"Grand Theft Auto" Case

In 2005, a grandmother upset that she bought the a copy of “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” for her 14-year-old grandson without knowing the game contained un-lockable sexually explicit scenes brought charges against the makers of the game Take-Two and Rockstar games. The game itself had been rated M for Mature, which is means the game can only be purchased by those that are 17 and older. They then tried to turn the case into a class action suit affecting anyone who claims to be shocked and offended by the hidden content.

As someone with an interest in the video game industry, both as a gamer and a designer, I heard a lot about this case, and many quite similar to it. Video games have become the latest scapegoat in our society, replacing music and television from previous generations. In this particular case, I can understand that perhaps it did require an AO- or adult only rating, but at the same time, why did the woman buy a game with a rating printed on the front of the package that states the game is intended for gamers 17 or older for a 14-year-old child? The game already contains some pretty controversial subjects, such as car-jacking and shooting police, but I guess that grandmother wasn’t so worried about that sort of thing.

I’ve worked in retail where mature rated games were sold, and I always made sure to point out to a parent that the game was rated Mature when they were purchasing it, and I noticed that many parents really didn’t even bother to look at the ratings. There’s a misconception about video games that they’re just for kids, but as the industry has gotten older, so have the gamers. As the biggest chunk of the gamer demographic ages, the content they want changes, and the games follow. That’s why there is a rating system in place, very similar to the ones given to movies. I think if a parent decides to ignore the ratings on the game, purchase Mature rated game for someone too young, then they shouldn’t be able to complain about what content their child is being exposed to. The child can’t purchase the game on their own, thus the adult made the purchase and allowed their child to be exposed to what is in the game.

Comment on Lawyers

I went to Mike Matsu's to see how he felt about lawyers, a question posed to us last week. After reading his entry, I left him this comment:

I agree with you, many lawyers are just doing their jobs. Doing what they need to do to get paid at the end of the day. I really liked where you talked about if a lawyer finds a loop hole. The same action, just used for different purposes can really affect how people view the action. A lawyer sometimes will have to defend someone even they may think is guilty, but it’s what they have to do. That doesn’t necessarily make them a bad person. Not every lawyer is a good person though, like you said, every profession has their “villains”. We probably just see it more with lawyers than most because sometimes the cases are high profile. Good entry

Myspace Hoax

Today I heard about the MySpace hoax that had led to the suicide of a 13-year-old girl. The hoax had been started by the mother of a girl who had been friends with the 13-year-old. At the time, even though the events led to the suicide of the young girl, police officials told the family that it did not fall under any crime. They did keep the case open, however, as they searched for evidence. Recently, the mother was found guilty of minor misdemeanor charges using a statute originally meant to combat hackers.

When I first heard about this, I was shocked. You would think in our society that parents would be much more responsible than to pick on and ridicule a 13-year-old girl. Though it technically didn’t actually fit under any crimes, I think what she did could fall under more than one tort. I think the mother’s actions could be seen as a type of negligence, a “failure to exercise reasonable care necessary to protect others from risk of harm.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg 50) This may not be so cut and dry, however. Allegedly, the mother new the young girl had been suffering from depression and was at risk of committing suicide.

It was also stated that the mother had used the account to spread rumors and vilify the girl over the internet. I wonder, could this not be seen as a form of defamation? Libel is a form of defamation that is generally “the spreading of damaging statements in written form.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg 45) I would think that if they had used that account to make false statements about the girl with the intent to sully her reputation using the written word (the internet) then they would be guilty of libel.

The misdemeanor the mother was found guilty was only in part because she failed to adhere to the Terms of Service of Myspace.com, which you much agree to when you sign up for the site, and are expected to follow, even if you choose not to actually read it. This might start bringing about more pushes for more regulation and laws for the internet. Though I’m against heavy regulation of content, perhaps some form or protection when it comes to defamation might be for the better.

EOC Week 1

The first day of business law class and an interesting question has been posed to use; what do we think of lawyers?

When growing up, much of the stereotype I’ve been fed about lawyers through the media has usually been negative. Bad lawyer jokes abound, TV shows and movies with lawyers as “bad guys” are fairly commonplace, and the news seems eager to vilify them when the real life ones screw up.

Personally, I see them as necessary. The general public usually knows very little about the laws, even though they govern much of their day to day. And though they may be ignorant of a law, if they break it, or are accused of breaking it, they are still responsible. Thus, lawyers are necessary to defend the innocent or prosecute the guilty. However, people fail to realize that the law and evidence aren’t always black and white. Sometimes they defend the guilty or prosecute the innocent, because it is their job. They don’t always have the ability to choose a case or act in the way they would like based on their own moral standing. I think a lot of times this can make people believe that these lawyers are cold hearted or even evil. Though, just like any other group of people, there are going to be those that are examples of the stereotype. There are going to be lawyers that are cold hearted, or that abuse their connections. This may even be more the rule than the exception. I would rather judge a lawyer on a person to person basis, then on a whole, though I also understand that may be harder said than done with such a prevalent stereotype.