That pesky first amendment
I'm smarter than Jack Thompson
Judge doesn't object to video game `Bully'
A judge said that although he wouldn't want his children to play the video game Bully, it shouldn't be banned.
BY BRIDGET CAREY
After previewing the controversial video game Bully, a circuit court judge in Miami-Dade County said the game is not violent enough for him to prevent it from being sold to minors.
''There's a lot of violence,'' Judge Ronald Friedman said in court Friday. ``A whole lot. Less than we see on television every night.''
In the PlayStation 2 game, available in stores Tuesday, the characters are bullied school children who can fight back by becoming bullies themselves through the use of violence, including using such weapons as slingshots. Guns are not used in the game.
Friedman said it wasn't bad enough to merit taking action: ``Does that mean I would want my children to view it? No. But does it rise to a point that its a nuisance? The answer is no from what I saw.''
Coral Gables attorney Jack Thompson, outspoken critic of violent games, filed a complaint in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court against Take-Two, the game's publisher, as well as Wal-Mart and GameStop. Take-Two owns Bully's label, Rockstar Games, the makers of the Grand Theft Auto series.
Thompson said the game, rated for ages 13 and up, shouldn't be sold to minors, calling it a ``Columbine simulator.''
''You did not see the game,'' Thompson told Friedman at Friday's hearing. ``You don't even know what it was you saw.''
It doesn't matter. Thompson would have ultimately lost and been lucky to have not had to pay Rockstar's fees, as the State of Illinois is doing after their unconstitional video game ban.
What is unclear about the First Amendment? Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. Ok.
posted by Steve @ 10:12:00 AM