Grand Theft Auto's Big Donnybrook

Is it possible to escape the whirl-wind of drama resulting from ratings boards and parents who disregard them? I think not! My experience with Grand Theft Auto has amounted to that of any other teenager in the days of double-0s; it’s buried into culture, scarcely a mystery, and if you haven’t at least seen the game play, you likely crawled out from under a rock. That would be the teenager code of Grand Theft Auto. I played the original game when it first came out, though I wasn’t the one to buy it. Contrary, my parents had bought it as a Christmas gift for my younger sister. That’s right – younger! Despite the Mature rating, the evident gangster violence, they still went off to buy it. Frankly, it was shallow and rather boring. Even my younger sister grew tired of it. I thought I'd never hear from it again beyond the occasional mention in conversation; yet, here we are, and I'm reliving the moaning, groaning anguish of a law suit that I am invested in, yet simultaneously disinterested in. Why? Oh, motion pictures and a general hatred of seemingly double-standard censorship.

One way or another, Grand Theft Auto made its debut. It was here to stay, and it held ambitions to top the charts as the edgiest game of the century. In fact, it can be argued that Rockstar’s ambition was and always has been to push edgy, controversial games onto the market. This, I believe, is not an inherently bad thing when the target audience is older teen (which is what the Mature rating implies on any video game). Even so, that raises eyebrows. The promotion of gangsters and bullying? In a post-Columbine, gang ridden time, that’s almost too much. But the controversy was not about these legitimate things, which seemed somehow acceptable without qualm. The controversy was about something basic. Sex, and a strip of code that could easily be altered to unveil such context within the game.

My initial response is: It’s Grand Theft Auto, what do you expect? In a world of gangsters, car thefts, and general violence, sex seemed implied. I believe that any reasonable person would have seen it coming. However, this is not how business works, and games with extensive sexual content are typically not rated Mature, but AO, or NC-17, like any pornographic material. This is where the controversy comes from – that the ratings claimed “M” when the content fit guidelines for “AO”. Yet, without the mod, was the game suitable for M? It’s possible, though it may have been borderline at the time. Frankly, I thought Hostel deserved an NC-17 rating from film boards, but it didn’t receive that for its graphic torture (nor has Saw). Grand Theft Auto is a basket of kittens compared to the obscenely delivered Slasher genre of horror films. I’m confused as to why parents are upset about sexual content. It falls back to ratings – but with a rated R film, anyone seventeen and up can see the movie, which is essentially the “M” rating of video games. Voila! There’s my deduction: why is graphical violence in R rated movies not protested, but sexual content is? It’s alright to watch someone’s eye dangling from the socket, but not to see a guy get laid? Apologies! From my personal stand-point, I would much rather pornography be available under a “anyone seventeen years or older can see this” than the radical gore of films like Saw. But this isn’t about violence. This is about sex. Sex, sex, sex! How fascinating! Is it just me, or is society easily offended by flesh, while simultaneously providing sexual education courses for fourth graders in a variety of cities (some school districts in Texas require progressive sexual education starting as early as the fourth grade – I had classes in Elementary, Middle, and High School discussing sexual organs, intercourse, and all of that wonderful nonsense! Sex wasn’t a mystery, and it generally isn’t nowadays, hence why I wonder what the big deal is). Ahem. Regardless, following legal guidelines of circumstance: was the company at fault for not identifying that there is sexual content within the video game? Well, are all motion picture companies responsible for sexual conduct within their movies if they don’t provide a warning? Was Titanic responsible for Rose’s naked portrait; were the creators of the remade Miami Vice responsible for the sexual actions of the characters? Or what about the infamous 8 Mile? If you call one entertainment genre on it, call them all – and this is my qualm. Why was it relevant to the content of Grand Theft Auto and the video game industry, when they followed guidelines similar to that of motion pictures? Sex is bloody sex. I, for one, am sick of hearing about its vulgarity. It’s disinteresting.

Comment on jd Design Blog

After browsing the blogs, I came across jd Design's post regarding lawyers. My response was:

"I actually find this opinion to be well-constructed. Lawyers are an expensive necessity when you get caught up in a legal tangle, and while a number are crude, there a number not so crude with good intentions. However, it is gray territory. You can't be sure if a lawyer is trustworthy or more bent than twisted metal. Lawyers are like enigmas. They're mysteries that you figure out gradually as you get to know them as people.

Even so. They are just people. Even they are stuck in tight spots they can't escape due to their job. It's rather sad. "

The Myspace Hoax

I saw the headlines for this story what seems like ages ago. The initial reaction has always been 'this was made for theatre', though I don't mean that in an indifferent manner. The story itself is so tragic that it seems impractical. It's like something the Greeks would construct if they had modern assets and inspiration to fuel their onslaught of depressing mythology. It's that fictitious of a reality. Nevertheless, it is real. It is solid - and a kid is dead as the result of an ill-intended conspiracy.

Megan Meier could be described as ordinary. Based on readings, she was an emotional, bubbly, preteen girl addicted to Myspace - which reminds me of my little sister, who is at that funny stage of life. Regardless, this kid suffered from depression amongst other things; she was medicated, but even then, she was impressionable. What happened to her was the result of someone taking advantage of that impressionable nature. A mother of a former friend had created a fake teenage boy on Myspace, elaborately concocting the character of Josh Evans to woo and crush Megan Meier. With contributions from her daughter and another party, the mother broke the spirit and confidence of a preteen, a child, already subjected to enough melodrama in the world of teen-hood. Megan Meier committed suicide after "Josh Evans" berated and spread negative comments about her, even telling her that the world would be better off without her.

From a legal stand point, things are tied up. There has been no real retribution, although there have been societal changes accommodating the seriousness of online harassment. According to an MSNBC, the alleged conspiracy group had not apologized for the matter, and no criminal charges had been pressed in the years following Megan's suicide. Why? Because there was no law accommodating the situation, therefore they were going scotch free while law enforcement struggled to find a solution to the complication. It wasn't considered a crime. At the time.

However, it could be considered a Tort, or "a private wrong that injures another person's physical well-being, property, or reputation" (Ch. 3, Pg. 31, The Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, Anthony and Joseph Bonnice). While the act did not violate a legal statue, it did cause injury of another person's physical well-being. Similarly, the group could be held accountable for defamation and libel which are defined as: "Defamation is the harming of a person's reputation and good name by the communication of false statements ... Libel is the spreading of damaging statements in written form" (Ch. 4, Pg. 45, The Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, Anthony and Joseph Bonnice). That was reason enough for a valid pursuit, and after a series of legal struggles, the mother who had generated the hoax was convicted of three misdemeanor charges relating to computer hacking and fraud. However, the jury found it difficult to convict her of the few felony charges she was up against - namely Conspiracy.

From a personal stand point, I have little words. The Internet is serious business - that's a joke people like to make, but it's undoubtedly true. People formulate real relationships over long distances, and I know that I have, having several friends who I've known for years living in Ontario, New York, California, and even across the globe in Australia, Britain, and Switzerland. Certainly it's a cautious step, but, nevertheless, people do formulate strong bonds with other people. It happens - and in that respect, the Internet is serious business that masquerades as a unique rendition of real life and ... Not quite real life? The fact that someone would take advantage of a communications tool to hurt someone else is rather atrocious, though not impractical or all that surprising.

I do believe this is a cautionary tale - more so to Internet goers formulating close friendships. At the same time, does this affect me and my Internet habits? Hardly, though I think it's something important to be spread and known by anyone using social networking sites or communication forums. I find it sad. Terribly, really - and for that reason, I'm not sure I can formulate a grandiose or elaborate opinion. I simply find it sad. Suicide is a sad thing. It's not a joke, and it's not something easy to take in. Even when the death is that of a total stranger.

What Do You Think of Lawyers?

What do you think of lawyers? It sounds like a funny question. The automatic response I'd expect when asking that question is: corruption. They're mind-sucking, money-grubbing monsters who would lick your shoe or sell their own baby for a little jingle-change. However, that is not what I actually think about lawyers. I don't buy the ideology that a lawyer is just a mind-scuking monster with no compassion. That's a little cruel; it's also generalized, and about as bizarre as the idea that all art students are liberal-hippy-junkies and anti-government. It's nonsense, and I don't like generalizations. I also don't understand the negative connotions behind something that was intended to be inherently positive. In fact, once upon a time, it was positive to be a lawyer, to have any affiliation with the law.

Law is a gray thing. It's dirty, almost disgusting at times, and it's an industry that tests your morale and sense of self. If you don't bend yourself, then you're likely not going to succeed. If you're the sort of person who must be faithful, 100%, then you're likely not going to succeed in law - and this can be described as a crying shame, though not an absolute truth. I do believe there are genuine lawyers. I do believe there are individuals who go into law for the sole purpose of protecting the individual rights and well-beings of their clients, or their countries. I believe that in the same way that I believe not all lobbyists are vile individuals willing to bribe their way in. There's always the exception to something - the good, and the bad. Law, in its raw political context, has the ugly going on, but, no, I don't hate lawyers, nor do I believe they're out for my soul. Even if I was sued out the wazoo, I still probably wouldn't hate lawyers - for exactly the reason I stated: there are the genuine, however invisible, and I will admire their noble actions or sticktoitiveness (which isn't a word, but you understand the point!). It takes a lot of gall to decide to do what they do. You're stepping on glass shards for a living, and while it's profitable, it's certainly a gamble on your reputation that swings one way or another.

The better question here is: what do you think of negative lawyers or profitable ones who would do anything, even lie, to win a case? To those lawyers, I say tar and feathers, though only in a metaphorical context. There is a line that may be drawn there: if the judicial branch of our government is there to protect us with genuine justice, then why would it be applicable for a lie to be cast on the record to win a case? Or even a half truth? The hidden information, the clever slogans, and the senseless bribary. To the lawyers who bend on that? I hold little respect. It's backwards - and that is where I draw a disagreement with the questionable ethics of some lawyers. I really only have one case that makes me quirk a brow. Need I say more than: "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit?".

In that respect, you could simply say that I have a mixed opinion on lawyers. Judge a man by the content of his character and his cause. I think very little of the occupation in whole. They're a part of the judicial branch. There. That's what I think in more simple language. They're just another player on the judicial stage.