Why the recent rash of shootings may prove the industry right

[Yukimura]

With all the recent school shootings, we've seen a number of strange events.

Media loves to point the finger at games when this stuff happens, but, now, it may become a bad move to do so. The recent amish shooting shows that shootings are not limited to or caused by teens, and that at most, the only true common link in all shootings so far was Mental instability on the part of the shooter.

With the Columbine shooting, courts rejected the claim that games were to blame. With other cases, they rejected the claim again and again. However, with the recent amish shooting, a sudden truth as emerged that was ignored before.

The shooters need not be teens and need not engage in violent media. The amish shooter was supposedly a milkman who fantizied about molesting young woman and had planned to do so to his victums had the cops not arrived when they had.

Gill, the montreal shooter, while engaged in gaming, was also an adult with a history of mental disorders and a habit of showing off weapons. His 2 games of choice were not commerical, and in one case is only avalible through direct marketing.

So, with this development, I think the industry should launch a full on legal blitz to silence any effort to pin shooting on games. With the sudden and tragic events showing that there is clearly no single factor in what happens in a shooting, they could make they case that the media has unjustly linked violence to games without proof, a form of slander and public defamation.

Admittedly, it's not exactly a simple thing to prove, but thats not the point, the fact that the industry wasn't just rolling over anymore might get the big media to back off when they know there up against 100 miliion viewers who think little of them to begin with.

Thats just my opinion of course.

[BearDogg-X]

Don't forget about the 54-year-old man in Colorado holding several girls hostage for hours as well.

Again, I found a law that the industry could sue under:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

Section 43(a)(1)(B) is also often utilized in law when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a business. To be proven in court a claimant must satisfy 3 principles: There was a false or misleading statement made, the statement was used in commercial advertising or promotion, and the statement creates a likelihood of harm to the plaintiff.

Let's see, in Jacky Boy's case, False and misleading statements are being made, which does create a likelihood of harm, and an argument can be made that going on 60 Minutes is promotion, in addition to the self-typed "press releases".

In the news media's case, False and misleading statements are being made, which does create a likelihood of harm, and the argument of promotion would be that the reporting of false and misleading statements without saying that they are false(or strictly opinion) is being promoted by other people with the same agenda.

[ZippyDSMlee]

With all the recent school shootings, we've seen a number of strange events.

Media loves to point the finger at games when this stuff happens, but, now, it may become a bad move to do so. The recent amish shooting shows that shootings are not limited to or caused by teens, and that at most, the only true common link in all shootings so far was Mental instability on the part of the shooter.

With the Columbine shooting, courts rejected the claim that games were to blame. With other cases, they rejected the claim again and again. However, with the recent amish shooting, a sudden truth as emerged that was ignored before.

The shooters need not be teens and need not engage in violent media. The amish shooter was supposedly a milkman who fantizied about molesting young woman and had planned to do so to his victums had the cops not arrived when they had.

Gill, the montreal shooter, while engaged in gaming, was also an adult with a history of mental disorders and a habit of showing off weapons. His 2 games of choice were not commerical, and in one case is only avalible through direct marketing.

So, with this development, I think the industry should launch a full on legal blitz to silence any effort to pin shooting on games. With the sudden and tragic events showing that there is clearly no single factor in what happens in a shooting, they could make they case that the media has unjustly linked violence to games without proof, a form of slander and public defamation.

Admittedly, it's not exactly a simple thing to prove, but thats not the point, the fact that the industry wasn't just rolling over anymore might get the big media to back off when they know there up against 100 miliion viewers who think little of them to begin with.

Thats just my opinion of course.


Its high time they start fighting back all this slander and other crap are posining the industry slowly if nothing is done it will take decade's to heal from the damage.....or worse yet all M rated games would be treated at AO and be rarely seen.

BTW welcome to the forums :3

[dbot]

With all the recent school shootings, we've seen a number of strange events.

Media loves to point the finger at games when this stuff happens, but, now, it may become a bad move to do so. The recent amish shooting shows that shootings are not limited to or caused by teens, and that at most, the only true common link in all shootings so far was Mental instability on the part of the shooter.

With the Columbine shooting, courts rejected the claim that games were to blame. With other cases, they rejected the claim again and again. However, with the recent amish shooting, a sudden truth as emerged that was ignored before.

The shooters need not be teens and need not engage in violent media. The amish shooter was supposedly a milkman who fantizied about molesting young woman and had planned to do so to his victums had the cops not arrived when they had.

Gill, the montreal shooter, while engaged in gaming, was also an adult with a history of mental disorders and a habit of showing off weapons. His 2 games of choice were not commerical, and in one case is only avalible through direct marketing.

So, with this development, I think the industry should launch a full on legal blitz to silence any effort to pin shooting on games. With the sudden and tragic events showing that there is clearly no single factor in what happens in a shooting, they could make they case that the media has unjustly linked violence to games without proof, a form of slander and public defamation.

Admittedly, it's not exactly a simple thing to prove, but thats not the point, the fact that the industry wasn't just rolling over anymore might get the big media to back off when they know there up against 100 miliion viewers who think little of them to begin with.

Thats just my opinion of course.

while that is a good point, i think the industry should ONLY use it as a defense. To take the initiative and use these shootings as an example feels a little too jack thompsonish...taking tragedies and using them for gain. However, if jack where to pull crap again, saying school shooters "trained" on GTA or what the hell ever is the flavor of the month for that prick, then i do think that the industry should cite those events as proof that violence stems from far deeper issues that shooting pixelated characters.

[ZippyDSMlee]

while that is a good point, i think the industry should ONLY use it as a defense. To take the initiative and use these shootings as an example feels a little too jack thompsonish...taking tragedies and using them for gain. However, if jack where to pull crap again, saying school shooters "trained" on GTA or what the hell ever is the flavor of the month for that prick, then i do think that the industry should cite those events as proof that violence stems from far deeper issues that shooting pixelated characters.

True but focusing on the lies and slander is not and thats where the industry needs to focus on and fire back,its high time something is done they are not the UN.....

[Navydad101]

This is the same thing that is happening in many aspects of our culture. Every one wants to blame someone or something else for what happens. No one is ever solely guilty for their actions anymore. It's either music, video games, fast food, etc. I also think it's time for the gaming industry to take the fight back to the source.

[Zanzer]

The shooters need not be teens and need not engage in violent media.
The problem is that no one has ever made that claim.

Let's see, in Jacky Boy's case, False and misleading statements are being made, which does create a likelihood of harm, and an argument can be made that going on 60 Minutes is promotion, in addition to the self-typed "press releases".
In the U.S., in order for slander or libel to be proven, it has to be proven that the source is knowingly making a false statement. If Jack believes what he is saying, then it is not slander nor libel, and he is protected by the First Amendment.

However, if jack where to pull crap again, saying school shooters "trained" on GTA or what the hell ever is the flavor of the month for that prick, then i do think that the industry should cite those events as proof that violence stems from far deeper issues that shooting pixelated characters.
At the same time, showing that other things cause violence is not evidence that video games do not. I don't believe these incidents should be brought up at all by the gaming community, for the very reasons you gave. We can defend against accusations of inciting violence without conjuring more images of violence.