Video games Back in the US dock.

[Zac Naloen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3104892.stm

Mr Thompson said if manufacturers wanted to keep selling violent games to children, they should be prepared for the consequences he believes repeated playing can have on young and impressionable minds.

This quote here already shows his cases major weakness... the game has an 18 rating or whatever the US equivalent is... it wasn't marketed for kids, something tells me he lost before he has even gotten started.

[RedImperator]

He's hoping for a jury so he can throw "expert" testimony at them and appeal to their emotions. It doesn't matter. Even if he finds a jury soft-headed enough to actually rule in his favor, the appeals court will throw it out for lack of evidence.

[Joe]

Screw-fucked statistics are always helpful in this kind of thing, too.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Yup,

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's really too bad. I wonder what the world was like before violent video games, and movies started making people kill each other. Imagine a world with no violence....it must have been heaven back then.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I say it should be the parent's responsibility, not the video game industry's. If someone's 10 year-old son wants to buy Grand Theft Auto, shouldn't common sense tell them to say no?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I say it should be the parent's responsibility, not the video game industry's. If someone's 10 year-old son wants to buy Grand Theft Auto, shouldn't common sense tell them to say no?

Common sense is a rare quality today.

[Jadeite]

Mr Thompson said he will file his petition in Tennessee soon, and that he hopes to have a result by this time next year. He said he hoped that punitive damages "in eight figures" would be ordered.

Well, we now know his motivation.

[neoolong]

He's hoping for a jury so he can throw "expert" testimony at them and appeal to their emotions. It doesn't matter. Even if he finds a jury soft-headed enough to actually rule in his favor, the appeals court will throw it out for lack of evidence.

There was a guy convicted of selling adult comics to an undercover police officer. And yes, the officer was an adult.

The prosecuter's argument was that evidence doesn't matter and that common sense says that comics are for kids and therefore he's guilty of distributing adult material to kids.

I haven't heard of it being overturned yet.

[Alyeska]

He's hoping for a jury so he can throw "expert" testimony at them and appeal to their emotions. It doesn't matter. Even if he finds a jury soft-headed enough to actually rule in his favor, the appeals court will throw it out for lack of evidence.

There was a guy convicted of selling adult comics to an undercover police officer. And yes, the officer was an adult.

The prosecuter's argument was that evidence doesn't matter and that common sense says that comics are for kids and therefore he's guilty of distributing adult material to kids.

I haven't heard of it being overturned yet.

Appeals court turned him down as did SCOTUS.

[Durandal]

Screw-fucked statistics are always helpful in this kind of thing, too.

Here's a fun statistic. Less than 0.0001% of players of violent video games go on shooting rampages at their schools or commit violent crimes.

[neoolong]

He's hoping for a jury so he can throw "expert" testimony at them and appeal to their emotions. It doesn't matter. Even if he finds a jury soft-headed enough to actually rule in his favor, the appeals court will throw it out for lack of evidence.

There was a guy convicted of selling adult comics to an undercover police officer. And yes, the officer was an adult.

The prosecuter's argument was that evidence doesn't matter and that common sense says that comics are for kids and therefore he's guilty of distributing adult material to kids.

I haven't heard of it being overturned yet.

Appeals court turned him down as did SCOTUS.

Wait, is that the appeals court turned down the defendant?

[Rubberanvil]

Appeals court turned him down as did SCOTUS.

Wait, is that the appeals court turned down the defendant?

Yes the appeals court did turn down the defendant.


Knock it off with the huge quotes ~ Stormbringer

[Darth Wong]

Screw-fucked statistics are always helpful in this kind of thing, too.

Here's a fun statistic. Less than 0.0001% of players of violent video games go on shooting rampages at their schools or commit violent crimes.

The fact that violent video games are just as popular in Japan and Canada as they are in the US is also an interesting statistic, given the much lower murder rates. It's amazing how the right-wing in the US is always trying to ban or marginalize movies, music, or videogames for containing violence, but has no problem whatsoever with the Bible being promoted in the halls of government, even though it contains outright genocide.

[Illuminatus Primus]

He's hoping for a jury so he can throw "expert" testimony at them and appeal to their emotions. It doesn't matter. Even if he finds a jury soft-headed enough to actually rule in his favor, the appeals court will throw it out for lack of evidence.

There was a guy convicted of selling adult comics to an undercover police officer. And yes, the officer was an adult.

The prosecuter's argument was that evidence doesn't matter and that common sense says that comics are for kids and therefore he's guilty of distributing adult material to kids.

I haven't heard of it being overturned yet.

Appeals court turned him down as did SCOTUS.

What a load of bullshit.

[RedImperator]

He's hoping for a jury so he can throw "expert" testimony at them and appeal to their emotions. It doesn't matter. Even if he finds a jury soft-headed enough to actually rule in his favor, the appeals court will throw it out for lack of evidence.

There was a guy convicted of selling adult comics to an undercover police officer. And yes, the officer was an adult.

The prosecuter's argument was that evidence doesn't matter and that common sense says that comics are for kids and therefore he's guilty of distributing adult material to kids.

I haven't heard of it being overturned yet.

I'm aware of that case. This one is different. The comic book case hinged on obscenity laws, by their nature subjective (and unconstitutional, but we'll save that for another time). The prosecutor essentially argued that even though he wasn't selling to kids directly, comic books by nature are intended to be sold to kids. According to him, it would be like packaging cigarettes with Barney on the front--even if there's no evidence you sold to minors, the product itself was targeted at kids.

In this case, what you have is the plaintiff claiming that the makers of the game were part of the chain of responsibility that lead to the death of the victim. He has to prove that Rockstar Games knew or should have known its product would lead certain individuals to this kind of violence, but went ahead and marketed the game anyway. He has to prove something more concrete than "intending to market porn to children", and the statistics simply don't bear that out.

On top of that, there's national and international precedent for dismissing suits like this, including a virtually identical suit brought by this same attorney in a neighboring state. He said himself in the article that he wants a jury trial so he can make an appeal directly to citizens (who will be far less well versed in law than a judge).

This guy is obviously on some kind of personal crusade--the last paragraph of the article said that he's looking into a case in another state where a sleepwalking boy stabbed a relative to death, apparently after having played Diablo. He's not interested in the law or even collecting a huge chunk of an even bigger settlement fee, otherwise he would have abandoned this years ago, as it's fairly clear he's not going to get a ruling in his favor.

Oh, just so you know: I hate that comic book case. It's a travesty of justice by a showboating prosecutor and puritanical judge, followed by appeals courts and SCOTUS refusing to step up because they don't want to meddle in obscenity cases.

[Joe]

I'm aware of that case. This one is different. The comic book case hinged on obscenity laws, by their nature subjective (and unconstitutional, but we'll save that for another time).

Current legal standards allow for regulation of obscenity by state governments, unfortunately.

[Axis Kast]

Obscenity, violence, and abusive lyrics do have an effect on this nation's - and, I'd submit, the world's - young people.

While I'm willing to admit that the adverse affects of media affect primarily those whose parents fail them in the first place, govenrments are often unable to deal with that aspect of the situation and must thus seek regulation as the second best but ultimately "better than nothing" alternative.

[RedImperator]

Obscenity, violence, and abusive lyrics do have an effect on this nation's - and, I'd submit, the world's - young people.

While I'm willing to admit that the adverse affects of media affect primarily those whose parents fail them in the first place, govenrments are often unable to deal with that aspect of the situation and must thus seek regulation as the second best but ultimately "better than nothing" alternative.

Less than .0001% of the people who play violent video games, which in this case are being held as DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the shootings, go on to commit these kinds of acts. There's precisely zero statistical proof that depictions of violence in the media lead young people or anyone else to commit violent acts. The state has no basis or justification for creating new regulation, and we're not even considering the Constitutional issues at this point.

[neoolong]

snip

Actually, my point was that you can't always rely on the appeals court to overturn a stupid decision.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

If I game has an M rating, it´s not being marketed to children. You can´t hold rockstar responsible for the children who played GTA any more than you can hold New Line Cinema responsible for the children who watched Freddy v. Jason (a movie which by it´s fantastical and "versus" nature appeals to minors), an R rated movie. Open and shut. Any decision other than "open and shut" is hysterics and a disgrace to the justice system, the human race and basic morality. Persecuting something you do not have the right to believe (no good evidence) is bad is highly immoral and these anti-videogame crusaders should be pushed into New York traffic.

[RedImperator]

snip

Actually, my point was that you can't always rely on the appeals court to overturn a stupid decision.

I understand that, but in this case my confidence in the appeals court is justified. Assuming the judge doesn't dismiss the case immediately or the jury doesn't laugh him and his clients out of court.

[Typhonis 1]

[quote="Arthur_Tuxedo" ] is highly immoral and these anti-videogame crusaders should be pushed into New York traffic.[/quote]

New York Motorists dont need the greif that would cause Arthur

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Grief my ass! It'll be like those squishy stress heads except... you know... squishier.

[Axis Kast]

Less than .0001% of the people who play violent video games, which in this case are being held as DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the shootings, go on to commit these kinds of acts. There's precisely zero statistical proof that depictions of violence in the media lead young people or anyone else to commit violent acts. The state has no basis or justification for creating new regulation, and we're not even considering the Constitutional issues at this point.

Did I say that media should be held directly responsible? No. I did no such thing.

You cannot deny however that the profusion of base images in popular culture impact the minds of children exposed to them. Without proper moderation by a source of adult authority - a parent or caretaker -, it isn't a stretch to suggest that many people might be desensitized.