Miami judge orders Take-Two to bring Bully to him

by Christopher Grant { Oct 11th 2006 at 7:45PM }

Earlier today, attorneys representing Take-Two Interactive -- publisher of Rockstar Games' controversial video game Bully -- along with lawyers representing retailers Gamestop and Wal-Mart squared off with Miami attorney Jack Thompson in Florida's Third District Court of Appeal.

Game blog Destructoid had someone in the courtroom, blogging the goings-on. They briefly recount the day's events culminating in Judge Ronald Friedman's ordering of Take-Two to produce Bully by 3PM tomorrow, so he can view the entirety of the game (played by a Take-Two representative, of course) and determine if Thompson's claims that the game is a "public nuisance" have any merit. Destructoid promises four more pages of notes, detailing all the nitty-gritty, so keep your eyes peeled.

Meanwhile, GamePolitics blogger and Joystiq columnist Dennis McCauley received an email from Thompson, gloating, "This is a huge victory against the violent video game industry, regardless of the ultimate ruling on the injunction."

Maybe, maybe not; that all depends on what the judge thinks of the game's content. If Bully isn't as violent or inappropriate as Jack Thompson would have us, and the court, believe, and is instead a "snarkily clever social commentary," then what? Then there's no restraining order preventing the sale of the game to minors and Thompson says he'll "drop the whole thing." If Judge Friedman does find a problem with the game, then ... eh, let's just think positive thoughts, okay?

Read - GamePolitics.com's note from Jack Thompson
Read - Destructoid's man-on-the-scene report

Tags: Bully, ESRB, Jack Thompson, JackThompson, Rockstar, Take Two, TakeTwo

Related From Joystiq

Black Friday Video Game Deals Hub
15 days ago
New Star Wars game debuting during Spike Video Game Awards
15 days ago
First Seven Haunted Seas gameplay trailer
27 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Jonny @ Oct 11th 2006 7:49PM

Maybe Take-Two should just really give up. I mean, everytime they make a game here comes Jack Thompson.

Jenrl Gweevus @ Oct 11th 2006 7:51PM

"This is a huge victory against the violent video game industry, regardless of the ultimate ruling on the injunction."

Wow, he really is that crazy.

smellslikepie @ Oct 11th 2006 7:54PM

The judge didn't order Take Two to take Bully to them.

"The clerk I spoke to (dug up after co-sleuthing with Dennis over on GP) told me that the judge did not order the review of the game, but that Take-Two offered to bring the game in on Thursday at 3 p.m. so he could see for himself what all of the noise is about."

HotShotX @ Oct 11th 2006 7:56PM

"This is a huge victory against the violent video game industry, regardless of the ultimate ruling on the injunction."

That should read: "This is guaranteed to net me at least another 30 minutes on a talk show."

~HotShotX

Tristan @ Oct 11th 2006 8:01PM

I know Take Two wanted to show them the game, looks like Joystiq messed up and said something that wasn't happening.

Frankbot @ Oct 11th 2006 8:00PM

why doesn't the land of the old and dying stay as far away from video gamesa as possible, because they obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Psaakyrn @ Oct 11th 2006 8:00PM

Just wondering, if Take Two/Bully is found to be innocent, could Take Two then reverse roles and counter-sue Thompson for slander and misleading the public?

EdEN @ Oct 11th 2006 8:01PM

Freedom of Speech. End of Story.

Ness @ Oct 11th 2006 10:14PM

This is rediculous these old farts need to give it a rest . They will probably be offended by game before the press start screen comes up. The real victims here are jack's kids.....they will become bullied when all this is done. every gamer everywhere will be gunning for them

Snurp @ Oct 11th 2006 8:08PM

But EdEN, you see, they're doing it for the children. How could they possibly not take away our rights if it's for the children? I mean, they're children. If you support the First Amendment, you must hate children.

(Yes, that was sarcasm. I don't put it past some of the people here to confuse that.)

Blink @ Oct 11th 2006 8:15PM

Good point Psaakyrn. I'd like to see TakeTwo actually weilding the law on their own instead of being abused by it. The constitution certainly does seem to be being put off in the corner now days, but the US has certainly gone through this type of corruption before, and since we appear to not be wise enough to learn from the past, well, you just KNOW we'll do it again.

Wulkar @ Oct 11th 2006 8:13PM

interfering with the right to free speech.

unconstitutional.

SickNic @ Oct 11th 2006 8:15PM

I really hope Dennis McCauley sends a gloating email to Jack Thompson when the case is thrown out tomorrow...

C. Grant @ Oct 11th 2006 8:24PM

smellslikepie: where's the link to that?

Tristan: sorry, we *almost* fooled you pesky kids. DRAT! Or, you could read the headlines of EITHER of the two links I posted:
--Miami Court Orders Take-Two to Turn Over “Bully”

Or Destructoid's (currently down) headline is even more specific, and they were there:
--"judge-to-take-two-produce-bully-at-3pm-and-ill-decide-how-bad-it-is"

I wonder how I got "messed up"?

Ineffiblemind @ Oct 11th 2006 8:30PM

Jack, no matter how much you fight or how long you resist you can not stop us. We are too many and you can't stop the internet. Information, be it games or dissident opinions want to be FREE!!! You can't stop it. Resistance is Futile!

LD @ Oct 13th 2006 3:30AM

The game has already received a (M 15) in Australia, an average second highest rating, and those grandmas on the OFLC are notoriously strict.

:p @ Oct 11th 2006 8:30PM

Videogames don't make me violent, but any time I see something in quotes with Jack Thompson's name around it I feel like breaking someone's face in... someone really specific.

Here's looking at you Jack. Mess with my videogames , I'll mess with your face.

Josh @ Oct 11th 2006 8:45PM

I will say this: The judge will, with out a doubt, go with freedom of speech on this one. And it will PISS Jack off. He'll probably come out with a statment later on, demanding that the judge be impeached. Jack hates the first amendment. If he had it his way, it wouldn't be there. And that means he could ban anything he wants that he finds a "nuisance". No matter how mundane or harmless it is.

otakucode @ Oct 11th 2006 8:50PM

Thompson... admitting he was wrong.... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *choke* ACK ACK AAAAAHAHAHAHAHHA

Jesus that's rich. That sociopathic windbag won't shut his hole no matter what. He doesn't have a shred of evidence to back a single claim he's ever made and proceeds with nothing more than ad hominem attacks against the gaming industry and equivocation on serious study findings that don't relate to his points whatsoever.

I'm going to be putting together an exhaustive examination of all the arguments about violent videogames soon catalogging every argument, study, and viewpoint I can find and examining them objectively. Thus far, Thompson is the guy who talks the most and says the least.

geldfuss @ Oct 11th 2006 8:53PM

I'm sorry, but as silly as the case may be, I can't see how it's a breach of freedom of speech. The game won't get banned. The ESRB's rating is what's being contested here. If the judge finds the content to be inappropriate for the teen rating, the game will simply be sold to the age group legally considered appropriate.

theCurse @ Oct 11th 2006 9:22PM

geldfuss,
A federal judge contesting an independent firm's rating of a piece of art (or entertainment, if you prefer), and you don't see the breach of freedom of speech?

There are no words.

helava @ Oct 11th 2006 9:43PM

Let's be clear about two things:

1.) The only thing that Jack Thompson is interested in is selfpromotion. Every blurb he gets on whatever outlet he can find (Joystiq included) is a win for him. You are helping him remain in the public eye, helping his career, and thus, playing directly into his hands.

2.) Jack Thompson is a liar. He's not going to "drop the whole thing." He's said a lot of stuff in the past that's been complete BS, and this is complete BS, too. Why people continue to give his comments any sense of legitimacy is completely beyond me. This is his JOB. This is how he makes a living. It's easy, so he continues to do it. Whether he has to lie, cheat, or steal to do so historically hasn't been of any concern to him. Why should it be, now?

If we had any sense, as a community, we'd just ignore this jackass, and let him go about his business. This is genuinely one case where if everyone just ignores him, he'll go away, and possibly have to find an honest way to make a living.

dkh @ Oct 11th 2006 9:54PM

To be fair, I think this IS a victory in Jack's corner (if the judge has indeed demanded a copy of the game). It creates precedent (sp?) that a game can be considered a potential public nuisance before it's even released. This makes it easier to attack other games in the future.

otakucode @ Oct 11th 2006 9:57PM

geldfuss: What on earth are you talking about? The judge is in no way commenting on the Teen rating of the game. He has no sway over the ESRB and is not attempting to attain such power. The court case is trying to declare the game a public nuisance, in which case it WILL be banned or in some significant way restricted.

helava: Jack's previous scams involved getting rap music deemed obscene (remember 2 Live Cru getting banned? That was Jack.). His march against human expression has been profitable, and it will never stop.

geldfuss @ Oct 11th 2006 10:04PM

theCurse,

Actually, when you put it like that (and on further consideration), you're obviously right. Whoops.

ChronoZaga @ Oct 11th 2006 10:08PM

*yawn* I've ceased to care about Jack Thompson. The man is a joke, and everyone knows it now. He's just trying to get attention, like a spoiled child, or Kim Jong-il without the nukes. The game is protected free speech, and every judge worth his salt has and will see that.

StMadnes @ Oct 11th 2006 10:16PM

Jack Thompson. I mean if you're going to improve the quality of life for people, why stop at video games? Which reminds me- have you seen the way these kids jump rope these days- legs all spread open in the air like they're trying to avoid something(uhh, rope maybe?). Or how about the way these kids play tag nowadays- hitting eachother in forbidden places and calling one another "IT." Maan you've got a long road ahead, Jack.

DreGGs @ Oct 11th 2006 10:34PM

Being from Miami, and being someone who actually works for the court systems here, I can tell you that the judges here are, for the most part, very old fashioned. This may not fair well for take 2. They seem to not really understand the foolishness of the topic, nor the lack of influence a game could have on someone (the media does love to say how much video games control the youth of America).

ON the other hand, old fashioned as they may be, they are also very research oriented, and for the most part, extremely fair. The judge (one of which I have been in trials with several times) inevitably did research not only about the company and game in question, but about every attorney involved (This of course, includes thompson. Upon review of the factors in this case, it WILL be obvious as to what thompsons true intentions are, and could be cause for a mistrial (assuming take 2's legal council ask for it with the right angle)

In the end, the sad truth remains that no matter what the outcome is, thompson still wins. He's gotten the attention he wants, and in doing so, refilled his "ammo" against the forces of which he feels to be morally wrong. Having been in the same room with him, I can tell you that the things he says and does in person, completely make his remarks he types pale in comparison. Logic has left his brain a long time ago, and he is blindly lead by a jaded Christian moral system of which parents are not to be held responsible for their kids actions (in regards to what they say, do, read, or watch), putting sole responsibility into the hands of our government (as if we don't have enough other things to worry about). He is sole proof that church and state are not only mixed, but that with enough media attention (and thus voter persuasion) , you can alter the rights of which this country was founded on. Thus why I say, he still wins.

Truly a sad time to be living in America.

P.S. Ironically, I have met 2 Live crew many times (as they are also from the area) and if you think "I" have a lot to say on this topic, you should hear THEY'RE rants about it. Thompson will always find new targets, but play the same game. (pun intended)

PSWii360 Fanbot @ Oct 11th 2006 11:28PM

This proves lawyers are shit. Jack is making money off of all this. Truth be told, he miht not even care these games exist. He found a niche to make money from and pursued it. Now he's rich and has a good deal of fame. He is a sell out like so many other lawyers. Honestly, I don't think he evn cares about the rulin. He's still ettin paid. It's all about the almihty dollar.

Pyrocy @ Oct 12th 2006 1:14AM

I am patiently awaiting the Miami Moral Crusader's comments here. In the meantime, I'd like to address to Jack that this isn't a huge victory against the industry. The judge reasonably requested proof on behalf of the defendants so he can evaluate if the game is indeed a 'nuisance'. (Which any sane person would tell you it's not..)

Besides, you ordered the same thing against either The Warriors or Vice City and nothing ever came out of that.

IcebergSlim3000 @ Oct 12th 2006 2:37AM

Well said Dreggs. Its pretty obvious your plugged.

FSK405K @ Oct 12th 2006 3:47AM

The judge wants to see the game in its entirety? How many hours do you think he really wants to dedicate to doing that?

Rob @ Oct 12th 2006 9:14AM

@goldfebb:"If the judge finds the content to be inappropriate for the teen rating, the game will simply be sold to the age group legally considered appropriate."

Legally considered appropriate, that would be, let me see...

Anyone that can walk up to the counter and give them the money.

THERE ARE NO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON GAMES (other than obscenity)

hapes @ Oct 12th 2006 9:45AM

@32: Rob

There are no legal restrictions on games, but game stores tend to have policies not to sell naughtier rated games to underage buyers. Similar to the record stores that don't sell discs with 'PARENTAL ADVISORY' stickers to minors.

32_Footsteps @ Oct 12th 2006 9:45AM

"Just wondering, if Take Two/Bully is found to be innocent, could Take Two then reverse roles and counter-sue Thompson for slander and misleading the public?"

To be honest, slander is nearly impossible to prove in court. It's harder to pin down than libel, which at least leaves a physical trail.

Slander and libel both have a three-pronged test that must be passed before you can definitively convict someone of either offense.

1) The statement in question must be a lie. Probably the easiest to prove, since that's a simple showing of facts (in this case, whether or not Bully deserves a T rating).

2) The person who wrote/uttered the statement must know that it's a lie. In this case, I think this might be the hardest to prove. Jack Thompson's opinions on the matter are such that he might in fact believe his statements are true no matter how much evidence is arrayed against them - and it could be argued that he lacked that evidence at the time he made them, thereby giving him plausible deniability.

3) The person must have uttered the lie with the deliberate intent to damage the party lied about. Thompson's emnity towards Take-Two and Rockstar are well-known, so it would mostly come down to whether anyone could convince a judge that he really does just want to ruin the company (and he has made public statements in the past which suggest he's tried to safeguard against this prong - whether or not he would succeed is up in the air).

About the closest I could see hitting Jack on a slander/libel suit is the one time he claimed I lacked balls in a personal email, but he since recanted that, so I don't really have a case (over something so minor, I don't think it'd be worth my time even if I did).

Finished Law School @ Oct 12th 2006 10:11AM

A perfect example of what is wrong with the current US court system and attorneys.

Rob @ Oct 12th 2006 10:01AM

@Habes:

You're right. And the store can set any policy it wants, regarding any particular game, even if it's higher (or lower) than the specified rating. The court is needed here why?

The judge should've thrown this out so hard that JT would bounce to Maine.

Gnac @ Oct 12th 2006 10:40AM

He's going to be waiting forever, seeing as the game is called "Canis Canum Edit" (latin for Dog Eat Dog).

devian @ Oct 12th 2006 10:45AM

"Freedom of Speech. End of Story."

Sorry, but your freedom of speech pretty much died after Columbine, and was buried after 9/11

Gonzo @ Oct 12th 2006 11:53AM

I'm just surprised anyone still pays attention to Thompson. Wasn't he supposed to be disbarred and forgotten like the pathetic weasle he is.
After Adam Sessler (in the midst of one of his jerky spaz attacks no less; probably brought on by coming face to fac...er...screen to screen with such a piss poor lawyer who when faced with the obvious decided to make even less sense than Adam) won an argument against Thompson on AOTS I really thought the prick would crawl under a rock and die or at least find a new profession. One he can succeed at. I'd say Thompson is competent enough to flip burgers or possibly run for president.