Last night we received word from Jack Thompson that the judge may issue a ruling on
Bully, the controversial video game, today in the Miami Dade district courthouse today at 1:30pm. Having followed the trial from day one, I will do my best to pop in and see how this exciting case concludes. At this time, all we know is that the estimated 100 hours of open-ended immersive gameplay previously was not deemed necessary by Judge Friedman. This is either a good thing or a bad thing -- did he decide on the spot that the game is no big deal, or did something set him off early on? We'll know in a little bit.
Alas, since the court won't be misering over the intricacies of this game depth over the weekend, my deadline to bring you part 2 of
my previous and extensive opus was just thrown out the window. Instead, here's the quick and dirty version:
-- presently live blogging this, refresh the page for updates --
Introductions
Jack Thompson kicked off the trial stating his position backs Miami Dade schoolboard's recommendation to prevent the sale of this game to students, calling the sale or facilitation of this game an interpretation of a civil nuisance because it (1) minimizes the gravity of school violence (2) allows students to rehearse revenge tactics in a Columbine-like setting, calling portions of the game play as a "get-even" game. He also sighted his experience in Alabama in the Grand Theft Auto hearings. He introduced his expert witnesses -- a man who's done extensive research in scholastic behavior, and the former Miami-Dade police chief who backs his decision calling it "a public safety hazard". Neither witnesses spoke much. The judge was pleased to see the chief. He concluded stating that Take-Two has only provided the game to favored press (held up last month's EGM, mentioned IGN) and have repeatedly denied critics to view the game.
Take-Two and Wal-Mart's defense team jumped on the Alabama reference before she even began her prepared statement.
Mrs Ward: "What you just said about Alabama was innacurate"
She then railed on Jack's (or anyone's) position to request the game as prior restraint and repeatedly referenced the First Ammendment. As an aside, I found some of the comments to be kind of dumbed down explanations of the ammendment and, unless this is common lawyer procedure, this probably also rubbed the judge the wrong way. This was all nervously delivered by Mrs. Rebecca Ward whom, in perhaps in other situations, would sound just fine, but it was a much less polished delivery than Jack's.
A moment of intensity: She also STRONGLY warned the court that they have no juristiction to Take-Two because they do not do business in the city of Miami -- they are NYC based. I found this to be the strongest part of her arguement, she was basically saying "Hey, you can't touch me." Lastly, she discussed that the nuisance thing was an unusual interpretation. Mr. Thompson offered a brief comeback and then the judge asked some questions about the game.
Judge: "Let me ask you something." He looks at Jack. "If this game received an M rating, would that be satisfactory to you?"
Jack Thompson explained that he preferred if it did, and then went on to discuss the failings of the ESRB system and the lack of processes in retail stores with Teen games, (as we discussed in better detail in our previous coverage) which seemed to frustrate the judge a bit. His face compressed when they discussed this. He interrupted with:
Judge: "Hypothetically speaking, if I get to see this game and it is the most awful violent bloody game ever created, do I or congress have the power to do anything about what the ESRB has rated it? DOES ANYBODY?"
Mrs. Ward: "The Federal Goverment does, I believe."
As noted in our prior court notes, he spoke more about retail procedures and children as young as 9 buying mature games, further explained his position about the commercial sale of the game as the nuisance, how the people that are concerned about it can't see the game. At some point in this speech he WHIPPED OUT A GIANT SLINGSHOT from his briefcase. Check our previous coverage for more details on that. He did it to show how deadly these things can be made, how fast and cheap they can be made, how easy it is to get them past security, and so on. The judge chuckled and said something about calling security. Everybody in the courthouse flipped out momentarily. We all moved in our seats and looked at each other with entertained faces.
then made a humorous comparison of the public's ability to fully understand the game to Richard Nixon's vietman plan -- "I've got an idea, but I'm not going to tell you what it is". Belly laughs erupted. On a sidenote, he was extremely well spoken and methodical. Even as I disagree, I found his position reasonable and enjoyed listening to him debate it. Weird feeling.
Mrs Ward's comeback was that nobody has established an imminent threat or connection and again went on at length about the first amendment, once again dumbing it down like she was reminding the court what it says. At this point did get pissed:
Judge: "I have a problem with your First Amendment defense. I love the first amendment, I should, it's my job, but I have a problem with how it's being thrown around. It doesn't let anyone do what they want." ... or something to that effect, my notes are craptacular at this point because they are talking fast back and forth and things are starting to get extremely heated. At some point he takes a long pause and says something nobody was expecting.
Judge: "I don't know how bad this game is, but I'm going to find out tomorrow."
At this point, he ordered Take-Two to produce the game no later than 3, denied the lengthy process they recommended to get there (as stated in previous notes) and the rest is history. This was two days ago.
Today, it is 1:07pm. I'm on my way to court.
--
What do you think is going to happen today in court? Please your comments below. More information can also be found on
GamePolitics.com
Contest:
11:52 AM on 10.13.2006
| 
