved to the states and people.


I see nothing in there guaranteeing the right of anyone to play a violent video game, drive a car, or look at porn, no matter what age you are. Where the violent video game legislation has run into trouble is that it has thus far been interpreted to be infringing upon the freedom of speech.

I typed out Amendment 9 so that there can be be no confusion with regards to its meaning. Amendment 9 was put in place to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not perceived to be the only rights granted to US Citizens, but rather that the Bill of Rights constitutes the protected rights of the people. All other rights are fair game to legislative restriction.



While the Constitution does not define citizenship as starting at the age of 18, it expressly defines 18 as the age in which a citizen obtains the right to vote. If the Constitution can limit such an apparently fundamental right, how can you argue against Congress' ability to pass laws pertaining to such rights and privileges not expressly protected and defined within the Constitution?

The sale of videogames to minors is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment not only protects the right to people's free speech but protects their right to hear free speech. Since videogames do not fail the Miller test, the government has absolutely no reason to restrict a form of free speech to certain group of citizens. It would set a horrible precedent if the government started censoring free speech.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
The other notable highlight of the session did come from Mr. Thompson, who produced a gigantic home-made industrial-strength wooden slingshot that looked capable of exploding somebody’s head in half with the right projectile.It was made of wood and rubber, so he was able to sneak it past metal detectors unnoticed which even took the judge by surprise.
Videogames = bad, giving terrorists ideas to sneak weapons past detection = good. Gotcha.
Wario64 said:
I see they got the judge from Phoenix Wright to handle this case
"Could somebody please explain so that I may be shocked along with the rest of the court?"
 
Ranger X said:
Bunch of ****ers. Leave our entertainment alone.

It's unbelievable how much time and money is lost in all this stupidity. There are looking for solutions and they are plenty!! Just a couple of examples:

- Have a government rating system doing the job instead of the ESRB
- Change ESRB mature rating age to 18.

How hard is that? No minor would legally play mature games. Voila! .

Government regulation is a bad idea. Do you really want to leave the decision of what games we play to people who think online games work because of series of tubes?

On top of that, there is a generational disconnect between the players of the games and most of congress. Remember how Rock and Roll, Comic Books, Rap etc. were considered by these people to cause the ills of society and should legislated against, when it was simply a case of them "not getting it".

And let's not even get into the politics of what a game would have to go through to be rated, imagine if MGS4 couldn't be sold here because the Gov't Ratings Commision refused to rate it, because it could be viewed as giving comfort to the enemy in the War on Terror. This sort of thing happens all the time in Gov't regulatory committees, just look at the debacle the Plan B pill had to go through with the FDA.

The problem isn't the ESRB, the weak link in the fence is the retailers who would rather kill the industry to make a sale than turn away a 9 y.o. with 50 bucks.
 
mre said:
Basically, what I was getting at with my post last night with regards to the 9th Amendment is that while citizens may have rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, these other rights are not seen as invioble in the same way as those that are listed in the Bill of Rights.
Thanks for the extensive clarification, but I completely understood your original post. You're just wrong.

Quite to the contrary, the Ninth Amendment points out that the listing of certain rights in the Bill of Rights is not to be taken as an exhaustive list of every right that people have under the Constitution. It's the founders saying, "Hey, just because we wrote these rights down doesn't mean they're the only ones you've got. Rights come from God-or-whatever, not us writing shit on a piece of paper."

That is, the 9th amendment is the exact 100% opposite of what you say it is. You're saying that it's a separation of the rights that are sacrosanct (the ones that happened to get written down) and the ones that the government can **** with (the ones that didn't). You get a zero for the day.

notbestfo9.jpg
 

atomsk

Party Pooper
DSN2K said:
the topic of this title is no game, or some trivial charade and this only degrades the seriousness of the situation.

I normally don't care what games people play, they have a right to play what they want but Ive got history with this and I find it offensive and wrong.

i got ****ed with, picked on, beat up, etc etc et pretty much from 4th grade up until my senior year of high school. so what's your point? go watch Revenge of the Nerds and chill out. if a game about the subject has you riled up, maybe you've got more deep seeded emotional issues than just having been bullied.

Pudding Tame said:
Do you really want to leave the decision of what games we play to people who think online games work because of series of tubes?.

"senator stevens are you serious dude?
tell us how the net is a series of tubes?
if you surf for ebay, sports, or she-males
the cats who decide can't even use emails"

Metamystiks - Tubes

jack's really graspin at straws lately. after this Bully shit dies down, he's going to have a while to wait before he can bitch about GTA4
 
moku said:
I hate these arguments becuase I always end up looking like I'm on the side of these numb-nuts.

I understand what your saying, and I have very littleproblem with it.

What I'm saying is this;

Make it so games that are rated "M" cannot be sold to minors, and "T" rated games cannot be sold to anyone under, say, 12. It will shut these idiots up, and give some actuall ground to the ESRB instead of thier fake-ass ratings that dont mean jack in the first place.

And to those who use the whole "parents" bullshit argument, in this day and age, its almost impossible to keep an eye on your kids 24/7. It would be nice for just an added level of help/security so your kid doesnt end up playing G.O.W

As for the whole other "We dont wantgames like this period" crap from these mouthpieces, dont worry, it will never happen. You have to find a middle ground, and banning the sale of uber-violent/sexual themed games to minors would go a long, long way to end all this crap.

The reason that's having trouble passing is becuase game makers(Take-two) know that the majority of those buying GTA are UNDER what would be an acceptable age.

If you cant walk into a porno shop under 18, cant drink, cant vote, basically sub-human, restrict sales of these games to minors.

If soeone wants to argue the movie-point, I feel there is a difference between warching something, and actually doing something. It effects the mind differently, and kids are impressionable as hell.

Its not an end all solution by any means, but it would help, ALOT.
i totally get where you're coming from, but as i said, i can not stand by regulation of game ratings until films and other media are given the same regulations.

what sense does it make for a kid to be able to buy 'once upon a time in america' which features underage sex, violence, and many other distasteful things, but not a grand theft auto game?

Jack doesn't want Bully's rating to be legally enforced. he wants it off shelves. that's his ultimate goal. if it isn't why was he sticking his nose in to cases in england where not only are ratings legally enforced but handed out by a government body?

the sad part is that Jack seems to have the ear of a lot of important politicians. will they stop listening to him if games become legislated or will they act further, at the very first instance that a kid who managed to play GTA5 despite the fact it can't legally be sold to minors, shoots a classmate dead?
 

Danj

Member
Here's the PAL boxart:

B0009RWHZU.02._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V59434601_.jpg


It's going to have a BBFC rating (though it's not been rated yet) which means the rating will be legally enforced. Even if it ends up getting an 18, it'll still be on sale in game stores over here. The problem you guys in the US have is that not only do you not have a law enforcing the ratings, but you also have a stigma attached to AO games (your equivalent of 18) which means they don't get sold.
 

YakiSOBA

Member
If they made ratings in North America which are enforced by the law, wouldn't everybody be happy? I don't get it -- developers wouldn't be held accountable, and it would at least be the parents faults for getting these games for those little brats.
 
YakiSOBA said:
If they made ratings in North America which are enforced by the law, wouldn't everybody be happy? I don't get it -- developers wouldn't be held accountable, and it would at least be the parents faults for getting these games for those little brats.

Ratings enforced by law:

* Make it hard or impossible for ratings to adjust for shifting social mores
* Increase likelihood that the most restrictive rating(s) will not be carried by many retailers, or will be carried out of sight and without marketing
* Waste law enforcement dollars that could be better spent elsewhere
* Are likely to drive developers away from creating mature, violent, or sexual games because of a chilling effect

EDIT:

Danj said:
The problem you guys in the US have is that not only do you not have a law enforcing the ratings, but you also have a stigma attached to AO games (your equivalent of 18) which means they don't get sold.

The stigma is unfortunate but is effectively unchangeable -- there is so much pressure in America to protect people from "dangerous" material that anything falling into an "exclusively for adults" category will be marginalized. Adding legal enforcement to the system in America can only worsen that problem, by giving retailers who otherwise might carry AO games a good reason to avoid them.

Also, government censorship sucks. There have been way too many cases of interesting material being banned in European countries, Australia, and other places with official government censorship bodies; as long as the government stays out of it I'll always have the option to buy "dangerous" material as long as the provider believes in it strongly enough, while with a government agency involved I can simply be denied any opportunity whatsoever to do so.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
Kobun Heat said:
Thanks for the extensive clarification, but I completely understood your original post. You're just wrong.

Quite to the contrary, the Ninth Amendment points out that the listing of certain rights in the Bill of Rights is not to be taken as an exhaustive list of every right that people have under the Constitution. It's the founders saying, "Hey, just because we wrote these rights down doesn't mean they're the only ones you've got. Rights come from God-or-whatever, not us writing shit on a piece of paper."

That is, the 9th amendment is the exact 100% opposite of what you say it is. You're saying that it's a separation of the rights that are sacrosanct (the ones that happened to get written down) and the ones that the government can **** with (the ones that didn't).

Simply because you say that my interpretation is wrong does not, in fact, make it so. I am perfectly willing to concede that several important and fundamental rights have been established through legal precedent in the court system that make use of the 9th Amendment.

However, I still see the those rights explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights as being different from those rights only implied by the 9th Amendment, and the reason why I view them as different is due to the level of protection afforded them by the fact that they are explicitly listed. Even though all aspects of the Constitution are up for interpretation by the Court system, no one can argue that, for example, the Feedom of Speech is not a fundamental right of American citizens.

While the 9th Amendment states that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of the rights which American citizens possess, the problem with it is that it provides no further guidelines as to what any of these rights may be. In 1965, the Supreme Court Justice Goldman underscored this problem with his statement: "But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment?"

This is the flaw in the 9th Amendment that I take issue with, and the reason why I differentiate between the "sanctity" of the enumerated rights and those implied by the 9th Amendment.
 

atomsk

Party Pooper
Destructiod writes: “While Niero is at the courthouse, he’s asked me to blog this for you, so that we can get the information out as soon as humanly possible.

At 1:51, Niero called, saying that the judge will not prohibit the the sale of Bully. In the time that he played the game, the judge said that he did not see anything so violent that would require the game to be held from being shipped. The judge and Take Two employee used a cheat code in order to skip around in the game and play through various parts, including the more graphic portions of the game. The judge said “There’s nothing in the game that you wouldn’t see on TV every night,” and that he “wouldn’t want his kids to play the game, but that shouldn’t mean that the game won’t ship.”

According to Niero, the courthouse got pretty heated, and at one point, the judge had to ask Mr. Thompson to sit down. Thompson felt that Also, Mr. Thompson silenced his “expert witness” when he was going to say something.

That’s the immediate word that I got from Niero. He’ll be back in the office within a half hour or so to update. He’s getting some clarifications. “

http://www.destructoid.com/jack-thompson-ruling
 
mre said:
Simply because you say that my interpretation is wrong does not, in fact, make it so.
Indeed.

However, the fact that your interpretation is wrong does make it so.

By the way, I'm still annoyed at this whole thing. So the judge "doesn't see anything" in the game that would make him want to block its sale? Does that mean Jack could bring him Grand Theft Auto Vice City Stories tomorrow and he might block that?
 

Remy

Member
From Ars:

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."
 

Shard

XBLAnnoyance
I have said it before and I'll sayu it again, Jakc Tompson = comedy gold. Seriously, he is like the worst villian in the world.
 

RumFore

Banned
I wonder how long before we get a situation where Jack Thompson goes ape shit and starts killing people to prove video games do influence you to be violent.
 

atomsk

Party Pooper
quotes from an email sent to gamepolitics

“Immediately after the non-hearing, which violated his own order to give me a hearing, I filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus… asking the Third District to compel production of the game and to give me a real hearing on the TRO (temporary restraining order). The Third District denied it.”

“…I am a Christian. I am not charged with winning these battles; I am charged with fighting them. I have done the right thing.”

“The BBC itself says this is a game with a lot of violence in it, and what is absolutely absurd is the notion that Take-Two can release this game to major media like the BBC and not thereby waive their right to keep it out of the hands of a plaintiff.”

“The judge never viewed the entire game, as he promised he would. He took unsworn testimony from 2 Take-Two employees, with no right by me to cross-examine.”

“The judge’s spiteful ‘production’ of the game after the game was released, on ‘Tuesday morning’ was childish. The judge, then, violated an order to give me a hearing that he signed. He violated his own promise to watch the game to conclusion (he did not), and he denied the TRO with absolutely no idea what a video game is and the expert testimony, which he did not want to hear, as to what the harm would be.”

“When kids start showing up in ERs with slingshot wounds at the hands of Bully enthusiasts, don’t blame me.”


:lol :lol :lol :lol
 
from ******.com

Judge Ronald Friedman

Dade County Courthouse

13th Floor

73 West Flagler Street

Miami, Florida 33130

Re: Bully

Dear Judge Friedman:

Now that you have consigned innumerable children to skull fractures, eye injuries from slingshots, and beatings with baseball bats, without a hearing as to the danger, let me tell you a few things, with all respect for your office and with no respect for the arbitrary way in which you handled this matter. I can handle an adverse ruling by a judge. I've had plenty of those in my lifetime, and that's fine. But the way you conducted yourself today helps explain why a great Dade County Judge, the late Rhea Pincus Grossman, could not abide you. She was not the only one:

1. Well into this case, you told Take-Two to produce "a tape of the game so you could watch it." Video games don't come on tapes, Judge, and you don't watch them. You interactively play them, which is why they are so behavior modifying. You, the player/protagonist, enter into the violence and do it, but you didn't even want to hear testimony about that. You are not an expert in bullying or virtual reality, and I had an expert in both, and you never heard from them because you did not want to hear from them. Dr. Provenzo could have explained why interactive consumption of this very violence is so dangerous, as opposed to passively consumed violence on television, but he was not allowed to testify because he was prevented from seeing the evidence.

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.

2. 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. Take-Two has been adjudicated by the federal government to have engaged in fraud and deception about game content, and you took their unchallenged word of these two video gamers in your chambers that the game was what they said it was.

3. You assured us, in your courtroom two days ago, that you would view the playing of Bully to its conclusion. That is what you promised on the record. You did not keep your promise. The transcript of that bizarre exercise will show that you asked Take-Two reps "How does the game end?" You never saw the ending. What you took was testimony from two employees of Take-Two/Rockstar, who were not under oath, and without affording me any opportunity to question them. This was an ex parte proceeding that I was forced to watch, nearly gagging on the denial of due process that it constituted. In thirty years of practicing law, it is the oddest thing I have ever seen, and the most judicially arbitrary thing I have ever seen.

But it is not the oddest thing Take-Two has done. They had these little contrived, controlled viewings of the game for people in the media, but even the BBC figured out how violent the game was, despite the sham.

What you conducted in your chambers, Judge, was the equivalent of Iran leading UN weapons inspectors around the country taking them to places where the illegal activity was not occurring.

You would not abide argument today, because the Miami Herald was there, that Take-Two had in fact released this game to the mass media, which waived its privilege as to producing it to me. You did not allow a hearing to occur because the media there would have seen how you railroaded this entire matter--at the expense of children's safety.

4. You said after being shown what Take-Two wanted you to see that "I've seen worse." Judge, that is not the issue. The issue is whether this game, played by ten-year-olds, whom the FTC says can still walk into Wal-Mart and other retail establishments and buy "Mature" games, will harm them and innocent third parties who get in their way. You are not the measure of the harm. It was your job to let me try to prove the harm. But you didn't want to hear it.

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?

6. Finally, Judge, when the reports start coming in from across the country as to the harm that Bully is causing, I want you to think of the parents who rely upon judges to grant due process, apply the laws evenly, and keep their word. The Republicans in the Congress of the United States apparently can't protect pages, and the Miami-Dade judicial system can't even protect children, let alone its own reputation.

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.

I couldn't care less what you did to me. What I care is that you, through judicial arrogance, have hung countless kids out to dry in school that will now be meaner and more dangerous.

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.


Regards, Jack Thompson

Copies: Defendants' counsel

Media

Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
 
Now that you have consigned innumerable children to skull fractures, eye injuries from slingshots, and beatings with baseball bats, without a hearing as to the danger, let me tell you a few things, with all respect for your office and with no respect for the arbitrary way in which you handled this matter.

... Wow.
 

kenta

Has no PEINS
How dare you, Judge...
Wow.

Seriously that entire letter sounds like something a kid would write to his parents if it turned out they couldn't make it to Chuck E. Cheese after all.
 
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.

I would call the parents cry babies and call their kid a wuss for not bringing a handgun to school like all the cool kids. See, its not that hard.
 

DS-61-5

Member
winter said:
The sale of videogames to minors is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment not only protects the right to people's free speech but protects their right to hear free speech. Since videogames do not fail the Miller test, the government has absolutely no reason to restrict a form of free speech to certain group of citizens. It would set a horrible precedent if the government started censoring free speech.

That assumes, of course, that you consider games to be speech (much less political speech, which is what the First Amendment was meant to protect). I think you'd have a much better case citing the 10th Amendment and the fact regulating video games is a legislative power not enumerated to the federal government.
Also, I think it's arguable whether they would fail the Miller test. "A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
I can think of more than a few games that fit all three of those.
 
Doesn't matter the games shipping without any labels. Thompson gave up and isn't going to pursue it. I don't care I'm a Nintendo Bot anyway :p
 
Top Bottom