The Master

The assault on video games

Recommended Posts

She bought an M-rated game for her 14 year old grandson and wants to sue Rockstar over it. Fuck almighty!

Yeah, buddy. There's a reason the game is rated "M".

"M" is the equivalent of an "R" rating for a movie. (As if that means anything. I saw 10-year-olds walking out of "Freddy vs. Jason" a couple years ago.) And GTA:SA has warnings of the game's sexual content of the box!

Her lawyer should be disbarred for filing this lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While walking under a brick ceiling the other day, I jumped up and punched it as hard as I could, hoping that the bricks would shatter to reveal a huge gold coin. I wound up breaking my hand instead. I think I am going to sue Nintendo for making me think that is possible through all the times I have played Super Mario Brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While walking under a brick ceiling the other day, I jumped up and punched it as hard as I could, hoping that the bricks would shatter to reveal a huge gold coin. I wound up breaking my hand instead. I think I am going to sue Nintendo for making me think that is possible through all the times I have played Super Mario Brothers.

:respect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its all just leading up to the next Human Torch/H.e.r.b.i.e. fiasco

ten years from now there will be one for us to look back at and leak a little more soul down our pantleg of hindsight asininity of it all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete blog post:

My hand hurts.

While walking under a brick ceiling the other day, I jumped up and punched it as hard as I could, hoping that the bricks would shatter to reveal a huge gold coin. I wound up breaking my hand instead. I think I am going to sue Nintendo for making me think that is possible through all the times I have played Super Mario Brothers. I deserve compensation for my medical bills, pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages.

The above story is fiction, but I hope it illustrates the absurdity of a cop-killer who is arguing that he was influenced to murder police officers by playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. (GTA: SA is the fifth game in the GTA series, after the wildly popular Grand Theft Auto III spun off Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and San Andreas.)

I have not played any of the GTA series, but this is how I understand it works. As you commit crimes in the course of the missions you are asked to complete, you become higher on the "most wanted" list. If you choose to commit especially heinous crimes (like killing police officers) your level goes up and the game becomes more difficult. In short, you are punished for taking things too far because you become a high priority target for arrest or death. Those who are saying that players are rewarded for killing cops are either lying or uninformed.

This, of course, is not new. A decade ago, video game critics claimed that the goal of the Sega CD game Night Trap was to kill the young women in an old house. This was not true. The player's goal was to save the women. If the women died, the player either intentionally failed or was not good enough to stop the monsters. Critics of Night Trap were either uninformed or lying.

But there is more to the controversy surrounding GTA: SA. An 85-year-old woman named Florence Cohen is suing the makers of GTA: SA because of recent revelations that players can access more graphic sexual content through an Internet download. She bought the game for her 14-year-old grandson.

There are two problems with Cohen's complaint. First, GTA: SA is rated "M", meaning that no one under 17 should be playing the game. "M" is the equivalent of an "R" rating for a movie. (Not that an "R" rating means anything anyway; I observed pre-teens walking out after a showing of the horror flick Freddy vs. Jason.) Second, GTA: SA already had warnings for the sexual content of the game, before the most recent controversy erupted.

Cohen' lawsuit should be dismissed by the judge and her attorney should be disbarred for abusing the legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Groups Sue to Overturn Video Game Curbs

By MAY WONG

SAN JOSE, Calif. - Two trade groups representing video game makers filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to overturn the recently passed California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The Video Software Dealers Association and Entertainment Software Association contend the law is unconstitutional and violates First Amendment free speech rights, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose. The suit names Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the bill earlier this month, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and other local officials.

The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, bans retailers from selling or renting violent video games to those 17 and under, imposes a $1,000 fine on violators and mandates stricter product labeling. It is similar to legislation that other states passed earlier this year after hidden sex scenes were discovered in a popular game, "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

Public complaints also spurred a Federal Trade Commission investigation and a new rating for the "San Andreas" game from "M" for mature to "AO" for adults only.

Schwarzenegger defended the law, saying it helped parents determine which video games were appropriate for their children.

"I believe strongly that we must give parents the tools to help them protect their children," the governor said in a statement. "I will do everything in my power to preserve this new law and I urge the attorney general to mount a vigorous defense of California's ability to prevent the sale of these games to children."

The industry groups, which have similar court cases pending in Illinois and Michigan, equated the California law to "content-based censorship" in its latest lawsuit. "Video games are a form of artistic expression much like other forms of protected expression, such as movies, books and music," the lawsuit said.

Industry representatives say they are confident the California law will fail to survive the legal challenge as federal courts have struck down similar statutes in recent years.

"It is not up to any industry or the government to set standards for what kids can see or do; that is the role of parents," said Douglas Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, we had several "lawmakers are trying to destroy video games" threads going, so I merged all of them into one pinned thread. The only ones I didn't merge were threads that were specific to one game (RE: GTA:SA, Bully), because those had a slightly different focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Reminds me of a something similar I saw on the Bloodtear forums. As soon as the forums are up again I'll have to post a link to it. I believe the name of the thread was something like "Jack Thompson is a douche"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it is.

Well the issue of educating parents on what they are buying their kids is something that should be considered this is not the way to do it:

http://aelon.net/2005/07/jack-thompson-straw-man/

http://keepyourkillingclean.blogspot.com/2...douche-bag.html

This guy is hurting the people that want to do something productive by giving the gaming industry cannon fodder to use as an easy escape. All he cares about is the free air time and the money he makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew that Jack was hugely misinformed and not as elequent as a lawyer should be, but after reading those reply's from him, I find he reminds me of those people online who act like little kids when you try to tell them something.

YOU: Hey, try not to rush in next time, OK?

THEM: NO, u r teh n00b!!1!

I mean, who responds to a list of interview questions with "kiss the gaming industry goodbye,"

As a side note, I wonder if this is really Jack Thompson replying to these. He could be plotting some evil scheme where he passes out his email address to everyone, collects all the hate mail and then send crude, unintelligable responses to thoughtful emails to get more hate mail. He then releases them all to the media, but first switching his moronic replies with something smart. I wouldn't put it past him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Zephyr, it wouldn't really work. The people have posted all of this stuff on the Internet, and it could easily be verified that their information is correct, through email servers and what not.

I don't know if it's Jack answering all of these emails anyway. How does he have the time if he's actually working on his case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it was pretty outlandish. Anyway, its good to see a story from our side. And one that shows a good aspect of gaming. The guy uses games as a way to do things he normally can't do, and he came out and said it. Here is cold hard proof that games do good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From IGN:

Jack Thompson Withdraws from GTA Case

Controversial attorney recuses himself amid ethics allegations.

by Wade Steel

November 8, 2005 - Controversial Miami-based attorney Jack Thompson has withdrawn from an Alabama lawsuit amid allegations that he violated legal ethics rules.

The lawsuit, Strickland vs. Sony, was filed against retailers and publishers of the Grand Theft Auto series. Thompson had previously been representing the case's plaintiffs -- the families of a pair of police officers and a police dispatcher who were murdered by Devin Moore, who claimed that the GTA games helped "train" him to kill. Moore was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death.

Thompson's withdrawl follows a motion by filed by Blank Rome, the defendents' law firm, that Thompson be removed from the case as well as have his license to practice law in Alabama revoked for ethical lapses such as "attacking and threatening" the Blank Rome attorneys as well as accusing the firm of conspiracy. According to Blank Rome's Jim Smith, Thompson "[couldn't] proceed with the civility the rules require. All lawyers have to conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and civility. This isn't a street fight."

Thompson spent much of last Thursday defending his conduct in front of Judge James Moore, the case's presiding judge who also presided over the criminal trial of Devin Moore (no relation). When Judge Moore asked Thompson to explain some of the statements made in the press releases, Thompson replied, "I'm not pretending I'm not a nice guy. I'm not pretending I don't have a temper."

The exchange between Judge Moore and Thompson continued when the judge asked the attorney why he was engaging in such public behavior against the defendents' law firm. In Thompson replied that after the criminal trial, Judge Moore indicated that he could "have at it." The judge retorted that "your [meaning Thompson's] 'have at it' and my 'have at it' are not the same." It should be noted that Judge Moore had imposed a "gag order" on both sides in the case since the conclusion of the criminal trial last August.

At the conclusion of last Thursday's proceedings, Judge Thompson stated that he would take Blank Rome's motion to revoke Thompson's license under advisement and is also considering a motion to have the entire suit dismissed via summary judgment because it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Judge Moore scheduled no further court dates for the case at the conclusion of last Thursday's proceedings.

With the threat of disbarrment in Alabama looming, Thompson decided to remove himself from the case because "the other side wants to make me the issue." Thompson stated that there are three other attorneys working on the case and that it will proceed without him on the trial team.

Needless to say, we will keep you closely informed of any further developments in this very important case as they happen.

While I'm sure someone will take his place, I doubt they'll get the kind of media coverage he got. I just wish now that places like 60 Minutes who gave him a national outlet to voice his campaign make mention of this. I doubt they will though, heaven forbid we be fair to video game makers about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the threat of disbarrment in Alabama looming, Thompson decided to remove himself from the case because "the other side wants to make me the issue."

Right, 'cause he hadn't already made it about himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear to God, from now on they need to call ad hominem attacks "Thompsoning someone". What a douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
his license to practice law in Alabama revoked for ethical lapses such as "attacking and threatening" the Blank Rome attorneys as well as accusing the firm of conspiracy.

Nice to see him getting in trouble for being a jackass. I can just see him telling the Blank Rome attorneys that they have half a frontal lobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IEMA Reaction Statement to Michigan Injunction

"Although it was anticipated, we were very pleased to learn that Judge Steeh granted the preliminary injunction to block Michigan's violent video game law from taking effect on December 1st. While the matter is far from settled, our members can begin the always-important holiday selling season knowing that we will not be placed in the position of trying to discern which games may or may not run afoul of the law. We remain supportive of the industry's self-regulatory efforts and our members are committed to partnering with and empowering parents. It is unfortunate that valuable time has been wasted with political opportunism rather than working proactively with the industry to educate consumers. Perhaps with this knowledge and foreshadowing, we will cease squandering resources and focus our collective efforts on working together."

-Hal Halpin, president, IEMA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.