We read:
"The publisher of controversial videogame Grand Theft Auto IV is suing the Chicago Transit Authority for allegedly bowing to pressure and pulling advertisements for the game.
Take-Two Interactive Software accused the transit authority of violating its freedom of speech and contractual rights in the Manhattan Federal Court overnight after ads for Grand Theft Auto IV disappeared without explanation.
The software company accused Chicago Transit Authority and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor, of violating a $300,000 ad campaign agreement that included running posters for the game on the sides of buses and transit display spaces for six weeks between April and June.
The ads were removed after a news report that questioned why the ad campaign was allowed to run in light of a recent wave of violent crimes in Chicago, just days after they were revealed, the suit said.
Source
The Chicago Transit Authority is a government body so the 1st Amendment probably does apply here.
16 comments:
While not a fan of the GTA games, I think the CTA is obligated to take advertising from all companies that passes certain "community standards" tests. Since the signs were not "obscene" in the legal definition of the word, I'm sure GTA will win this one.
There will always be crime in Chicago ... and Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, etc., etc. To blame a game for an adult's actions is stupid.
-Ferndale Fanny
While the 1st ammendment may not be involved. It does sound like a contract was broken. Maybe Chicago should look before it signs an agreement.
If there was a contract than it sounds like the CTA is screwed. If the CTA didn't approve of the content of the ads maybe they should have reviewed it before signing a contract.
GO WINGS!!!!!!!!
Global Warmer
I think the CTA is obligated to take advertising from all companies that passes certain "community standards" tests.
One of the prime reasons behind the First Amendment is to prevent the censorship of political speech. Commercial speech (such as advertising) has always been held in less regard and has always been subject to more stringent controls.
Yet in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that a politician's ad can be removed from, or not be accepted by the transit authority in the City of Shaker Heights.
If a city can remove a politician's ad, then it would seem to follow that they can remove any ad they wish - even after accepting a contract. (What would be interesting is to see the contract that was signed.)
IF (big if) the CTA can show a history of pulling ads that were "controversial" and pulling them in response to customer complaints, CTA should win the First Amendment part of this case. Unless there are penalty clauses in the advertising contract, I have a feeling that the resolution to this will be that the CTA returns the money for the contract, and the ads will remain pulled. If there are penalty clauses, the CTA should pay those as well.
One of the interesting things in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights is that the courts held that even though the transit authority was a government concern, it was run as a commercial enterprise, and thus not subject to the same constraints. From the SCOTUS opinion:
Here, we have no open spaces, no meeting hall, park, street corner, or other public thoroughfare. Instead, the city is engaged in commerce. It must provide rapid, convenient, pleasant, and inexpensive service to the commuters of Shaker Heights. The car card space, although incidental to the provision of public transportation, is a part of the commercial venture. In much the same way that a newspaper or periodical, or even a radio or television station, need not accept every proffer of advertising from the general public, a city transit system has discretion to develop and make reasonable choices concerning the type of advertising that may be displayed in its vehicles.
Fanny, have you seen this series of games? You might want to re-think your comment... Torch
?In much the same way that a newspaper or periodical, or even a radio or television station, need not accept every proffer of advertising from the general public, a city transit system has discretion to develop and make reasonable choices concerning the type of advertising that may be displayed in its vehicles."
I agree with what the SCOTUS said however that sounds to me like they should not have accepted it in the first place based on standards they previously set.
But they did accepted the ads and than pulled them. They had them on the vehicles. Do they not have a system of screening these things before it goes as far as it did?
As for Torch's comment, people are responsable for there own actions. The vast majority of people that play these games do not go out and commit crimes and none of the players commit crimes because of the game. Games can not force people to do anything. People that disregard laws and other people have problems beyond playing a game.
"The vast majority of people that play these games do not go out and commit crimes and none of the players commit crimes because of the game."
Amen to that. I,ve actually played a couple of these games and as of yet, I haven't killed anyone, althought the thought has crossed my mind.
You both assume that all players of these games are as rational as you may be. They're not! Young people today are very susceptable to all types of input, and to think none of them will react negatively is quite foolish.
Playing a video game will not cause someone to go out and kill. If that were true, we would have seen a spike in the number of deaths NATIONWIDE immediately after the game was released. Chicago's problem with violence stems from other sources.
if we take away everything that MAY trigger something in someone to do something wrong we would all be sitting around on the grass with nothing. You could make the argument that pretty much anything can cause someone somewhere to go off the deep end. Well that's BS, people are responsible for their own actions. Again, plenty of people play these games and somehow manage to control themselves, if someone can't control themselves than they will face the consequences. It is not the game publishers’ fault that someone raised a screwed up kid and it is certainly not the fault of other gamers so why should they be punished. This liberal idea of catering to the weakest link is just ignorant but I'm sure it is just another tool they use to achieve ultimate power over all of us.
We must do it "for the kids"....BULL. They don't give a damn about my kids, your kids, or anyone elses kids, hell most liberals don't give a rats behind about their own kids. They are interested in one thing and one thing only.... POWER!!
"You both assume that all players of these games are as rational as you may be. They're not! Young people today are very susceptable to all types of input, and to think none of them will react negatively is quite foolish."
I live in Detroit and over the years there has been countless incidents of kids robbing other kids at knife and even gun point or just beating them up. Some of the vitims even got killed. These kids were/are stealing Jackets, shoes, even golf clubs. They were/are stealing them not because they needed them but because they were the name brand stuff that are "cool" with kids. I'm too old now to know or even care which brands but my point is that if these kids are stealing and going as far as commiting murder to obtain these things shouldn't we ban them from existence like you apparently want to do with video games?
I mean after all these kids are not as rational as you and I might be so we should remove the temtation that causes them to do wrong right? Nike should be banned from ever making a good pair of shoes again because kids may just kill to get them right?
With all due respect, you're an ass, and it is you who is foolish to think that a video game all by it self can turn a person into a killer. If someone is a killer than there is far more wrong with them than playing a game.
I've heard the following story in many forms. This version just happens to be the one I found first.
An elderly Cherokee Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life:
He said to them, “A fight is going on inside me, it is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One wolf is evil—he is fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, competition, superiority, and ego.
"The other is good —he is joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.
"This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too.”
They thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?”
The Elder simply replied, “The one you feed.”
Does anyone here honestly think that games such as GTA don't feed the evil wolf? Can such a game actually feed the good wolf?
It seems obvious to me that a society which accepts—and even celebrates—those things which are entirely harmful is a society which must eventually self destruct due to a toxic level of poisonous attitudes.
"what goes around - comes around" those who cash-in making such products deliberately appealing to the baser instincts of impressionable young people (violence and anti-social behavior) will one day reap what they sow and be victims themselves of the social consequences (along with the rest of us).
I play Grand Theft Auto IV. And when I was younger, I played other violent video games such as Super Contra and Friday the 13th.
Violent video games don't cause violence, they're like shooting guns at the range, they help you discharge your violence and negative feelings. They're a form of release.
Young people are better off playing video games in their homes than hanging out on the streets, getting in trouble, getting bored and vandalizing public and private property.
If someone is a psychopath, such as the Columbine Killers, no amount of video-games is going to change the outcome. In that case being violent on a video-game will not be enough. But for everyone else, it's a perfect form of release.
And let's face it, do we want to live in a world without Rambo, The Terminator, Kill Bill, and other forms of violent entertainment?
Do we not enjoy boxing and extreme martial arts available on pay per view?
It's hypocritical that video-games get such a bad rap when other violent media is embraced and accepted. Even the bible is full of violence. It's part of who we are as a people.
Post a Comment