Los Angeles Says Misleading Sex Scenes Are Bad... In A Video Game
from the say-what? dept
It's been about six months since the ridiculous posturing by a bunch of politicians about how horrible Take Two's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was because it had a hidden sex scene in the video game. As we noted at the time, all of these politicians seemed positively horrified that there was a consensual sex scene available in a game where the main goals involve all sorts of criminal activity involving carjacking, murder and drugs. All that criminal activity? Well, that's fine entertainment. However, throw in a consensual sex scene that requires the player to download a modification before they can reach it... and it's like the world is going to end. Now, the city of Los Angeles, of all places, has decided to sue Take Two Interactive for misleading statements about the game. Like many Hollywood movies these days, the irony is way too over the top. Since when is Los Angeles concerned about a bit of "misleading" to build up to a sex scene? We thought that was about all that came out of LA (after scenes of carjacking and murder). Update: The Reuters version of this article includes a few more details, including this whopper: "The city also claims that Take-Two "marketed the 'Grand Theft Auto' series in a fashion that encourages the creation of (software modifications), which has added to the counter-culture image of the games, enhancing their popularity and hence their profitability." Who knew that encouraging tinkering was illegal?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
DMCA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA?
If tinkering is illegal, why is Michael Jackson living free in Bahrain, not in an LA County jail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See you in jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See you in jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm....
But I think this is the key...
--> "Adults Only 18+."
That should have been the rating.
And they have every right to sue on this primise
- they flouted California law to market the game as suitable for teens - AND ITS NOT.
however, the biggist BS quote of the day goes to... LA, who claims that Take-Two "marketed the 'Grand Theft Auto' series in a fashion that encourages the creation of (software modifications), which has added to the counter-culture image of the games, enhancing their popularity and hence their profitability."
1. Thats a good thing (mods AND profit.. duh)
2. its not illigal
3. The games were allready "counter-culture" (exept in LA maybe)
4. And gosh dangit, dont even think about ever turning this around to also rial on "culture" or the "people/consumers" making "MODS" (ohhh, scary) Lets put the blame on the MOVIE and MUSIC industry (irony here) that has made a CULTURE that loves this stuff. (Sex, drugs, violance, language)
end rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm....
[But I think this is the key...
--> "Adults Only 18+."
That should have been the rating.]
And they have every right to sue on this primise
- they flouted California law to market the game as suitable for teens - AND ITS NOT]
Who's to say what is or is not suitable for teens? Didn't these people get laid yet? NC-17 movies are ok at 17, but for another year they wait for access to adult materials and the abiltity to fight in a war? Then another 3 before they can drink legally even though they are completely legally responsible for themselves. So it's ok to come home after a tour of duty weilding a deadly weapon, be a bartender, etc... the list goes on and on.
Let's quit kidding ourselves, the "forbidden fruit" pyschology is fairly realistic...
Most people want to pass as older when they are young and younger when they are old, for obvious reasons.
Technically they have the right to sue, even though IMHO that's entirely stupid. Besides, by downloading the patch, clear intention is shown by the possible "defendent" to alter the available content of the game, so it wouldn't hold water in the first place, correct?
The problem lies much deeper, in the attitudes of our culture. Sex and Porn: "WOAH! hold on here you perverts!" but murder, war, violence, and drugs, "hmm that's ok, as long as no one has access to being able to look at a nude mammary gland."
The purpetrators whom legislate their version of morality on everyone else need to pull a "Willy Cliton" (mispelling not a mistake) and loosen their sphinters.
Yep. We do love potrayals of sex, drugs, language, violence, war, and nudity. Thats the human condition.
The problem is some people just like to lie about that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm....
The problem here with the rating is that the Hot Coffee Mod only unlocked what was already there. It was a hidden game within a game. If it was an actual mod made by someone else, then I could have a better defense for GTA, but they did bring this one on themselves. The game should have been rated 18+ because of the content that was already there. That is the reason for the suit. They did not follow the guidelines of the ratings board that they themselves want to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GTA:SA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I am not less of a man for killing, for there is power in violence. It is a proof of my worth and value, as I have conquered. However, to bare myself naked is to be exposed and judged by all on a form I have no control over. In war, I can prove my worth. In form, I simply am, for better or worse. I must have enough self-confidence in my self to submit to primitive, carnal evaluation by my peers, and that is something the majority lacks. As a result of that effect on a mass scale, sex is a social taboo.
You think it is stupid to disregard violence and not sex? Which would you fear others seeing you do more?
Now mind you, some of my wording is of an archaic mindset, but that's where it comes from, after all. Also, I think society reached it's "murder good, sex bad" peak already and the sex taboo is diminishing somewhat as of late, but only marginally. It could be a trend, but I think it more a valley. It's still too much our nature, and will likely endure social instability.
Something to think about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stick to the Topic
it it says: VIOLATION then there will be violation in the game...
The game GTA:SA is rated for mature only they didn't show the 18+ sex on the cover or in description.
Also there is a fault by sueing these guyz from Take Two... Cause the player modifies the game, then it will be reacheble... but if your modifying u'r changing the game from the original state to a modified state...
Supergreat game, only next time, they must let the users download this type of shit from their site something like: click here to agree that u'r 18 and then u can download an addon for the game or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]