Another San Andreas Lawsuit - Illinois

[ZeroNightmare]

this is like sueing valve/sierra whatever because some1 made a 'naked' model for halflife and i downloaded it and replaced gordon

 

[tolore]

In any case.. There are no real connections between violence in the media, and violence in today's youth. Like a certain moderator once said, the media sensationalizes isolated cases in order to get better ratings. But today's youth are quite docile compared to previous generations who didn't have video games, or movies at home.

interesting fact youth violent crimes are actually down compared to before violent video games were coming out. Thats right, the generation that video games is ruining is actually less violent than the older generations.

 

[Kasey]

Violence is ok in video games but there has to be a line. I mean killing cops? Is really really bad. If they took violence out of it completely though we wouldnt have ANY games except we'd all be playing "charlie and the chocolate factory" or something *** like that. Would you rather get a girl pregnant or kill someone? I mean honestly sex isnt nearly as bad as killing people. DO you get arrested for sex (other than rape)? NO do you get arrested for killing (even if the person wants you to kill them)? OF COURSE YOU DO. The lady should be complaininng about violence if anything... But still Read the damn Box woman. No wonder YOU had to buy it FOR your son its cause HE wanst old enough to buy it... Damn<_< some people are dumb.

 

[Deman]

this is like sueing valve/sierra whatever because some1 made a 'naked' model for halflife and i downloaded it and replaced gordon

No, this is like somebody making a crack that allows them to play a sex mini game between Gordon and that chick on HL2 that was already coded into the game and never fully taken out.

 

[Zeonix]

Are you suggesting that only someone with sufficient knowledge of computers will be able to view this heinous material? Surely anyone who can use pc's that well can google "jubblies"?

 

[Ravendust]

Zero - if I remember correctly, companies are still liable for fan content. Remember the Sims 2 nude model replacement lawsuit?

 

[Zeonix]

That lawsuit didnt go anywhere. It died.

 

[Wolf Devil]

Are you suggesting that only someone with sufficient knowledge of computers will be able to view this heinous material? Surely anyone who can use pc's that well can google "jubblies"?

No... He's suggesting that anyone who knows how to gain access to the material and alter the game so that the "heinousness" can be viewed can make it so that other people can download this alteration... The official term being "mod"

 

[Zeonix]

Like I said, If someone is smart enough to use a search engine and download something, they're smart enough to download porn. If your child is dling mods that allow him to see fake jubblies, the kid has a problem. The parent should direct her attention towards the kid, and not the company that made the game.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

sims... jesus that was stupid. they had the pixelated thing, but it didnt mask anything, it just covered up the "barbie/ken doll" flat feature

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

The children of today are different than we were or our parents. Why?

Well, let's see. Our grandparents. They grew up in a time where money was tight in the country--people had to really penny pinch. They grew up with the 'Must Save Money!' mindset, and as a result, most of the time our parents were denied the material things they wanted, and instead were often told "Go get a job if you want something nice!"

With each subsequent generation since the 'hard times,' parents have been becoming softer and softer. My parents had a hard time denying me things, but they still did--I knew my boundaries, as did my siblings.

I have noticed, though--that the parents of the early 1980's generation (22-25ish) have a lot of trouble denying their kids the things they want. I think the new age of "Soccer Moms" and SUVs are really damaging today's youth by spoiling them and giving them certain things before they're ready. I'm sorry, but does a twelve year old really need a cell phone? Or an I-pod? Some parents seem to think that it's (the phone) a way for them to "keep check" on their child.

Anyway, I don't think paranoid disclaimers and irrational legislation are a solution to poor parenting. All these lawsuits which have no real basis should be thrown out, and the people who filed them should be charged with a new type of crime: "Unfounded allegations, filling up our legal system with garbage."

It's hard to know which of these lawsuits are REAL, and not urban legends--like the burglar who fell through the skylight and cut himself, sued the owner of the house. Is that real? I doubt it.. What kind of jury would be THAT idiotic?

In any case.. There are no real connections between violence in the media, and violence in today's youth. Like a certain moderator once said, the media sensationalizes isolated cases in order to get better ratings. But today's youth are quite docile compared to previous generations who didn't have video games, or movies at home.

People need to stop looking for scapegoats, or "get rich quick" lawsuit schemes, and actually try spending an hour with your children as opposed to dumping them off in front of a game machine or TV. Any parent who believes "video games corrupted my child" is an idiot.

You are my favorite person to read on this forum, you know that?

My old point is succinct and it still stands: If your damn kid was young enough that seeing 'Hot Coffee' would scar him for life...then he shouldn't have been playing a GTA game in the first place. As for the game glorifying the gangsta lifestyle it isn't doing anything that Snoop and Dre haven't done for over ten years on dozens of songs and albums as well as videos and movies.

The whole argument is stupid anyway. There are games for the PS2 that literally are simple quiz questions rewarded by digitized women taking their tops off...there is a topless biking game, for christ's sake. Nobody sued them...oh wait they weren't the biggest selling console games of 2004, were they?

Bottom line parents need to be more assertive. I see people actually arguing FOR the Jack Thompson end, 'Shame on Rockstar for leaving the content in the game' etc. etc. If you are agreeing at all with Jack Thompson's point of view you have no right to even be on this forum because your on the completely wrong page as far as being a video gamer goes.

It was my parent's responsibility to make sure I didn't go watch dirty or violent movies. It was my parent's responsibility to make sure I did not watch adult material or view adult cable channels. It was my parent's responsibility to make sure I didn't listen to music that wasn't appropriate for children. And IT WAS MY PARENTS WHO BOUGHT ME EVERY VIDEOGAME I HAD UNTIL I WAS 16 AND A HALF.

How can anyone actually sit here and deny that the parents are at least 90% at fault for what their child sees and plays? I mean the sticker on the damn box even said "Sexually Explicit Content" before this hot coffee thing happened...you buy your kid a game that warns you it has sex in it, and then you want to sue somebody for the sex?

I mean, let's be realistic here people. Like I said...any parent of a kid who owns Grand Theft Auto anything, is obviously a horrible and incredibly unobservant parent.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Negligence: The careless causing of injury to the person or property of another.

The three elements of negligence.
- The Defendant owed a duty of care.
- The Defendant breached the duty of care through their actions.
- The Defendant's actions caused the injury.

Was R* negligent? Well arguably, by leaving the 'hot coffee' content on the disc, some people are arguing that yes, it exposed their children to sexual content.

Did R* owe a duty of care? Yes they did. They owed a duty of care to those so closely and directly affected by their acts that they reasonably should have had them in mind as someone who could have been hurt by their actions. (Those buying the game.)

Did R* breach that duty of care? Well, arguably, by not informing the ESRB of <i>all</i>, including "inaccessable" content the M rating on the front of the case misrepresented the contents of the game.

Did R*'s actions cause the injury? That's for the courts to decide. (Not you or me.)
------------------

By no means do I agree with the people suing R*, in fact I personally think the lawsuits are pretty frivelous myself. Unfortunately, the way that the law is written, these people actually have a case. Whether you like it or not.

If they didn't have a case, the lawyers would tell these people they are wasting their time and money. At least, that's what lawyers are supposed to do.

Let's face it. The legal system is designed to protect people who are stupid.

But the legal system also works in other interesting ways. If my parents were suing R* for "corrupting" me so to speak. I'd turn around and sue my parents. Why? For breaching their duty of care in failing to supervise me by buying me the game that supposedly has "corrupted" me. Funny how the legal system works isn't it?

Failure to Supervise: A parent or a person in parental like authority has an obligation to supervise their child, failure to do so that causes injury to the child or others is actionable.

Have fun suing the pants off each-other!

 

[SailorAlea]

There's a few holes in your argument.. San Andreas was already rated M.

http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp

What does the M rating say? "Titles in this category may contain ... ... ... sexual content."

The big point on this is that "God of War" is far more graphic than GTA, showing upper frontal nudity on two women, then having a "eat out the twins" minigame in the very beginning of the game.

Don't you think that's a bit more explicit than the 'Hot Coffee' mod, where the participants were fully clothed?

Rockstar should not have been sued. The rating of San Andreas should not have been changed. And this lawsuit is baseless.

The ESRB is an institution of the gaming industry, not an institution of the FCC. It was established voluntarily as an alternative to Governmental regulation. Can the ESRB be held legally responsible for mis-labeling a game? No, because there are no laws requiring video games to be properly labeled.

All of this has been done voluntarily because the industry was/'is' wary of idiots like Joe Lieberman or Jack Thompson convincing enough Senators to make laws to regulate video games.

There is no law requiring any video game company to owe any 'duty of care.'

 

[MajinDruu]

I'm happy I'm British...

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Did R* owe a duty of care? Yes they did. They owed a duty of care to those so closely and directly affected by their acts that they reasonably should have had them in mind as someone who could have been hurt by their actions. (Those buying the game.)

This is a stretch. Why? Because the intended audience for the game is 17+, even by its old rating. By letting people who are not of that age play it the responsibility is no longer in R*'s hands. Or at least, that is how it should be.

You can't sue the maker of a gun brand because a 3 year old shot someone. You can't sue Budweiser for a drunk driving accident. I can't sue Japan because they invented cartoon pornography. I can't sue Ford Motors because there isn't a warning on the car that if I crash it, it could possibly explode. Why should this be any different...especially when the consequences are ten thousand times less dire?

Besides, Opti. You know as well as I do that this dumb ***** is going to go into court and her whole angle is going to be, "How dare they market this filth to children!!" when in reality...it isn't meant to be a child's game at all.

I know the point you make about the law being how it is, Opti, but my point is that it SHOULDN'T facilitate this kind of thing. We have good people dying at war, environmental disasters, cities leveled to the ground...and this country is spending millions to stick it to some lone company who isn't even 1/10 of what the industry standa for just to make a quick buck and score themselves a foothold on the biggest unregulated media industry in America (next to porn, of course).

 

[Godhand]

After reading this, I'm pretty sure the lawsuit won't go anywhere.
The mother will only lose money on the lawyers and so on.

There is really a thin chance of this going throught, also, all teenagers have sex (Most), the game does not neccesairly have to be the issue, perhaps the kid lies ;d.

 

[Ravendust]

Don't you think that's a bit more explicit than the 'Hot Coffee' mod, where the participants were fully clothed?

Where did you get the idea they were fully clothed?

*WARNING - Even though i've censored the pics, they're probably still classified as sexual content.*
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/1020/hc12qq.jpg
-Link removed-

EDIT: Removed second pic regardless, it was pushing it a bit too far for a family forum. The first one should be enough. It's got multiple angles (like the strip club dance game) so you do get oppurtunity enough to see everything.

 

[Rayna]

Don't you think that's a bit more explicit than the 'Hot Coffee' mod, where the participants were fully clothed?

Only the protagonist is fully clothed, the girl is naked.

How old is the "child" this woman bought GTA: SA for?

 

[Optimus Prime]

And this lawsuit is baseless.

Looking at America's track-record. When has that ever stopped anybody from trying.

 

[SailorAlea]

Are you guys sure those pics are from the Playstation version of Hot Coffee? I heard that the one on the PS2 version, both were completely clothed, it was only in the PC version, the program people were using to unlock the game were also changing the skins to be naked.