digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Jack Thompson Ruling! - Judge will NOT prohibit the sale of Bully

destructoid.com — Destructoid's man in the courtroom has just told us the verdict - Bully will not be prohibited. More details coming later.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 13, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

80 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • neoform, on 10/12/2007, -1/+94Thompson said "This is a major victory" a few days ago..

    *Waits for Thompson's victory speech*

    ...

    *keeps waiting*

    That's right bitch.
  • cal01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+78Instead of "Suck it, Trebek!" we should have "Suck it, Thompson!"
  • Falken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+76Finally, common sense prevails.

    The power to regulate content viewable by children should continue to rest primarily in the hands of parents.
  • latova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+64Part 1: http://www.destructoid.com/my-afternoon-with-jack-thompson-part-1
    Quote Jack Thompson: "Look, I’m a sensible guy. If it turns out that I’m completely wrong about this game and there’s nothing to it, I’ll be the first to say I was wrong and all of this will go away."

    Part 2: (this article)
    "...at one point, the judge had to ask Mr. Thompson to sit down. Thompson was saying to the judge that this is not just a hearing, and was complaining that he didn’t get to actually sit down and play the game."


    So much for being a sensible guy.
  • Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+54If they blocked the sale of this game they might as well have started blocking the Simpsons from prime time TV. The kid in the game does pretty much the same stuff as Bart would at his school.
  • carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29every time you agree with jack tompson, god kills a kitten.

    please think of the kittens....
  • techwrekfix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28I do not need some self appointed prick to tell me what games my son should or should not be playing. I play with him and he's smart enough to know it's not real. I think Jack Thompson was molested by a out of control ping machine as a kid.
  • VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28@steelmaverick

    *Offer limited to designated Free Speech Zones.
  • hotsoda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29(Insert anti-Jack Thompson comment here)
  • gweedo767, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24good? nope, not enough!

    Jack Thompson kills kittens.
  • Cander, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"Thompson should read a little document called the "Bill of Rights"

    1. Freedom of Speech.
    Freedom - Do what you want.
    Speech - What you say.
    Freedom of Speech - Say what the F-U-C-K you want, when you want, where you want."

    Not to take away from what you are saying but you really outta take your own advice and read the Bill of Rights. Your definition of Freedom of speech is not what the Bill of rights protects.
  • MobbyG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Jack should have been trying to talk to the ESRB and have them rework the standards by which they rated games and left it up to parents to decide what is best for kids. But if it took a judge to show him how wrong he is, then so be it!

    $5 says that little quote about him dropping it was BS.
  • Aazlain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Interestingly enough, the game will probably sell more copies now than it would have if Mr Thompson hadn't brought this to court. Zealots often are the worst enemies of their own cause.
  • LordSkippy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"Thompson ... was complaining that he didn’t get to actually sit down and play the game."

    Hmmmm, maybe JT is really a hard core gamer, and all these law suits are really just a cover for what he really wants: to play the games for free and before anyone else.
  • fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16C'mon man... if I don't have the government telling me how I can or cannot raise my children and if something goes wrong with their social development, I could be blamed.

    Get with the program.

    /sarcasm
  • neoform, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15jack thompson's a pathetic loser. (good?)
  • TrainwreckX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Is Jack Thompson a hired hand for Take 2? All he does is helps them sell more games, yet I never see him come against a game like Saint's Row (20 times worse than GTA in my opinion). What gives? How come only Rockstar? Something very suspicious about this...
  • phase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Jack Thompson fails at life?
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Jack Thompson is a lawyer.
  • ShooterMcGavin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Agent: Now, when I say, "Hello, Mr. Thompson," and press down on your foot, you smile and nod.
    Homer: No problem.
    Agent: Hello, Mr. Thompson! (presses on Homer's foot)
    Homer: (whispers to other agent) I think he's talking to you.
  • Cylus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Does Thompson actually have a following? Seems to me that he's a complete failure that just happens to make a lot of noise.
  • toasty168, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13How about you turn off the TV? Or better yet, get rid of it.
  • bookishboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Thompson's goal in here was not only to get the game banned, which he could not have done.... but also to set a precedent which subjects creative content (videogames) to judicial review.

    Since the judge ordered Rockstar/Take-Two to produce the game, and since they bowed down, Jack Thompson now has this precedent.

    I'm so disappointed in Take-Two. They've been hit financially pretty hard lately, but they should have refused the judges orders with a statement something like:

    "Take-Two entertainment respectfully refuses the order to produce the game to this court for inspection and review. The presiding judge in this case is judicially incorrect in issuing this order, for two reasons. First, the game is not yet released. It is not in final form, and any material that might be viewed is subject to change. This court cannot reach an informed decision on the content of an unfinished/unreleased product. Second, our creative content (the game) is not subject to judicial review in order to be released. We would be happy to provide a copy, and equipment to use it, free of charge, once the game is publicly available. Had the judge requested that we provide a playable version of the game, we likely would have. Ordering us to provide the game in playable form, before it is released, puts us, and the entire videogame industry, in an untenable position.... of being subject to judicial rulings in whether we can release our content at all. This is unacceptable and an overreach of the judge's powers, and therefore we refuse the order as legally invalid."
  • DBiz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Couldn't agree more Falken.

    The responsibility also lies in the hands of re-sellers in the form of checking ID and/or having a parent's consent when buying a certain game.

    These two things = no more Jack Thompson.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15They should not have turned over the game to the judge.

    The only reason to show the judge before it ships is to allow the judge to prohibit sale of it. And the government is not allowed to exercise prior restraint, so it would be unconstutional for him to prohibit sale of it.

    I would never have shown it to him, ESPECIALLY if I knew he wouldn't find it objectionable.

    This is a bad precedent.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9After release is not prior restraint.

    And yes, I know I would have gone to jail until my appeal of being jailed for not letting the government quash my distribution before I even published it.

    The Constitution is worth sacrificing a few days in jail over.
  • violentvinyl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11He's absolutely right, the win here is for Thompson. This is one step further towards taking the right to decide away from parents and giving that right to the government.

    WE CANNOT LET THE GOVERNMENT DEFINE OUR MORALS FOR US.

    This is why we have the ESRB, they review game content and decide on a rating, so that parents may decide whether or not their children should be playing a particular game. It's not the courts responsibility to do this, nor should it be.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Jack just wants to save us from ourselves. What a noble guy!
  • larchoye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Censorship is the purest form of evil.
  • oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Destructoid is getting slow.

    http://www.duggmirror.com/gaming_news/Jack_Thompson_Ruling_Judge_will_NOT_prohibit_the_sale_of_Bully/
  • ynggrsshppr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9No one wants a lawyer that plays video games 24/7. It is the perfect cover. You can get your cake and eat it too.

    I mean, who cares enough to try and start a wild crusade against video games anyway? Your theory is the only logical conclusion.

    *strokes chin and nods in agreement*
  • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Disbarred. The word you're looking for is Disbarred.
  • kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -0/+7@Cander,

    Unfortunately, that's a very common misconception that people have. steelmaverick is only one of many.
  • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The judge would find you in contempt of court.

    They didn't have a choice. It was hand over the game, or jail. You can't just tell a judge 'no, I won't do it!'.
  • TexasCanuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm a game developer for a prominent Dallas-based company, and it saddens me that it has come to this; judges reviewing games before they are allowed to be marketted for sale.

    Can someone kindly answer me... WHAT the ***** is going ON in this country ?!
  • Nomad83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why is it that people do not have to play the actual game, hear the actual music, or watch the offending program to file complaints. I thought there has to be actual damages for a hearing. This is ridiculous, plain and simple. That said, this judge, by actually asking to see the game has gone far beyond his peers in the application of common sense.
  • cprincipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Time to send Jack some more flowers?
  • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Finally, common sense prevails."

    It's funny you say that. I've always perceived the courts of our nation as the "gut" or the "common sense." I guess that would make the congress the mouth and the white house would be... well, the anus.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes. The White House IS the anus of common sense. Well put.
  • beatmonger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Score one for the Constitution!
  • zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Next up, Thompson sues judge and the courts.
  • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Insert generic "don't direct link to duggmiror blah blah referrers blah blah" snide comment here.
  • Kinsbane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ dargon:
    Sure, why bother fighting for the respectability and accountability of the industry you've invested so heavily in? It only puts food on the table for you and only gets people to invest in you, as well. What a stupid idea.
  • WhereAmI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5He will probably say the cheat code that was used censored the game, and the judge will sit down and play the whole game, and then the same ruling. Then JT will try and get another judge on the case.
  • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Simply calling someone a communist these days is an auto-fail. Try harder next time :(
  • thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4that's great, but what about the real question: why is a judge even allowed to make a decision about something like this?
  • MobbyG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ooooo Burn! But, thanks for playing Jack. Vanna? What lovely parting gifts do we have for Jack?

    ::Insert Wink Martindale Smile::
  • Ascus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Now what about Jack bringing a deadly weapon into the courtroom, and re-embersment of Take-Twos expenses for his frivoulous lawsuit?
  • nzknzknzk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Thats exactly what I wanted to say. I cant stand people who think they can curse you off or be racist to you because of "freedom of speech"
  • protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Developers should start making Wacko-Jacko Bait

    For example you create a puzzle game where you have to move a square around then you call it "The B.D.S.M. Game" (rated E for Everyone) you don't let anyone outside the company know that B.D.S.M. stands for "Benevolently Daft Square Moving".

    Upon hearing the acronym title and rating Jack will sue without thinking. At trial Jack will be made into a laughing-stock and maybe even get a contempt citation.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.