Florida court OKs Bully

by Kyle Orland { Oct 13th 2006 at 5:00PM }

Destructoid has the scoop straight from the Florida courthouse where Judge Ronald Friedman has just declared that he will not honor Jack Thompson's request to restrict sales of Bully in advance of the game's shipment next Tuesday. The ruling comes after the judge viewed a demonstration of various parts of the game by a Take Two employee for two hours and determined "there's nothing in the game that you wouldn't see on TV every night." He added that he would not approve of the game for his children, but that fact alone "shouldn't mean that the game won't ship."

While the case could still be appealed, Destructoid notes that Thompson expressed no interest in doing so because any appellate ruling would come after the game was already in stores. So while this doesn't necessarily mean that our favorite lawyer will "drop the whole thing," as he put it, it does mean that the path is clear for the game to reach stores.

Tags: bully, canis canum edit, CanisCanumEdit, court, jack thompson, JackThompson, judge, legal, politics, rockstar, ruling, thompson

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Anehii @ Oct 13th 2006 5:04PM

lol, jack

Bret @ Oct 13th 2006 5:06PM

Sweet. I can't wait to pick this up!

BklynKid @ Oct 13th 2006 5:09PM

Wouldn't it restrict freedom of speech if they didn't allow the sale of this?

Anyway, the judge seems to have common sense.

Dracula Jones @ Oct 13th 2006 5:12PM

Why does it feel like maybe Jack Thompson has a poodle. And at the end of the day, he sobs and tells the poodle that "Tomorrow! Tomorrow's gonna be the day, you'll see, Snuffiewumpkins! They'll all see! Jack Thompson is a winner!"

Exbzurg @ Oct 13th 2006 5:15PM

soo no thanks to the 20 something readers who sent this in? thats kinda not like the joystiq i remember...

Ryan @ Oct 13th 2006 5:16PM

thompson = C block.

Wulkar @ Oct 13th 2006 5:33PM

good. the judge made the right call.

Todd @ Oct 13th 2006 5:31PM

Keep in mind though, that just because you see such violence on TV doesn't mean you interact with it. Interacting with a game is on a whole different level of rating... or should be.

I might see sex on TV, but if that sex is included in a game in which I can interact with it... shouldn't that follow a different scale of rating?

Sam @ Oct 13th 2006 5:30PM

That guy is so pathetic. He just needs to give up.

kftgr @ Oct 13th 2006 5:35PM

What? You mean you've never "interacted" with the sex on TV before? ;)

otakucode @ Oct 13th 2006 5:36PM

Todd: Why? Just because it "seems" substantively different? There is no evidence that material simply viewed and material "interacted" with through button presses has a different effect on the human mind. Without evidence, we cannot act responsibly.

simchat_torah @ Oct 13th 2006 5:37PM

To #3:

I don't think this judge has common sense. Even the fact that the judge REVIEWED the game is total bunk. This entertains the possibility that the judge would have ruled against the sale of the game (luckily she didn't). So ... the court is now going to start reviewing every video game, book, and movie and give it a stamp of approval before it can go into the market? WTF happened to freedom of speech?!?!?!?!?!

This country is spiraling downward so damn fast.

otakucode @ Oct 13th 2006 5:43PM

Personal to Jack Thompson: Repeated losses of court cases should not simply inform you of a professional deficit as a lawyer. Don't start doubting your skills as an attorney. What it should inform you of, however, is that your viewpoint that certain content is objectionable to the public at large is flawed. Step up to the plate, look at yourself in the mirror, and admit that your views are not the views of those around you. Be mature enough to step down and cease your legal escapades.

Obvious @ Oct 13th 2006 6:29PM

Whew.

Screw JT and his grandstanding.

Dave @ Oct 13th 2006 5:57PM

@#12:

If the judge declined to hear the case solely based on the perceived infringement of 1st Amendment rights, then the case would have been appealed or received a temporary injunction barring the sale of the product until after the appeal could be rendered (or dismissed). Which might have actually resulted in a win for Thompson, which nobody wants. :o

theinvisiblemooseman @ Oct 13th 2006 6:03PM

Haha, Jack Thompson made an ass of himself in court.

PSWii360 Fanbot @ Oct 13th 2006 6:20PM

If any you abe read the letter he sent to the judge, you will see that J.T. is an inadept lawyer who has no professional prose. His letter reads as if it was written by a high schooler. No wonder he can't win a case, he can't even produce a lucid, well constructed counter arguement. His rebuttal reeks of a "oh, yeah? We'll you're wrong" mentality. And the judge talking to parents after the game has "sent kids to the grave" comment is flat out optomistic on J.T.'s part. If you read between the lines, he hopes that some person will die because of playing Bully just to prove him right. Now that's classy.

DarkTetsuya @ Oct 13th 2006 6:56PM

Surely by *NOW* Jackass is tired of losing... I wish he'd hurry up and retire (even if those poor Floridans wouldn't be rid of him)

Joel @ Oct 13th 2006 7:09PM

Yay! Bully is officially rated "Teen" now.

Score:

Gamers: 1
JT: 0

Attack Gypsy @ Oct 13th 2006 7:20PM

And here now, Take-Two's response to Jack Thompson, concering their stunning vitory in court today...

http://www.wsrockets.com/temppic/jacktomp.jpg

Tom @ Oct 13th 2006 7:57PM

Freedom is on the march.

DreGGs @ Oct 13th 2006 8:30PM

Me again, with my 2 cents...

I'm willing to bet that Jack doesn't "drop this" as he originally claimed to. Since in his eyes, this case isn't over. He will present this to a court of appeals, repeatedly until he gets a judgment in his favor.

What most of you are forgetting, is in his eyes, he has had huge success in this battle. Remember his "victory" in the "hot coffee" battle? He will always use that as a basis for all following litigations. Only difference between this current case and that one is that he had Hillary Clinton on his side.

I'm pleased to see how this all turned out (for now), I'm just not about to go giving off any sighs of relief. He has a stack of lawsuits in the wings ready to go, and trust me...he really doesn't have anything better to do (He has no credible clients, after all).

It's far too tempting to walk over to his offices (My firms office is but a few blocks east from his) and slap him silly. But then he'll blame my aggression on video games.

Matt @ Oct 13th 2006 9:05PM

To #20, and to Jack Thompson, simultaneously:

HA.HA.

Xquester @ Oct 13th 2006 9:35PM

To #12 - You are right, if the judge in fact intended to decide the whole case based on his viewing of the footage. But I don't think the judge had the authority to dispose of the case based on his viewing. I haven't followed the case closely enough, but it would be my guess that the judge was simply viewing the tape to see if there was even any likelihood that Jack Thompson could prevail on the merits as to whether the game constitutes a "public nuisance." If that the judge decided that Thompson had even a chance of winning, then he would issue a preliminary ruling stopping the game from release, but there would be a trial before any permanent order could be entered. Luckily, the judge seemed to think that there was not even a chance that Thompson could succeed at trial, so the case ended.