AFAIK, none have ever been successful, which will probably be a salient point in getting this case summarily dismissed.
Well that’s good to know. I just assumed that after that McDonald’s coffee spill suit verdict it must have been a suer’s market.
Sure, but if the chain of events he’s using runs thusly: Kids play GTA3 and get the idea that shooting people driving moving vehicles is fun -> kids go out and shoot people driving moving vehicles, then that’s a pretty short chain. Given that chain, the GTA3 involvement was not very far removed from the harm. Proximate cause at least in theory, can go back that far pretty easily. Now of course the classical formulation of proximate cause includes the factors of forseeability and the idea that the chain breaks at the FIRST link where the harm could have been averted. As such I feel it is eminently reasonable to say that but for the actions of the kids with the gun the harm would never have happened. Thus they bear the burden of being the proximate cause of the harm. The idea that “but for” the production of the game the harm would never have been caused ignores the idea that the trace is supposed to stop once the first “but for” was reached. Assuming minimal forseeability from one event to the other of course.
It seems the legal position being taken by the attorney in the article that these results were not unforseeable, given the maleable nature of younger people, and some of the burden should shift up his nice, short chain of events onto the people who made GTA3. As mentioned before, I think this chain is probably unreasonable, and I disagree with some other aspects of the line of reasoning, but it is valid legally as far as I can tell. If he is making the arguement that the second event should have been forseeable from the first, then that can make the “but for” in the events controlled by the shooters fail to break the search for proximate harm. If they knew their game could incite violence in the teens, then teens were not wholly responsible for their actions and the part of the responsibility for the harm falls on the ones who incited the teens. Of course he’s hoping for a jury instead of a judge because juries are somewhat easier to sway with these kinds of arguements.
Now I must regretfully bow out of this entertaining nitpickery because KidCharlemagne mentioned the suit-which-must-not-be-named and I must flee before the thread degenerates into what must almost certainly follow.
Enjoy,
Steven
I wonder how many young serial killers got their start after sitting through Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus back in the 1590s.
“Oh no! It’s the Codpiece and Big Frilly Collar Thingy That Looks Like Cupcake Paper Mafia! Run!”
You see, that’s part of what really bugs me about this. Would anyone even conceive of trying to sue Stanley Kubrick if two homicidal maniacs claimed to be inspired by “A Clockwork Orange”?[sup]*[/sup] Why is it only video games and comic books that have these magical powers to make people not responsible for their own murderous actions?
[sup]*[/sup]Yes, I know he’s dead. It’s a hypothetical.
Ok, clearly I’ve missed the contentious debate (as well as the facts) about the McDonalds lawsuit, so based on Miller’s link and Mtgman’s cry of foul, I officially recind my post (for now). Please resume your arguments.
It’s the magical power being not particularly interesting to those blaming it for social ills, so they wouldn’t miss 'em if they’re banned. Nobody blames the entertainment they themselves like for having a bad influence.
Yea but Stanley Kubrick is dead. 
You forgot about role-playing games and heavy metal.
Nah, that was in the 80s. Today it’s rap metal, video games, and MTV.
All of which is also fine, but that’s not what I was snarking about (is snarking even a word? It should be). I was snarking about one specific overbroad statement of the law made by the attorney, not about his case in general.
Clearly you aren’t playing enough video games if you have to ask if snarking is a word. Haven’t you ever let out a bunch of blind sonar-enabled mutant rodents that explode in 15 seconds to nibble attack someone that pisses you off?
These kids should not only be in jail, they should have their heads beaten in to instill some sense and then thrown into a insansity house.
Geesh people. You can’t blame someone else for your actions.
Heh. Next up in the dock: Valve Software.