Judge Friedman is the Decider
Thompson issued a statement to Game Politics, calling the decision a "huge victory against the violent video game industry, regardless of the ultimate ruling on the injunction." He claimed that the showing of the game is for both him and the judge, though gaming site Destructoid, which covered the event firsthand, reported that counsel from both sides will be able to attend. No press coverage will be permitted.
Early previews of the game depict a much less violent and much more moral picture of the game than the one Thompson has painted during his crusade against the game. Wired received a hands-on preview with the game, coming away with extremely positive impressions. After describing a moment in the game where its protagonist expounds on the folly of bullying, writer Clive Thompson admits, "Indeed, it's not what anyone expected." It certainly is not what Jack Thompson has led the mainstream media to expect.
Rockstar Vancouver's Bully (PS2) (known as Canis Canem Edit outside of North America) ships next week in North America.
-
-efx-
replySo if it isn't the all out violence fest that Thomson thinks it is isn't it very likely that the judge won't rule in his favor if he sits through it?
-
Most observers are not expecting Friedman to side with Thompson. Even if he does however, there's no way the decision would last through appeal. There is plenty of precedent here; courts have shown this kind of action to be impinging on freedom of expression and have also cited a lack of conclusive evidence showing tangible harm. Whenever he gets anything through, Thompson calls it a major victory, but nothing has really stuck permanently so far.
-
-
It depends on the judge. But really, Thompson is just trying to make it seem like the war against video games is being "won."
-
It worries me a little bit because it sets a precedent that courts get to look at games before release. This won't result in the game being stopped or censored in this case, because Jack Thompson is pretty clearly wrong about the game's content, but what if a different game--a more violent game--came along? Things might turn out very differently, particularly with a different, more sympathetic judge.
To put it another way, I think the best rule would be "none of this is the court's business". But in this case, we'll probably get "This sort of thing is the court's business, although the court chooses not to do anything in this particular case". That's not very reassuring in regard to future cases. -
He considers it a victory either way because he just got a judge to review a pre-release game. On the strength of his rhetoric alone, Thompson has bent a judge to his will.
For an egomaniac, that's a victory.
The sad thing is that Thompson is teflon enough that even when it is found that this game isn't the murderfest he has trumped it up to be, the egg will not stick to his face. He will trumpet this as a victory for parents and anti-violent videogame folks because a game had a chance to be stopped before it ever saw the marketplace.
Once that precedent is set, it can be used by Thompson in other jurisdictions for other games.
I really can't wait for this whole game mania to end.-
-
I remember the D&D stuff very well. In the 7th grade, I wanted to start a D&D club with a few friends and hold it at our school. The administration freaked out and said that the liability in doing so was too great.
Because more kids get hurt playing D&D than participating in sports, apparently. >:|-
haha, well don't come crying to me when you get your ass lightining bolted, thats far more dangerous than a ball in the face.
-
Rona Jaffe's Mazes And Monsters drove Tom Hanks C-RAzzzzeee! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/
-
-
Frank Zappa on music videos corrupting youth: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6HljzEXJvj8
What amazes me is that the arguments/people never change, but the same side is shown to be wrong over and over.
-
-
-
-
-
