Judge Clears Bully For Publishing

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.

[Pig Hogger (10379)]

Why would a judge be asked to condone prior restraint, and expected to do it???

good comment

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

"There's a lot of violence," Judge Friedman said. "A whole lot. Less than we see on television every night."

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:

[hal2814 (725639)]

"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."

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

[EmperorKagato (689705)]

"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."

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

[BlueCodeWarrior (638065)]

Children can buy or own the game. Game ratings are a reccomendation, not enforced by law.

Re:good comment

[Cyno01 (573917)]

But every damn retailer follows them because otherwise people like Jack Thompson would have their balls. Movie ratings are also voluntary.

Re:

[hobbesmaster (592205)]

I bet those strict ordinances wouldn't survive a court challenge.*

*Assuming that you are living in the US.

Re:BULLSHIT! PROOF OR STFU

[rifter (147452)]

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:

[rifter (147452)]

"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:

[endemoniada (744727)]

I hate to say it, but your founding fathers weren't really unbiased either. You took a country by force from its very natives while basically comitting mutiny against another country. Of course they needed guns.

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:

[Ravenscall (12240)]

Ah, but take away all the guns, and what stops the govenrment from taking away everything? Crime be damned, it is the government and it's crreping crawl towards fascism that scare me.

Re:

[Arwing (951573)]

But what if we need to rise up again against some type of authority that abuses its power? What if the day when everyday citizen will need to protect themselves from the authority? Look at what's going on in U.S. today, is it really that unthinkable that we can no longer trust the people who are suppose to be our 'representatives' in the government??

Re:

[rifter (147452)]

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:

[Some_Llama (763766)]

""an eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"?"

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:good comment

[tkrotchko (124118)]

No, it's bad.

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

[poot_rootbeer (188613)]

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.

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:

[jackbird (721605)]

I think the GP is saying they wished the judge had dismissed as a matter of law, rather than on the merits.

Re:good comment

[Dun Malg (230075)]

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.

No, you're wrong. In an ideal world, yeah, the judge should be able to say the above and everyone would say "yes indeed, it's none of our business". But that's not what would happen. If the judge declared himself unqualified to judge if the game is OK, that philosophically leaves a back door open to find a judge that thinks he IS qualified, because there are PLENTY of people out there who think it IS the government's business whether "violent" media is allowed to be distributed. His answer frames the question in a more practical way, one that addresses the stupid fucks who think that way: "If we (collectively) are willing to tolerate a greater level of violence than this on TV, calling for a ban on this game for violent content makes no sense." See, it's not as effective to say "your method of applying morality is wrong" as it is to say "your argument is wrong even by your own moral standards".

Thompson said what?

[iainl (136759)]

Don't lawyers normally get into some sort of trouble for calling Judges incompetent twats who don't know how to do their job?

Re:Thompson said what?

[nuzak (959558)]

Jack Thompson is special. He's found that if the Florida Bar takes disciplinary action against him, he can simply sue them and they'll roll over onto their backs, whimper, and pay him twenty grand or so.

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.

So..

[dr_dank (472072)]

''You did not see the game,'' Mr Thompson told the judge at Friday's hearing. "You don't even know what it was you saw."

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:So..

[DangerSteel (749051)]

I think you may be onto something. It would be brilliant to hire him to "fight" your game in court with obviously losing strategies like he has been applying. How much would that be worth to a company?

the game isnt the problem

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

if your kid is playing the game, then that's at least X minutes he or she isn't out actually bullying kids. How about taking some measures against actual bullies, instead of just going "boys will be boys" when Jerk Junior beats up yet another kid for lunch money, or kicks yet another puppy, or lights yet another cigarette at age 9? I'd be more concerned about the kid who shows up at 9 am on a school day to buy the game...

Re:the game isnt the problem

[Frymaster (171343)]

if your kid is playing the game, then that's at least X minutes he or she isn't out actually bullying kids

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

[pi_rules (123171)]

if anything, the game has the potential to have a strong message of empowerment for all those kids who spend recess stuffed into lockers.

Well, once they come out with the PSP version.

Way to go JT.

[Endo13 (1000782)]

Now you've got both feet stuck in your mouth. Let's see if you can fit anything else in there.

Anamotical distortions

[tygt (792974)]

We already know he's got his head up his ass, so with his feet stuck in his mouth, which is part of his head, which is up his ass..... damn, that's getting right convoluted!

Re:Way to go JT.

[Tackhead (54550)]

> Now you've got both feet stuck in your mouth. Let's see if you can fit anything else in there.

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.

I just don't know anymore...

[CUatTHEFINISH (970078)]

I'm tired of hearing, "Ban this video game!" "Sue that company." "OMZFG HOT COFFEE?!?!" A video game is a video game. The ESRB does a fairly decent job in giving them good ratings. They have no control over what users can do to alter the game. It's just a simple fact of what the parents allow the children to play. If the children can understand it's just a video game, you can't auto-aim in real life, etc., then I really don't see what the problem is. Maybe I'm just giving common sense the benefit of the doubt, but I think these stories are absolutely ridiculous. Virtual Reality is meant for people to get away from their everyday lives. It's not even in the slightest meant to be a model for real life actions. I guess this topic just grinds my gears.

Technicality

[Alchemar (720449)]

You made the point that "Virtual Reality is meant for people to get away from their everyday lives. It's not even in the slightest meant to be a model for real life actions."

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:

[bunions (970377)]

> Yes - you can see the new hat on your character when you equip it
> No - putting a hat on does not suddenly give you the real ability to cast fireball

Well, crap, why the hell am I wearing this thing then?

Re:I just don't know anymore...

[tdc_vga (787793)]

I wish people would read: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com] (or one of another billions sources or the actual case files) before always mentioning "the coffee case." I am studying to be a lawyer and 9 out of 10 people who reference a case have never read the case, the facts, or otherwise, but still are "horrified" at the results. I was speaking with a Federal Judge yesturday and he told me how people constantly come up to him and call him and activist judge for his decision in XYZ case, but when asked if they've read the case they more than 90% of the time will say no, but they heard about it on the news.

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:

[DoctorDyna (828525)]

Actually, as far as I know, "Hot Coffee" wasn't even a mod. It was coded into the game, just like everything else. Before release, the developpers "hid" it, by removing a few key lines, much like turning off PHP support in Apache. The "hack" that enabled it, simply reconfigured the game so that it was once again enabled.

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

Interesting

[Bombula (670389)]

This Bully issue is interesting because it highlights the salient point so often missed by those who criticise violence in entertainment: context. To a thinking person, it is obvious that entertainment involving beating a schoolmate bloody with a bat is more disturbing than entertainment involving a bodybuilder blowing up aliens with a bazooka, despite the fact that - objectively at least - murder is worse than assault. The context being so much closer to home - a kid with a bat is much nearer to actual reality than a bodybuilder blowing up aliens - is where the disturbance factor comes in, and it's pretty much impossible to quantify closeness-to-home realism which makes it a challenge for the courts.

Re:

[cvd6262 (180823)]

This is anecdotal, but 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...

[creimer (824291)]

Mr Thompson told Miami newspapers that he did not plan to continue his campaign against Bully.

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?

Incorrect Headline

[ewhac (5844)]

If any are watching, I wish to request of the editors that the headline to this article be changed.

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!

[Hamster Lover (558288)]

The glorius courts of the Motherland have done their work and examined the game in question and approved it for the new communist man. In response, the Central Committee has increased the vodka ration to two bottles a month in celebration of this great triumph! Once again the Motherland supports your right to freedom by ensuring that only the best books, magazines, movies and games are available to the mindless sheep tireless workers of the revolution.

Avoid making violent choices.

[icejai (214906)]

Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices.

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...

[NC-17 (411446)]

Pretty good reading, if you'd like to get a better sense at just how crazy JT really is:

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/thompso n-verbally-attacks-judge-207578.php [kotaku.com]

The smartest thing Jack Thompson ever said...

[CowsAnonymous (697884)]

From arstechnica [arstechnica.com]

"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."

That's a relief

[Sloppy (14984)]

Good thing a judge cleared before it was published. We wouldn't want something to get published without permission from the government!

Re:You did not see that game...

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

...you don't even know what you saw?

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:

[Dan East (318230)]

You're taking it out of context. From the next sentence in the article, "Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."

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:You did not see that game...

[rkcallaghan (858110)]

Dan East wrote:

You're taking it out of context. From the next sentence in the article, "Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."

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 fatalites in Mortal Combat, or not doing head shots in TFC, etc). Entire areas of the map could also be avoided (like fighting inside of shcools).

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:

[soft_guy (534437)]

Fred Phelps (the "God hates fags" guy) behaved in a very similar manner to Jack Thompson over a long period of time. Eventually he was disbarred. Jack Thompson will probably get himself disbarred eventually.

Re:

[Turken (139591)]

which almost seem to be monthly at this point.

Ahhh... so THAT explains it! Someone get the man some Midol!

Re:Free Will

[Doctor Memory (6336)]

Thompson's criticism also presumes that the judge merely sat passively and watched. Who's to say he wasn't sitting there telling the player "Hey, that kid with the glasses! Punch him! Again! Kick him! Take his lunch money! YEAAAH!"

Re:

[endemoniada (744727)]

You have to admit though, the game does very little to promote peaceful solutions to its problems and obstacles, and very much to insinuate that you use violence. How about the assassination-missions in Vice City? How do you kill someone without violence?

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:I love it

[krakelohm (830589)]

Honestly?