PDA

View Full Version : Jack Thompson Strikes Back! Miami Court Orders Take-Two to Turn Over “Bully”


RobertoOrtiz
10-12-2006, 01:14 PM
Quote:
"
GamePolitics has just received a short e-mail from Jack Thompson:

“The court ordered production of the game by tomorrow at 3pm, for his full review of the game while it is being played, up to or more than 100 hours.”

“This is unprecedented and reasonable as well. This is a huge victory against the violent video game industry, regardless of the ultimate ruling on the injunction. I anticipate an immediate appeal to the Third DCA by Take-Two”

Thompson is referencing Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal (http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/). He is correct that the ruling is unprecedented, although in the long run it’s really not a win if it gets overturned on appeal.

"

>>LINK<< (http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/11/breaking-miami-court-orders-take-two-to-turn-over-bully/)


-R

RuinedMessiah
10-12-2006, 02:13 PM
Ahh, but who will play it?

Games like Bully, Postal, and GTA are a mirror. How you play the game defines just how sick a bastard you are. Granted, it's virtual reality and has no effect on real world behavior and it does, in fact, seem to lead towards lower crime rates amongst the youth of America (according to the FBI's own records, youth violence has been steadily decreasing since halfway through the original Playstations life cycle and it was at a 70+ year low the very same year GTA:SA shipped). But I know people who do nothing but steal cars and beat hookers in GTA whereas other people I know try to avoid pedestrian deaths as much as possible.

I wonder what type of gamer the judge will witness. Any way, I need to snag my copy before Tipper Gore gets another game recalled (news flash, nobody was playing Night Trap any damn way).

quyeno
10-12-2006, 02:56 PM
long last, some sense from the US courts regarding video game violence.

EnlightenedPixel
10-12-2006, 03:01 PM
TT is appointing someone to help the judge traverse the game, essentialy theyre going to play it for him. When its said and done, I have doubts that theres going to be anything in bully that hasnt been talked about already by the few people who have gotten to play it first hand and done independent reviews. The game sounds more like a "Private-school comedy/drama", not a " Collumbine Simulator".

This is setting a rather undcomfortable precident. Are we going to have to run games through every state court system to see if its " offensive" to the elderly?

poly-phobic
10-12-2006, 03:32 PM
man, this is a crying shame that it has come to this level.

i wonder if japanese developers ever have to go through this.

i dont know whats more silly, this court order, or the amount of pointless violence in that game [games from take 2 in general] , or people cashing in on violent games and saying it has no imact on society...

a few more tragic high school shoot outs and maybe they'll change their minds... or find different excuses on how games has no influence on social life. maybe thats why WoW has absolutely no impact on the players' social lifes either.


This is setting a rather undcomfortable precident. Are we going to have to run games through every state court system to see if its " offensive" to the elderly?
i wonder when you become an elderly if youll find this kind of games offensive... of course there will be someone your age to make the very same comment you did.

frogspasm
10-12-2006, 04:41 PM
Yeah, uhmmmm.... I predict this isn't going to happen.
I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like a clear violation of free speech laws.
I highly doubt there is any legal reason you could come up with to have to send a judge a copy of a game that hasn't been released yet.
If there is, then that would be highly disturbing. Even more disturbing if they complied.
I would love to see them try this for a movie before it's released.


~Mike D.
"My lawer advises me to tell you to blow me"

EnlightenedPixel
10-12-2006, 04:41 PM
or people cashing in on violent games and saying it has no imact on society...

a few more tragic high school shoot outs and maybe they'll change their minds... or find different excuses on how games has no influence on social life. maybe thats why WoW has absolutely no impact on the players' social lifes either.

You had better be joking about this.

Violent games, dont make people violent, period. Thats like saying death metal MAKES people violent, or books are the cause of a copycat murder.

Theres too many people who play and have played violent videogames since their creation, the FBI has reported that since the creation of videogames teen violence has taken a townward turn, and when GTA was released it was at an all time low. Like hell violent videogames have an impact on society. The impact you do see from games like Pokemon and WOW is because of the level of involvement the game requires of the user. Collecting, trading, extensive battle times, its already in our nature to obsess over what we enjoy, when they add collecting and trading and scores to it, it just appeals to peoples addictive personality, some more than others, and thats their personal issue they should keep track of, not the game manufacturers.

In the scientific method, playing video games is a controll, its what's common about most people, the difference between those of us who dont go off killing people, and those incredibly few who have, is social interaction, home life, and how they deal with the stress of abuse, or losing a loved one, or a chemical imablance that has gone unchecked.

i wonder when you become an elderly if youll find this kind of games offensive... of course there will be someone your age to make the very same comment you did.

No, because I would have grown up with this type of game, much like how older people are going to be listening to Danger Mouse in their 60's on their nostalgic "CD" Player that has long since gone out of date and watching old fassioned "DVD's" on an old " HD TV" of Saw, and American Pie.

Yeah, uhmmmm.... I predict this isn't going to happen.
I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like a clear violation of free speech laws.
I highly doubt there is any legal reason you could come up with to have to send a judge a copy of a game that hasn't been released yet.
If there is, then that would be highly disturbing. Even more disturbing if they complied.
I would love to see them try this for a movie before it's released.


~Mike D.
"My lawer advises me to tell you to blow me"

Violation of free speech indeed. The court is essentialy giving itself the power to censor free speech which is clearly against the first amendment; and trying to define videogames as NOT being free speech is a crime in itself.

PhantomDesign
10-12-2006, 04:42 PM
This is bad . . . this doesn't even make sense! How can you justify or force something like this? What difference will it make if the game is/is not "violent"?

NanoGator
10-12-2006, 04:43 PM
i dont know whats more silly, this court order, or the amount of pointless violence in that game [games from take 2 in general] , or people cashing in on violent games and saying it has no imact on society...

a few more tragic high school shoot outs and maybe they'll change their minds... or find different excuses on how games has no influence on social life. maybe thats why WoW has absolutely no impact on the players' social lifes either.


a. You should read about what Bully actually is about.

b. There's no need for excuses, it has not been proven. Not even in the ballpark.

RuinedMessiah
10-12-2006, 05:13 PM
Video games have an impact on society. Much in the same way Radio and TV did. It is quickly becoming the PREMIER entertainment medium. However, to claim video games have an impact on the violence in society is absurd and nothing more than a media spinfest.

(removed to avoid huge arguements)

Fact: Depsite media hype of a much more dangerous world, crime rates are going down universally. It's not a much more dangerous world. It's actually getting much better.

Fact: For every report you show me that video games cause violent tendacies, I'll look over the same report and show you the children effected are normally socially misaligned, problematic in school, and neglected at home. Of course when the real world is shit for a child, the virtual one becomes the template for behavior. Show me a straight A student who's never gotten bullied, is fairly popular, with loving parents, and somehow was effected by video games and then I'll begin to buy these reports.

Fact: Columbine was known and be glad the two killers were such enormous ****ups, otherwise the bodycount would have surpassed Oklahoma easily. The only thing keeping those killers from the triple digits was their ineptitude at building propane bombs. Worst part? Police were warned by a student and they ignored it. And the killers were already little ****ups with violent tendacies and was constantly threatening the lives of fellow students.

But this is America I live in. I find it hilarious that McDonalds is to blame for making someone fat. I find it completely hysterical that video games remain the leading cause of death against other children. And most of all, all the bad attention being directed towards the white house could easily be diverted with a constitutional ammendment that states in big ass crayoned letters "God hates fags." I mean, I love this country but our entire culture is based around excuses and diversionary tactics.

OneSharpMarble
10-12-2006, 05:41 PM
Well if you start banning violent games you might aswell ban violent books, movies, television shows and the list goes on.

It's funny they try this with video games but would they ever ban something like cigarettes or heaven forbid alcohol again? Two things that cause thousands of deaths.

Charkins
10-12-2006, 05:45 PM
The real unfortunate issue here is that we must rely on our government to do what our parents are not doing - screening. We should never expect our government to do what our parents should be doing in the first place. Instead, parents fall back on scapegoats in an attempt to cover up their lack of parenting.

There are millions of factors that contribute to a violent culture. To assume that violent video games is a significant contributor is rather naive, as there is a lack of substantial evidence to support this judgement. There is, however, common knowledge that most of the people who play violent video games are not violent at all. I, for one.

pearson
10-12-2006, 06:12 PM
That's crazy. When was the last time a movie had to be screened for a judge before it could be released?

I also find it amusing that people are so quick to say watching pixelated video game violence makes kids violent, but parents can take their 10 year olds into 'R' rated films that contain way more realistic violence and gore, and that has no effect. You can't have it both ways. Either seeing realistic violence is bad and should be banned in all its forms, or it isn't. Plain and simple.

The thing I find so surprising about this whole debate is that no one seems to remember just a few years ago when it was rock-n-roll that was evil. Then rock and roll was acceptable, but D&D was clearly the Devil and caused kids to kill each other. Now D&D is fine, but those @%#$ video games...clearly the embodiment of Satan himself.

I mean, come on! How many millions of kids have played violent video games? And of those hundreds of millions, maybe two dozen kids have shot up their schools? In statistics that would be rounded to a big fat 0%. And of those few, the fact that they were loners who were hated and bullied by their peers, or abused by their parents, is not relevant. Video games, clearly are solely to blame. :rolleyes:

If Jack Thompson were actually interested in reducing youth violence (instead of just being interested in whoring for the cameras), he would be speaking in schools about staying out of gangs.

EpShot
10-12-2006, 06:40 PM
no, they cant' ban video games, however they can require you to be 18 or older to play it. just like they can restrict pornography.

edit// and please dont' compare old violent gaems like doom2 or wolfinstein(violent gaem i grew up on) with stuff you play like man hunt, hitman, gta.

and what about the future, is it still ok when you have full interactivity where the person actauy feels like they are killing someone? because presumably we'll be there eventualy. whats the line? there a big differance from shooting a crappy 100 pixel sprite and the stuff yoru getting these days http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1654

Arrghman
10-12-2006, 06:41 PM
long last, some sense from the US courts regarding video game violence.

The US courts have in fact been quite sensible in the past by recognizing that video games are covered under the protection of free speech and should not be regulated by the government...

ngrava
10-12-2006, 06:46 PM
Hmm. First of all, this is one of the most heated debates of the century. Do not for a second, think you can make the statement that is going to make everyone say,"Oh, now I see! I've changed my opinion!". In most cases it's simply a matter of perspective. Like for instance, guns themselves aren't dangerous, it takes a person to pull the trigger vs. if guns weren't so available, people wouldn't be able to pull the trigger. No one has been able to prove either one is right to me.

We all need to remember that we are all entitled to our own opinion. Simple as that.

ndat
10-12-2006, 06:52 PM
LOL, he may have been better off going after a game where you actually kill people. This game isn't even close to the levelof violence and dark satire that the GTA series has. He is going to lose, big time. He probally should have picked his battles because people will only put up with this for so long.

pgp_protector
10-12-2006, 06:56 PM
man, this is a crying shame that it has come to this level.

i wonder if japanese developers ever have to go through this.

i dont know whats more silly, this court order, or the amount of pointless violence in that game [games from take 2 in general] , or people cashing in on violent games and saying it has no imact on society...

a few more tragic high school shoot outs and maybe they'll change their minds... or find different excuses on how games has no influence on social life. maybe thats why WoW has absolutely no impact on the players' social lifes either.


i wonder when you become an elderly if youll find this kind of games offensive... of course there will be someone your age to make the very same comment you did.

who cares if it is offensive.

Guess what being offended is not illegal (yet)
If it's offensive to the elderly, well there not marketing them.

Bael
10-12-2006, 06:57 PM
You have to take everything Jack Thompson says with a grian of salt - he loves tooting his own horn. All this means is the judge has ordered to actually see the game in action, so he can determine if it is in fact at "public nuisance", and decide where the court will move from there.

Its no 'victory', its really not much of anything. Take-Two could probably even have challenged the order, but more than likely knows it'll help their case more than anything - they'll just see that JT's "Columbine Simulator" description is nothing more than a media grabbing buzzword to get as much attention as he can.

RuinedMessiah
10-12-2006, 07:22 PM
edit// and please dont' compare old violent gaems like doom2 or wolfinstein(violent gaem i grew up on) with stuff you play like man hunt, hitman, gta.

Umm, Doom 2 had a monster that literally fell apart upon death and even featured a severed rabbits head in the credits (or was that the first?). Abadox had a gruesomely realistic adventure through a giant monsters body where you attacked anything from parasites to giant dogs with no skin. One of the standard enemies in the original Splatterhouse was just a human stomach creeping slowly along the floor, leaving a trail of damaging stomach acids. Let's not forget how many old PC RPGs actually required human sacrifices for spells.

Be that as it may, it's not the content itself that has escalated but the technology to depict the content. You can't have a game like Mario upgrade itself throughout the ages from a simple single screen crab killing simulator to Mario Galaxy without watching that same change go through games like Shin Megami Tensei or Golgo 13. I mean, seriously. Look at how horrible Mortal Komabt of today is compared to the first. I mean, hell. Just play a few levels of Robocop versus the Terminator on Sega Genesis and try to convince me violence was depicted more innocently back then. And if you look at the progression of Doom and Quake, it's quite obvious it was only the technology holding the gore back, not the designers.

Besides, Manhunt was badass. Period. Sure, it was dark and gruesome and evil, but I wasn't exactly thinking "Manhunt... hmm, sounds like a Spongebob spinoff" when I bought it for $10. But see, here's the thing. I'm an adult. I haven't killed anyone for a least a couple weeks so I can handle this kind of content. But please, for the sake of everyone involved and the janitors, stop bringing your goddam 5 year old in to see Saw III.

EpShot
10-12-2006, 07:38 PM
robocop vs terminator is a awsome game. for the first 2 levels.. but its still shooting crappy sprites. The point was the level of realistic action that the player is involving themselves in.

anyways, they can't ban games. but they can age restrict them, which is probabyl what will happen. IN which case.. guess what i don't care. i can buy them, and if i ever have kid that wants a game that i think he can have, gasp.. i'll buy it for him. cause you know,i believe in that whole "parenting" thing.

pearson
10-12-2006, 08:07 PM
edit// and please dont' compare old violent games like doom2 or wolfinstein(violent games i grew up on) with stuff you play like man hunt, hitman, gta.You must be new to this debate. The poster child for this whole thing is the Columbine school shooting. Terrible tragedy, I admit. But they blame that whole event on not GTA, not even Doom 2, but Doom 1!! Killing pixelated sprites caused them to try to massacre a whole school...:rolleyes:

You have a good point that, at some future time, virtual reality will get to the point where you have a "holodeck" type experience. However, I think movies are a good example of how to handle it. "R" rated films are not treated as porn - they are not behind the counter, they can be advertised on TV, and a parent can decide to take their underage child into the theater and not get arrested. Video games should not be treated any differently.

And along the lines of RuinedMessiah's argument that the content hasn't changed, just the realism, I have to agree. GTA2 was sprite based, and from a bird's-eye view, but had almost all the same violence as GTA3. About the only thing missing is head shots and picking up hookers, and they could have done the hookers since you can pick up people in the taxi.

The odd thing is that there are no restrictions on books. Any 10 year old can walk into a library and check out a book which contains very graphical descriptions of torture, child sexual abuse, and brains being splattered all over someone. Why doesn't Jack care about that? Perhaps I'm just imaginative, but I get the same physiological response reading a suspenseful book as playing a suspenseful game. :shrug:

Arrghman
10-12-2006, 08:22 PM
anyways, they can't ban games. but they can age restrict them, which is probabyl what will happen.

No... they can't. This has already held up in court several times on the state level this past year where states tried to pass laws making it a crime to sell M rated games to minors. Each and every time the laws were declared unconstitutional because games are considered to be free speech.

Video game ratings, like movie ratings, are voluntary and cannot be legislated. If you think there's a problem with the ESRB, then hey lets go fix the ESRB... but the government can't do that.

RuinedMessiah
10-12-2006, 08:47 PM
No... they can't. This has already held up in court several times on the state level this past year where states tried to pass laws making it a crime to sell M rated games to minors. Each and every time the laws were declared unconstitutional because games are considered to be free speech.

Video game ratings, like movie ratings, are voluntary and cannot be legislated. If you think there's a problem with the ESRB, then hey lets go fix the ESRB... but the government can't do that.

Actually, the main thing that kept killing those laws was the vagueness of them, not the age restriction itself. There was no solid guideline on what would and would not be covered under the law. And as the ESRB results show, there is no universal concensus upon the appropriateness of content but rather a constantly fluctuating ideal. And laws don't work like that. Laws are, simply put, yes or no. If there is not a standard to base the yes or no on, then it cannot be held as a firm law.

Arrghman
10-12-2006, 09:01 PM
Actually, the main thing that kept killing those laws was the vagueness of them, not the age restriction itself.

The Louisiana law (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060825-7597.html) (which Jack Thompson helped write, actually) was struck down because in the Judge's words the ESA has "a substantial likelihood of success of proving a First Amendment violation." The Illinois law (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051203-5680.html) was strick down because it was vauge and because content-based regulation is generally unconstitutional.

The Louisiana law was interesting because they tried to use the Miller test, which is what is used to regulate pornogrophy. Didn't work, though.

EnlightenedPixel
10-12-2006, 09:08 PM
What people need to remember:

1. Freedom of Speech is not something a Judge or Jurry can controll or censor.
(this case is in clear violation of the first amendment, but Jack Thompson doesnt consider VideoGames a form of expression in any way, so he does not want anyone to think of it as being covered by the first amendment)
2. The ESRB ratings, like RIAA and MPAA ratings, is just a guideline. It is something you voluntarily go by when purchasing a game, and you can chose to follow it or not. It cant be a law that M rated games cant be sold to anyone under 18 because again the rating itself is not controlled by the government, making the rating part of a law would mean the government gets to make the ratings, not the ESRB, not the people who make or play them.
The government could then make other decisions about the game, re-defining what the ratings are, and what would label a game under an obscenely inacurate rating based on a small group of old men's and housewives opinions of what is acceptable.

UrbanFuturistic
10-12-2006, 09:10 PM
and what about the future, is it still ok when you have full interactivity where the person actauy feels like they are killing someone? because presumably we'll be there eventualy. whats the line?http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1654I doubt that; the level of realism in films is already self-censored because it would be unpalatable to all but a minority of sickos and, most importantly to the industry, would not make money. I can't remember the film where they had to tone down a scene because the wife of one of the producers literally threw up upon seeing it.

OK, sure, you're going to get the occasional underground game produced by neo-nazi groups and the like, but then you get Snuff movies as well.We all need to remember that we are all entitled to our own opinion. Simple as that.Nope, sorry. I'm getting sick of completely wrongheaded opinions spouting from the mouths of people who don't have the first clue as to what they're talking about. Fully qualified psychiatrists are entitled to an opinion on this, armchair reactionaries need to keep their yaps shut. It's like all those people who claim to know better than all the Phds on Gobal Warming when they flunked high-school chemistry. So, OK, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but sometimes they should keep it to themselves.

EpShot
10-12-2006, 09:55 PM
"the level of realism in films is already self-censored"?

also can someoen explain "specificaly" why pr0n can be restricted, but violent games cant. (i don't mean that as a moral statement , i mean legaly ;)

pearson
10-12-2006, 10:04 PM
"the level of realism in films is already self-censored"?Of course. When it gets too real, you just cover your eyes! :p

Arrghman
10-12-2006, 10:07 PM
"the level of realism in films is already self-censored"?

also can someoen explain "specificaly" why pr0n can be restricted, but violent games cant. (i don't mean that as a moral statement , i mean legaly ;)

The Miller Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test) (developed in Miller vs. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California) in 1973 by the Supreme Court)

havokzprodigy
10-12-2006, 11:06 PM
I need to snag my copy before Tipper Gore gets another game recalled (news flash, nobody was playing Night Trap any damn way).

What do you mean nobody was playing night trap?
I loved that game I got that Ground Zero and Sewer Shark for X-mas when I was like 10.
Those games at a young age didn't make me violent whatsoever. Nor did it my brother or all our friends that played it either.

UrbanFuturistic
10-12-2006, 11:50 PM
"the level of realism in films is already self-censored"?I've just watched identical quadruplets being delivered by emergency cesarean on Channel 5, and it's waaay more disgusting than anything I've ever seen in a film, even Peter Jackson's earlier films.

That is to say, you saw everything, including the surgeon poking the holes in the amniotic sacks and pulling the babies out. Then they went on to a discussion of the placenta and the thickness of the umbilical cords, flapping the cords around like an octopus' tentacles.

EpShot
10-13-2006, 12:20 AM
more discustign than having an eyeball burned out of its socket in HOSTEL?
(so i heard form a friend, i have no interest in seeing it personaly, ick)
and then there is Chaos (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20050811%2FREVIEWS%2F508110303%2F1023&AID1=%2F20050811%2FREVIEWS%2F508110303%2F1023&AID2=)

i don't have much of a point as relatign to video games, i was just wondering what your point was. Actualy the same issue is happenign in films that is happenign in games, its becoming quite eralistic. I liked hell rasier because it had an intersting plot, and i could handle the gore because i didn't find it very realistic. But i was quite disturbed by Silent Hill (good movie tho) but hey, some ppl really like em.

i do see a point in restricting some of these types of media. If a parent wants to give it to their kids fine, they can do whatever they want. But simply put, media has been changing significantly. and this is quite different than songs or D&D. I am concerned HOW it is restricted. And certianly dont' want senators involved.

TheRealMatt
10-13-2006, 01:16 AM
Just want to add that most of the critiscism this game has received has been because of the title "bully". If Jack Thompson actually knew anything about the game he would realise that the game isn't running around and beating up or killing other students. In fact your character is the troubled kid with the heart of gold, you run around and help the weaker kids when they are being picked on. granted you get into fights and use school yard pranks to help the kids, but who cares fights and kids being picked on have been around in schools for ever. Also actions within the game have consequences, if your caught fighting or even skipping class by a teacher you can be assigned a punishment. for example you may have to mow the campus lawn and you are actually required to play through the punishment before the game can continue. so in summary Jack Thompson has no idea about the game and is going to lose.

Leionaaad
10-13-2006, 09:30 AM
The odd thing is that there are no restrictions on books. Any 10 year old can walk into a library and check out a book which contains very graphical descriptions of torture, child sexual abuse, and brains being splattered all over someone. Why doesn't Jack care about that?

Yey...Kids don't really read nowadays...
But they do carry out smart talks on the bus about headshots, guns (they probably know a lot more about guns than an average adult). But hey...I've been playing around with plastic guns all my childhood.

There already IS an age restriction...On the box of UT2004 is the label 16+ and the reason: violence.

danshewan
10-13-2006, 11:22 AM
How the BBC are covering the story, for some trans-Atlantic perspective.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6046932.stm

"I'm pretty sure that the game is harmful to minors," Mr Thompson told the Washington Post newspaper.

Well, he is pretty sure, guys.....

havokzprodigy
10-13-2006, 01:36 PM
I'm a 100% sure he's a moron.

RuinedMessiah
10-13-2006, 01:45 PM
Of course he's a moron. The problem I have is the people gamings side keeps throwing at him. I mean, hell. Adam Sessler? The incredible balding baby? When they did the crossfire on AOTS, it only made gamers look bad since Jack stayed calm and Adam was a raving retard.

havokzprodigy
10-13-2006, 02:08 PM
Of course he's a moron. The problem I have is the people gamings side keeps throwing at him. I mean, hell. Adam Sessler? The incredible balding baby? When they did the crossfire on AOTS, it only made gamers look bad since Jack stayed calm and Adam was a raving retard.

I havn't seen that, but Sessler has something to rant about and Jack has something to be calm about.
Gamers should rant becuase this is a terrible injustice and is just plain crazy. Jack should be calm becuase he's fighting for nothing.

RuinedMessiah
10-13-2006, 02:44 PM
It's interesting to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkHtgRxBfKA

Keep in mind, this is the same Jack Thompson who's outrageous behavior banned him from practicing law in several states. Has several phone recordings of him just screaming obscenities at whatever gaming site he's trying to preach to. And even got in a long battle he started and even threatened lawsuit with Penny Arcade. Jack Thompson is a loose thread on the whole "games cause violence" arguement and all it takes is publicly pulling that thread to unravel his arguement.

Adam Sessler was ill prepared to deal with Jacks Arguements and quite frankly, that reeks of poor professionalism on his part. Because the reports Jack is stating all support evidence that the children effected by violence are often the troubled children to begin with. Often paranoid schitzophrenics. I find his mentioning of Michael Carneal hilarious because Jack Thompson quotes David Grossman in his "Killology" nonsense never taking a look at the hard facts.

Yes, Michael Carneal played Doom. David Grossman would have you believe this is all he needed to train on to learn to kill. Quite the opposite. In fact, Michael Carneals incident relied on Sniping from outside the building into a classrooms before school prayer group. David Grossman (just consider him the first Jack Thompson except he was actually inside the white house) claims Michael Carneal never touched a gun before the incident, which once again is a lie. Michael Carneal was not only a very professional marksman before the shooting (trained by one of his neighbors to help "get some of his aggressions out") but the weapon used in the shooting itself was stolen from his neighbor and the actual rifle he trained with. And finally, David Grossman claimed certain children can be influenced with no prior signs of dysfunction. Michael Carneal was paranoid to the point that he would cover the vents in the school bathroom stalls before deficating because he thought someone would see his penis. Michael Carneal had problems discerning reality and fantasy. And most of all, Michael Carneal, because he was not only odd but openly atheist in a bible belt school, was constantly getting his ass kicked by bullies and constantly put down by the church groups. Very heavy physical and mental abuse and yes, Michael Carneal was hospitalized (as in mental) twice long before the Padukah shooting. And this was the person a neighbor trained with a gun. Doom was the very smallest piece of the picture and Adam would have done well to mention this.

Instead, Adam constantly interrupts Jack and instead of backing up his arguement with evidence that is extremely easy to find, he chooses instead to say "you're stupid" matter of factly while making gamers in general look like the ostrich approach of arguements is the only ones we can do.

Arrghman
10-13-2006, 05:36 PM
Gamers should rant becuase this is a terrible injustice and is just plain crazy. Jack should be calm becuase he's fighting for nothing.

Not if they want to be taken seriously in a debate. RuinedMessiah pretty much nailed it, instead of actually debating and using evidence to back his case up, of which there is plenty of, Sessler just sort of yelled a lot. If you look at it from a debate point of view, Thompson actually won and most objective people who don't have any sort of interest in gaming would probably gravitate towards Thompson's side if they had seen that as opposed to the "crazy gamers" who don't know how to construct an argument.

In other topic related news, yet another video game law has been declared unconstitutional, this time in Oklahoma (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061013-7978.html). The article mentions another law, that I didn't know about, that's in Maryland (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060524-6907.html) which is actually backed by the ESA because it bans the sale of games with explicit sexual content to minors... which is exactly the same for other forms of media. So, yay for Maryland I guess!

EnlightenedPixel
10-13-2006, 07:29 PM
NEWS FLASH!

JACK THOMPSON LOSES:

http://www.destructoid.com/jack-thompson-ruling


*Update*

A play-by play currently being updated as each paragraph or so is finished apparently.
http://www.destructoid.com/miami-judge-says-ship-it-wal-mart-bully-is-no-worse-than-what-you-see-on-tv-every-night

belail
10-16-2006, 04:48 AM
Jack Thompson puts fractured thoughts to paper and sends them to the judge.


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

danshewan
10-16-2006, 10:13 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6054262.stm

You can almost hear Thompson throwing a tantrum from here.......

UPDATE: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6159812.html

Can you guys believe his attitude? Man, what I would have given to be a fly on Thompson's wall when he heard the verdict......

Awesome.

PhantomDesign
10-16-2006, 02:51 PM
I think Thompson needs to hire a lawyer to keep himself under control. This guy is such a raving lunatic that rockstar should/could sue him for harrassment.

pearson
10-16-2006, 07:53 PM
From destructoid's reporting, it seemed that Jack was at least rational, if severely misguided. Fortunately Mr. Thompson has cleared up that confusion.

Obviously, he is the kind of person who feels that PacMan is a violent game. And saying that Bully should be banned because some kids might get sling shot injuries?! LOL! Yep! That's just what happened at Columbine; those two crazy kids with sling-shots. :rolleyes:

Bugs Bunny cartoons are far more violent than Bully.

EnlightenedPixel
10-17-2006, 12:18 AM
Jack thompson KNOWS games dont cause violence. He does this because it gets him more and more money, and no one has yet countersued him for everything he has.

pearson
10-17-2006, 12:24 AM
and no one has yet countersued him for everything he has.That's a good point. When he files a frivolous lawsuit like this, why doesn't he have to pay for the entire trial when he loses? If he had to pony up a ton of money everytime he pulled this stunt, he'd have to stop abusing the courts.

RobertoOrtiz
10-22-2006, 05:18 AM
Roberto's note: Here is why some of the mainstream press drives me nuts!

New Bully Video Game Stirs Up Conflict
Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:04PM EDT
It's not yet available, but Bully, a new video game from Rockstar Games (the U.S. distributor is Take 2, the same folks who brought you Grand Theft Auto) is causing uproar. The animated game, set at the fictitious Bullworth Academy, features a protagonist who is bullied, faces mean teachers, and encounters the nastiness of clubs and cliques. There is no beating them without joining them in this game set in a bully or be bullied world.




http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/raskin/1906

-R

pearson
10-24-2006, 03:06 AM
Hmm, this is interesting. Gamasutra has this (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11370) story about Jack being charged with contempt of court.

Jack is being his usual calm, rational self in response, "You want to play hardball…? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You’re at the brink…"
:rolleyes:

RocketBoy
10-24-2006, 03:17 AM
I read that letter that he sent to the judge, and the media, after his most recent loss, and I wondered myself how that could not constitute Contempt of Court. If he doesn't end up getting hit with contempt, then maybe he will at least get disbarred in yet another state. One can always hope.

EnlightenedPixel
10-24-2006, 05:38 AM
Hmm, this is interesting. Gamasutra has this (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11370) story about Jack being charged with contempt of court.

Jack is being his usual calm, rational self in response, "You want to play hardball…? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You’re at the brink…"
:rolleyes:

Doesnt that just put him in even more contempt of court though?

danshewan
10-24-2006, 12:38 PM
I read that letter that he sent to the judge, and the media, after his most recent loss, and I wondered myself how that could not constitute Contempt of Court.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6160347.html

Let's face it, it was only a matter of time.

CGTalk Moderation
10-24-2006, 12:38 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.