Judge And Jack Thompson To Play Bully -- Will It Convince Them To Shoot Up A School?
from the just-wondering dept
As lawyer Jack Thompson continues his mission against video games, it was never clear why he felt the Take Two Interactive/Rockstar Games were required to give him early access to their latest game, Bully. However, he seems to have convinced a Florida judge, who has required that the game be played in its entirety in front of her and Thompson, so they can determine if it violates public nuisance laws. How a video game that is played in private can violate public nuisance laws is not entirely clear -- but apparently the judge will determine that over the next few days. Of course, every single review notes that the game is more social satire/humor than anything really violent -- but Thompson refuses to believe that's possible. However, if Thompson is so convinced that these games inspire people to go shoot up schools, shouldn't we be worried that he'll be inspired by the game to shoot up a school himself?
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
I hope the judge and him gain 50lbs each sitting there wasting their time playing that game. I'm telling you it will take them weeks or months to fully beat that game, and that's if they're good at video games.
If his argument is true, and I beat that video game, how come I haven't shot up schools yet? idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st amendment
This however has nothing to do with either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Defamation and libel relate to them attacking Jack, not modding the game so that they don't see the real thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
1) Being offended by obscene movies for hours on end.
2) Getting a porn magazine named after her.
Most of the country considered her a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
-Wizard Prang
YES!!!
Coming '07 from Rockstar/Take2:
Grand Theft Auto: Jack Thompson
In this exciting new installment of GTA, you play as Jack Thompson... A Florida idiot... we mean lawyer, who's had enough of playing by the rules. Now he's playing by his rules. And he's going to deal out justice his way... through the barrel of his gun*.
*all pedestrians in this game are actually conspirators in the gaming industry's quest to corrupt children and no innocent civilians are harmed. And since all the cars are owned by Big Gaming, no innocent civilians are being car-jacked.
hehehe... "carjack", "jack thompson"... there's a pun in there, but I'm going to let it go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
Actually, it was about $10,000 and someone already made the game. And Jack refused to pony up the cash, saying his offer was sarcastic. So, Penny Arcade paid the money themselves and wrote on the check's memo line: "For Jack Thompson, Because Jack Thompson Won't".
Bottom line: Jack is a two-fisted coward who backs down everytime someone calls his bluff. Why all these companies continue pandering to this little boy is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisance?
Here's a picture of the check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't Jack a public nuisan
I didn't mean that PA gave money to themselves... I meant that they wrote a check themselves, on behalf of Jack.
Sorry for the confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, we all know how successful those anti-gun laws are in CA and DC....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one of those games
At least it will get him off the streets for a little while
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Doom
And, of course, what about the millions of people who play GTA, GTA 3, GTA: Vice City, GTA: SA, and so on... and who don't go out and carjack people?
Why are these lawyers and judges basing their decisions on a the actions of few mentally-disturbed players instead of the millions of non-violent players?
Or, like the article suggests, do we really want Jack to play "Bully" if he knows it will cause him to become violent? Isn't that like a scientist experimenting on himself?
And if Jack doesn't become violent after playing the game, will that conclusively prove that video games do not cause violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously you people don’t get it
These Game makers are getting rich off of selling filth to our children and Mr. Thompson is just trying to protect our society from this scum, because parents are not responsible enough to make that decision on what is appropriate for their own kids. I say Jack Thompson for President, and then maybe he can just become Dictator for life. ALL HAIL JACK THOMPSON!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somebody Shoot Jack!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else remember the cases of "Heavy Metal made me do it"? Blame Ozzy, it's all his fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was right. We all gotta die sometime, just a matter of when.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lock up all the lawyers and judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack Thompson declairs he was right. To actualy re
“Give me Bully, so I can prove what I already know, damn the truth.”
Mr. Thompson seems to be of the opinion that every single publication is in a conspiracy to push Bully onto kids. The Techdirt article notes
“Of course, every single review notes that the game is more social satire/humor than anything really violent -- but Thompson refuses to believe that's possible.”
While his own lawsuit marks in point #20
“Take-Two is allowing fawning media favorable to it and to the video game industry’s violent products to play Bully and to pronounce it harmless and safe for kids of all ages. Many of these “reviews” are in publications that receive ad revenue from Take-Two. These orchestrated “reviews” of Bully are now being published, thereby assuring parents “not to worry.””
There is no doubt in my mind he will find this game guilty of everything he already has deemed it guilty of. If you modded a Barney game and slapped the Bully logo on it (assuming he was not able to tell the difference) he would declare everything he saw as validation of his stance. He does not wish to review the game for violence. He wants a photo-op with him holding the game saying he “KNOWS” it is violent now he has it. There is no chance of honesty here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jack Thompson declairs he was right. To actual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eventually...
IANAL, but I don't see any connection between private game play and public nuisance without extra factors (such as mental disorders, drinking, or drugs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And again, I have to reiterate that this is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their child is not subjected to topics and such that are inappropriate for their age.
It's like when I was in basic training, and there is (although not really followed to a T) a rule that they weren't supposed to curse at us. I mean, get real, if you can't deal with people yelling explicit things at you, how can you deal with being shot at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's all Hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also Ban Harry Pot
In the same category I remember reading about this some time ago Laura Mallory, a mother of four from the Atlanta suburb of Loganville, told a Georgia Board of Education officer that the books by British author J.K. Rowling, sought to indoctrinate children as Wiccans, or practitioners of religious witchcraft.
Referring to the recent rash of deadly assaults at schools, Mallory said books that promote evil - as she claims the Potter ones do - help foster the kind of culture where school shootings happen.
That would not happen if students instead read the Bible, Mallory said.
I agree that they should read the Bible! But if a child wants to read harry potter they should be able to it's amexica. This is not the Iranian States of Amexica it is THE USA.
At the same time I believe the news is making Mrs. Mallory look like an idiot because she loves God. While they hail this Thompson guy as a saint. It's a double standard.
I want people to understand something about American Law.
You have every right on this earth to speak and say what ever you want to period!
POST 13 wote
Re: 1st amendment by hometoast on Oct 12th, 2006 @ 7:21am
you can not scream "fire" in a crowded theater... some laws do "trump" the 1st amendment.
YOU can say fire in a crowded theater all you want to!
A.) What if there was a real fire?
B.) NO LAW TRUMPS
the First Amendment!
You should not be so ignorant and so cowardly to think that you can't say something.
Study the law, it is the FIRST amendment because that is what the forefather deemed to be the most important issue of the time.
Now a movie theater is "PRIVATE PROPERTY" so yes you can be KICKED OUT for doing that and probably arrested for doing so as well. I mean really what idiot would just stand up and scream fire if there wasn't one?
Rockstar has every right to Sue Mr. Thompson. They could sue him for being libelous. It is defamation from Mr. Thompson to state what he states with out PROOF.
He has no proof that video games is cauing some one to go postal in a school.
I mean if I was Rockstar Inc. I would force Mr. Thompson in court to explain why in the 1980's 1990's why some people went postal in the post office buildings across the nation.
It wasn't freaking video games that did that. I would blame it on bad management and horrible security. That is the problem with our schools in this country and it has been a problem since the 80's.
The infamous Eric Harris shootings. Parents in Eric Harris's high school told on him and his webpage to the authorities. The law enforement stated that they could not find the webpage and didn't do any thing to Eric Harris or his friend. The Browns said their 15 year old kid could have found the website for them. LOL
It was not Eric Harris playing video games that stopped the law enforcement from issuing a restraining order on him before he killed any one. They just didn't do it, and you know why because one of the kids was RICH, and now we have a lawyer saying the video games did that crime.
There is simply no security in most of these schools period and that has to change! It's not books, it's not video games or movies or living in a ghetto. It's the simple fact that schools in our nation our giant mall like mills that has no security in them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also Ban Harry
Wrong. Laws can trump the 1st in the action of protecting the rights of others...
For example, you are free to stand on a literal soap box and scream to the top of your lungs about your opinions... but if you do it at 2am in my residential neighborhood, you're getting arrested (or at least warned) for violation of the noise and peace ordinances.
Since those ordinances are enforced laws that would preclude you from expressing your speech in the way you want, I'd say that's trumping your 1st Amendment rights.
You can, as long as you are willing to face the consequences of your actions. Those consequences are probably going to include being arrested for public endangerment.
::sigh:: Not to mince semantics here, but...
Regardless of whether it's written or not, it doesn't matter if Jack has proof when he says what he's saying... because he's expressing opinion.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed that only factual misrepresentation is to be considered libel or slander, not expression of opinion.
Finally, if Rockstar/Take2 were to try a Libel or Slander suit, they would have to prove both the falsehood of Jack's statements and the damages caused. And let's face it... these "defamatory" remarks have actually helped sales here. Kinda hard to prove you damaged me after I reap the rewards of your unintentional help.
Just because it's not nice to say bad things doesn't make it illegal.
And again, he doesn't need proof to state what is essentially his opinion. Without proof, though, he is appearing as an ignorant, fanatical inquisitor hell-bent on proving himself right; as opposed to a community-minded servant of the people hell-bent on doing what's best for our society.
And both Jack and the judges would laugh at you. Seriously. There's nothing legal that can be done to compel Jack to do anything here. He's not breaking the law. He's just being an ignorant ass.
Now, if through his legal actions, he acts unethically, or in violations of the regulations set forth by the Florida Bar Assn, then he can be stripped of his credentials. But, as a lawyer, he's going to be watching himself pretty strictly to make sure he doesn't slip up on that.
I hate Jack Thompson as much as you do. I'm sick of hearing his repeated, unthinking ramblings. But until he slips up and shoots himself in the foot, there's nothing we can do but let him rant until he's blue in the face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also Ban H
Just because it's not nice to say bad things doesn't make it illegal."
Being that Jack's lawsuit has already prompted Wal-Mart to hold off sales, and if you believe news sites, Gamestop/EB have questioned waiting. I would say that between these two(yes two, Gamestop/EB are one), that this is a huge potential loss, and since the news has picked up that some retailers are holding or pulling it, there are people who have already decided about not buying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also B
You're right... if those two (or more) retailers refused the game, that would hurt sales. But you still have a few problems:
1) Can you prove that "lost potential" is an actual damage?
2) Can you prove that Jack's antics lead directly to those lost sales, to the exclusion of any other factor?
3) If you meet the above-two criteria, can you show how many potential sales you actually lost?
"Your Honor, we expected to sell 40 gazillion copies of that game through those retailers. That is what Jack Thompson cost us."
It'd be up to the courts to muddle through the details, but RS/T2 would be very hard-pressed to actually make that stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Video Games Made Me Sue People, Also B
You're right... if those two (or more) retailers refused the game, that would hurt sales. But you still have a few problems:
1) Can you prove that "lost potential" is an actual damage?
2) Can you prove that Jack's antics lead directly to those lost sales, to the exclusion of any other factor?
3) If you meet the above-two criteria, can you show how many potential sales you actually lost?
"Your Honor, we expected to sell 40 gazillion copies of that game through those retailers. That is what Jack Thompson cost us."
It'd be up to the courts to muddle through the details, but RS/T2 would be very hard-pressed to actually make that stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope.
I hope the guy playing it has never seen a video game in his life let alone played it. The only thing worse than having to sit watching someone play a game is watching someone play a game very very badly. It could literally take months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's ALL true
Oh Curse you Apogee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bully
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]