Login:
Password:

Florida Judge Declines to Ban 'Bully'

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

October 13, 2006, 3:21 PM

According to reporters for the blog Destructoid attending a hearing in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Judge Ronald Freeman sampled for two hours the soon-to-be-released Rockstar game for PlayStation 2, Bully, and has decided against prohibition of its sale in the state of Florida.

The reporter on the scene said Judge Freeman indicated that he saw nothing so particularly violent about this specific game that would merit its shipment being blocked. "There's nothing in the game that you wouldn't see on TV every night," he remarked.

Destructoid also noted that the judge had to admonish prosecutor Jack Thompson, who apparently protested vehemently, including for the fact that he himself didn't get a turn, or at least enough of one.

The judge reportedly told Thompson at length that he did get his turn; and in an e-mail to the Web site GamePolitics.com earlier today, Thompson said he actually did get a chance to play.

Thompson had filed suit against two retailers, GameStop and Wal-Mart, as part of a broader measure to stop the sale of Bully in Florida on the grounds that it violated the state's public nuisance law. It would appear only a few formalities remain before that suit is effectively dismissed.

Add a Comment (37 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Jaquio

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 3:43 PM

What is the matter with Jack Thompson?... Im sorry for his kids... they have to spend time playing Animal Crossing... lol

Score: 0

By aygol

edited Oct 15, 2006 - 5:40 PM

Thank you Judge Ronald Freidman (not Freeman), you did your best.
Bully is Coming...

Score: 0

By Wybaar

edited Oct 14, 2006 - 10:11 PM

I think we should get Jack Thomson a consolation prize. I think this would be particularly appropriate:

http://www.zestuff.com/tshirts/gamer/13/

Score: 0

By Tallest_Blue

edited Oct 14, 2006 - 6:12 PM

Will Jack Thompson ever stop his insane quest to ban violent content in games? He is a negative influence on our children as his actions are that of an overpaid, pompous windbag that I would not like future generations to emulate.

Score: 0

By Buffo

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 3:16 PM

...

While the State has a vested interest in
protecting the morals of it's citizens, it
ought always intercede at the most expedient
level.

Invoking a "public nuisance" law was pretty
dubious at best !

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Score: 0

By Todd 13

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 1:13 PM

That's pretty disappointing. This game is stupid anyway, and there's really no reason anyone should even buy it. It's almost as retarded as GTA. Rockstar really makes lame a** games.

Score: 0

By tankist

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 3:43 PM

don't like it - don't play it.

GTA dumb? well maybe but it is hellotof fun to!

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 11:07 AM

thats why gta sold millions of copies right? moron.

Score: 0

By QQ

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 2:24 PM

either that, or you're really lame a** gamer anyway.

Score: 0

By lovesflsun

edited Oct 14, 2006 - 12:57 PM

Well, la de da.... Another game deemed to violent for kids. They can get all their fixes at ogrish.com, snuff-x.com and stileproject.com (great sites, by the way!) Let's waste/spend our time on something else that matters!! Like fighting a REAL war.. Like Iraq!!

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 10:30 AM

Well, Bully for him!

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 8:26 AM

Thompson got "pwned".

Score: 0

By Keith Lard

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 4:48 AM

The real news, is that there is a judge, who can apply common sense.

Whilst it's not really a game I would be interested in, I am pleased Rockstar won this case.

Score: 0

By darkzero63

posted Oct 15, 2006 - 5:49 AM

Im surprised a judge even knows how to turn on a playstation at all.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

edited Oct 16, 2006 - 11:28 AM

he prolly has kids... they teach parents that kind of stuff, consequently he probably protects his children from games like this. If the parent cannot take that responibility then they do not deserve to have children. It isn't the governments problem to keep content like this away from children, it is the parents. if the children get exposed to this kind of stuff, then the government needs to take action at the root level with social services, not through banning games. The rest of us and the children should not be punished the irresponable parent should.

Score: 0

By hesh

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 9:43 PM

This is a great ruling. Thompson needs to learn that not all video games are violent and he needs to play them before he starts randomly suing retailers.

He's quickly becoming the biggest ****ing retard of all time.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 11:12 AM

behind tipper gore and hilary clinton you mean?

Score: 0

By itanshi

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:50 PM

lmao "MY TURN WAAAA"

x_x sheesh, we need bumper stickers with pacman on it "Barred Yet?"

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:35 PM

This guy should be censured by the Florida Bar. It's pathetic that a guy would grandstand like this. "We must ban this, for the children."

If anything, this might teach kids that are getting bullied how to fight back a little. What's wrong with that?

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 12:10 AM

If anything, this might teach kids that are getting bullied how to fight back a little. What's wrong with that?

Please, oh please tell me that was a joke.

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:27 PM

'"There's nothing in the game that you wouldn't see on TV every night," he remarked.'

This point needs to be emphasized.

Score: 0

By The-One

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 5:28 PM

THANK YOU!

Oh, and while we're at it, commercials during Sunday afternoon football games need to be examined as well. I'm sick and tired of telling my kids to look away at the s*** they show during football games!

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 7:52 PM

yes, there should be a law against having our sensibilities offended!!

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 6:38 AM

Yes, how dare a responsible parent have to put up with his/her child being exposed to certain material before the parent deems the child ready for the exposure. That's not arguing for a law: that's arguing for some decency during popular TV so as to allow a parent to do his/her job.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to argue for greater parental involvement and control of a child's exposure to certain media (such as games), but then belittle that parent for attempting to actually do so?

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 12:43 PM

I'm not belittling parents for trying to do their duty. The parent that covers their child's eyes, or *gasp* changes the channel is doing their job. The parents "getting tired of it" and asking for laws are looking for a way to shirk their responsibilities by limiting what everyone else can watch.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 2:21 PM

din ding!

We have a winner.

*yawn*

Man, I'm so sick of you people. Telling me I have to teach my children right from wrong. What the hell do I toss them on that big yellow bus for every morning? What are my Tax dollars for, if not to protect my children from themselves. It's not like they could possibly know any better. They can't read minds. I sure didn't tell them.

Of course, the first person I see telling my children that something they do or think is wrong, I'll bust a cap in his ass.

/sarcasm.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Oct 16, 2006 - 3:22 PM

???
I followed the sarcasm up to that last sentence. Then I thought that was serious...I would've intended it to be (if a bit of hyperbole)...if I had or wanted children.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 4:49 PM

The whole thing.

Full-on sarcasm.

Had it turned all the way up this morning.

Hurt like hell.

Score: 0

By kronix2

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 11:23 PM

Like the indecency laws which were invoked after Nipplegate?

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:16 PM

Thompson: Waaaa, I didn't get to play!

Score: 0

By elitegangsta

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:16 PM

Thompson needs to get a life. Sounds to me like he is upset because he did not get to play, rather then the game actually having an issue. Lets face it, without violence and sex, the U.S. has nothing :) Also the fact the game is not based on actual violence and killing, thrown in a completely different direction (if anyone has even read a review on this) from GTA. It's harmless fun.

Score: 0

By Tallest_Blue

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 6:20 PM

It's more of a case of Jack's big head. He thinks he's the great crusader against the Satan that is Rockstar. Anything they make he will fight in the streets while shouting "Look at me, I know what's best FOR AMERICA". He basically slapped the judge in the face saying "You are not the authority in this court room, I should be making this decision!"

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 5:28 PM

he does have a life, i'm usre Take Two pays him well for all this positive publicity .)

Score: 0

By daq

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 5:49 PM

Excellent comment :-)

Score: 0

By Das mod

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 3:53 PM

if people have had the nerve to shoot the president and the pope, why not shoot Thompson ??

Score: 0

By ptksr

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 11:29 PM

I totally would have, but I was busy killing hookers and cops in San Andreas to get around to it.

Score: 0

By plague201

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 3:44 PM

Thompsons a tard.

Score: 0