While following up on this story GP communicated with MDT Deputy Director Hugh Chen and Marketing Director Michael DeCossio. It was media relations official Manuel Palmiero, however, who ultimately supplied the information below. What follows are GP's question, MDT's verbatim answers and a few bits of commentary:

GP: The GTA IV ads themselves are inoffensive. Is Miami-Dade Transit making a value judgment as to the underlying product? If so, this judgment is based on…?

The first resolution specifically condemned the “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” video game for its “hate-filled messages" and for appearing “to encourage or condone violence against ethnic minorities” and called on retailers to remove the game from their shelves. The other two condemned violent video games in general and urged retailers not to make such games available to minors.

Miami-Dade Transit is a department of Miami-Dade County and as such follows the policies set by the Miami-Dade County Commission and Mayor.

(GP comment: This seems a rather bureaucratic justification. None of the three resolutions address public transit. Nor do they direct county agencies to take a hands-off posture with regard to video games. Nor does MDT answer the question as to whether they made a value judgment concerning GTA IV, although it seems obvious that they did.)

GP:Which official made the final decision to remove the ads?

MDT: After receiving and evaluating the request for removal of the ads, MDT staff made the recommendation to remove them. [Ad company] Cemusa was instructed to remove the ads last Friday, April 25.

(GP: we received this info from MDT on Friday, May 2nd)

GP: Is MDT familiar with Change the Climate vs MBTA, in which the US First Circuit Court ruled that a quasi-governmental transit agency could not restrict ads based on viewpoint?

MDT: Miami-Dade Transit is a department of Miami-Dade County and as such is a unit of County government, not a quasi-governmental transit agency.

(GP comment: This answer is puzzling. The First Circuit Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a quasi-governmental agency to restrict free speech. Since MDT is organized as a full-fledged unit of government, it has at least as much - and probably more - of an obligation not to restrict free speech. Nor does the answer acknowledge the Change the Climate case.)

GP: Is MDT aware of [complainant] Mr. [Jack] Thompson’s longstanding contentious history with the publisher of this game [Take Two Interactive], including his involvement on the plaintiff side in a pair of wrongful death lawsuits seeking $1.2 billion?

MDT: We were not aware of this information but it is not relevant to the matter at hand and would not have affected our decision to remove the ads.

GP: Other than Thompson’s, were any other complaints received about the ads?

MDT: We are not aware of any others to date.

GP: Would you characterize MDT as a unit of government, as opposed to quasi-governmental? (I note the .gov website address)

MDT: As stated above, MDT is a department of Miami-Dade County government and therefore is a unit of government, not a quasi-governmental agency.

GP: What other types of ads are restricted? Alcohol? R-rated movies? How about a cable show along the lines of The Sopranos or Sex in the City?

MDT: MDT's contract with CEMUSA lists several types of ads that are restricted, including:

-Advertising that contains traffic-related symbols or words like "Stop," Drive In" or "Danger" that are designed to distract vehicular traffic

-Ads containing immoral, lascivious or obscene material as well as ads promoting businesses engaged in any activity that requires that exclusion of minors

-Ads for alcoholic beverages

In addition, the contract states that MDT may "at its sole, absolute discretion" disallow any questionable ads, such as those that may violate community standards as we understand them based on our knowledge of the community and the feedback generated by certain types of ads in the past.

Comments

Jack Thompson should back off from T2/R* since they had settled this earlier, directly/ind. which makes me wonder why they haven't done anything about this. But also the lawsuit against MDT would be justified by the contract the two parties had agreed on and went through with, not to mention the 1st ammendment, but this is also questionable due to the fact that the game is rated M, exclusion of minors, BUT the actual material presented is the ads, themselves being pulled down, so there is no violation.etc

Take Two definitely has an even STRONGER case against MDT than they do with CTA.

Oh, and laws can be written but they aren't truely "legal" until proven. If Take Two takes MDT to court then those laws will be tested and destroyed most likely. That first one, R-1447-03, doesn't even apply because it SPECIFICALLY targets GTA:SA. This advertisement was for a different game, so that one can't apply at all. The other two are reaching and that's one hell of a stretch.

JT succeeded at getting the ads pulled, but he's also succeeded at getting MDT slapped with a $300k lawsuit if CTA is any indication. Oh, and I don't think Take Two will wait to see the outcome of the Chicago case. As Dennis has uncovered MDT is a different type of entity and therefore the cases are quite different.

It's ok though... I'm SURE JT will be more than willing to donate his time to the county to fight this lawsuit in court for them... Oh wait. You need a law license and the ability to file motions. OH SNAP!!! Nevermind... Guess they'll have to get someone from the county to do it instead ;)

[...] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt took a few days, but GamePolitics has tracked down some background on the process which led Miami-Dade Transit officials to pull ads for Grand Theft Auto IV. As we reported late last month, the South Florida transit agency yanked GTA IV ads from bus shelters following pressure by anti-game attorney Jack Thompson. In tracking down this story GP communicated with Deputy Director Hugh Chen and Marketing Director Michael DeCossio. It was media relation official Manuel Palmiero, however, who ultimately supplied the information below. What follows are GP’s question, MDT’s verbatim answers and a few bits of commentary: GP: The GTA IV ads themselves are inoffensive. Is Miami-Dade Transit making a value judgment as to the underlying product? If so, this judgment is based on…? MDT: The Miami-Dade County Commission has adopted three resolutions in the last five years dealing with violent video games — R-1447-03, R-248-04 and R-573-06. You may look up all three at www.miamidade.gov/govaction/searchleg.asp?Action=searchleg. The first resolution specifically condemned the “Grand Theft Auto: […] [...]

GP: Other than Thompson’s, were any other complaints received about the ads?

MDT: We are not aware of any others to date.

No surprise here... And I do say such a history it is relevant, guess who is getting free harassment of Take Two at MDT's expense? Yeah, there is no reason that they would want to know that such individual also has a legal agreement with said company over that individual's harassing legal barratry.... Too bad that person will not cover the costs or defend the MDT.

Seriously, and they are doing this only because of his complaint? I don't think there was just a "complaint" made....

"The first resolution specifically condemned the “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” video game for its “hate-filled messages” and for appearing “to encourage or condone violence against ethnic minorities” and called on retailers to remove the game from their shelves. The other two condemned violent video games in general and urged retailers not to make such games available to minors. "

"Ads containing immoral, lascivious or obscene material as well as ads promoting businesses engaged in any activity that requires that exclusion of minors"

Interesting. I would have asked if they allowed ads for religious organizations that promoted bigotry and hate against individuals based on race, gender, sexuality, or any other grouping. Such as John Bruce's own church, which promotes bigotry and hate against homosexuals, encourages children to bigoted and filled with hate, and sends them to school with know comprehension that there is a "limitation" of bigotry to be recognized. Thereby leading those children to verbally, mentally, physically, even sexually abuse other students who they deem to be "inferior" or "immoral" because of their differences, even segregating out individuals for reasons other than sexuality.

I wonder if the Transit organization thinks such acts are "moral" and appropriate actions against members of the community.

Let's face it, it's easy for them to get all "morally superior" over media they want NO ONE to have access to. But, when it's something THEY approve of, how quick will they be to put it ahead of children?

[...] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt took a few days, but GamePolitics has tracked down some background on the process which led Miami-Dade Transit officials to pull ads for Grand Theft Auto IV. As we reported late last month, the South Florida transit agency yanked GTA IV ads from bus shelters following pressure by anti-game attorney Jack Thompson. In tracking down this story GP communicated with Deputy Director Hugh Chen and Marketing Director Michael DeCossio. It was media relation official Manuel Palmiero, however, who ultimately supplied the information below. What follows are GP’s question, MDT’s verbatim answers and a few bits of commentary: GP: The GTA IV ads themselves are inoffensive. Is Miami-Dade Transit making a value judgment as to the underlying product? If so, this judgment is based on…? MDT: The Miami-Dade County Commission has adopted three resolutions in the last five years dealing with violent video games — R-1447-03, R-248-04 and R-573-06. You may look up all three at www.miamidade.gov/govaction/searchleg.asp?Action=searchleg. The first resolution specifically condemned the “Grand Theft Auto: […] [...]

From R-1447-03:
"...this video allows players to rack up points by killing characters that appear to be Haitian, Cuban, and Colombian, thereby spreading a message of hate that is threatening and damaging to the diversity that makes Miami-Dade County a welcoming place to live and raise families and this disturbing video has become a best-seller and recently received the award for “Best Videogame of 2002” and is therefore poised to spread its message of violence against ethnic minorities to a larger and larger audience of impressionable children and young adults"

This is such nonsense. I used to work as a games tester for Microsoft and I remember when this fuss all kicked up. There was ONE SIDE MISSION (and it was entirely optional - it was a rampage mission) where the text "Kill all the Haitians" displayed in your objectives menu. It was clearly meant to mean "Kill all the Haitian Gangsters", but people like JT pounced on the badly written text and called it an affront to minority groups - blowing the whole thing WAAAYY out of proportion.

Anyway, they recalled every copy of the game from stores and replaced it with a version that had the single little side mission removed. Since they fixed the issue, why is it now suddenly relevant for GTA IV? Which is a different game... I'm certain R* learned a lesson from that one and have no doubt been very careful about how they phrase things in the new game, so this should be completely irrelevant??

@nightwng2000: He's also 'admitted' to being an expert on video game violence and we can both agree that he is, most definitely, not.

Two other things - do the other elders in his church know about his actions, or have they officially approved of them in any public statements? If you can't prove it, you can't assume it, dude.

Lastly - what were the comments? Bear in mind that there are people who disapprove of homosexuality and see it as abnormal BUT don't discriminate against gay people. This is NOT homophobia or hate crime. It's opinion.

SteveUK,
Oh, let's see.
There was the old popular comment regarding Janet Reno. Well documented, including on Wikipedia.
There was the FTC letter regarding the game Bully where he claimed the game contained "gay sex" because the main character kissed a boy.
There's the long standing feud between himself and Norm Kent, a Florida attorney and Gay Rights advocate.
There was the debate about Gay Marriage he took part in. (My luck with links over the last few days has been crappy. Keep getting stuck in the spam filters. It was reported at blogs dot miaminewtimes dot com under Riptide on Sept 19, 2007.) Where he attibuted the decrease of marriages and children being born in some European countries to legalized gay marriage.

There are a great many others (Google "Jack Thompson" with "Gay Rights" at the least.)

And do you really, truly, believe that members of his church are completely in the dark about his clearly outspoken stances? We're not talking about someone who every once and awhile trolls online forums. We're talking about someone who uses his religion as a foundation for his stances, appears on numerous TV news shows, files court documents, appears in various newspapers, and is constantly writing letters to everyone and their illegitimate cousin. He claims to be very involved in his church, even hosting parties with them (I don't know if you were around a couple of years ago where there was some legal thing or other he was involved in on... Easter? or some other holiday or maybe even some other get together where he claimed he was having a party with a bunch of church friends and was running in and out to the computer to post. As I recall, this was on the LiveJournal GamePolitics site. Maybe someone else remembers much more clearly which event it was.

But those folks in the church not know what he's up to? Moreover, him keep his mouth shut to them? Are you kidding or what?

SteveUK,
Oh, and if I REALLY wanted to be like John Bruce, I'd:
(1) Demand legislation to "protect the children" from the harmful effects of bigotry and hate being taught by religious organizations (of course, like John Bruce, ignoring the fact that not all religions believe what he does).

(2) Demand that all religious text be deemed "AO" material for inappropriate content for minors as well as violating community standards and being a public nuisance (of course, like John Bruce, ignorning that not all religious text do it or are interpreted ("modded") in such a way).

(3) Demand that children may not attend any organized religious event, including regularly scheduled services as they may be "mentally molested" by the bigotry and hate espoused at those services (of course, ignorning, like John Bruce does, that not ALL religions do that).

(4) Demand that all religious buildings and structures be moved to a distance of no less that 1 mile from schools or other locations where children congregate (again, ignoring the facts about individual religions and their beliefs).

(5) Blaming a variety of criminal acts on various religious groups to justify my demands. Hey, everybody knows the Oxnard school shooting of a homosexual student was caused or incited by religious Terrorist Trained Tots. And that Nebraska church shooting of a claimed "Anti-Christian" was actually caused by religious abuse of the shooter while he was a kid. Verbal, mental, and physical abuse based on a religious foundation. I could come up with thousands of justifications to blame religion as a whole for various criminal acts.

This isn't an issue of 1st amendment rights so much as message discrimination. While the industry has the right to advertise their games, they do not have the right to advertise anywhere they want. If it was privately owned property (say, someone's yard) and the property's owner didn't want the ads there, there's nothing T2 can do about it.
But, what I gather is that transit agencies (being at least a quasi-government entity, and apparently a full agency in some cases) like money - the more ad dollars they bring in, the fewer they need from the state. As such they are required to take any advertisement that isn't offensive in itself. So I'm not sure if this would succeed or fail, but if I were a resident of here I'd be irritated because the transit authority is driving my taxes up because they'd rather jump on a bandwagon than take perfectly good and inoffensive money.

GP: Benji - read the Change the Climate case. It absolutely is a constitutional issue.

Benji,
I think it became First Amendment Rights violations when the authority didn't say "no" from the beginning. Instead, they allowed it, took one complaint from an Anti-First-Amendment-Rights citizen, and pulled the ads.

At that point, it should be a First Amendment Rights issue. After all, the company didn't have a problem with the ads to begin with. So it did not, in fact, violate the contract in the first place to have the ads.

The company has the Right to decide what to allow or not allow. But it wasn't, in fact, THEIR decision. It was the demands of an Anti-First-Amentment-Rights citizen that made the decision for them.

What they said is "We're not partially government, we're fully government" so basically the case law about a partial governmental group needing to not discriminate/censor media applies more-so for a fully governmental group.

L42yB,
Well, I follow the belief that religion is far closer to an "educational tool" because it is used to directly teach individuals a way to act as well as treat one another.

But games, movies, TV, written literature, music, etc are all "peripheral", even if one exposes themselves to specific content or themes.

The "get a life" crack can be funny when spoken, but the truth is, for the overwhelming majority of individuals, these "peripheral" activities only constitute a small part of one's life.

And, it's true that while religion can be an educational tool to lead an individual to treat others a certain way, for the overwhelming majority of believers, it isn't an all consuming, all controlling effect on an individual's life.

However, when an individual not only appears to consume themselves in anything but trys to force others to be consumed by the exact same thing, then a problem is clearly evident. Then the "get a life" or, even more appropriate "stay out of MY life" seems to have more meaning.

But, yes, an "educational tool" has far more an impact on individuals than "peripheral exposure" does.

I thought it was illegal for a government, or quasi-government orgnization (because after reading the Board of County Commissioners legislation, one can hardly call it informed government legislating), to pass legislation regarding a single company. Reeks of bias, and discrimination on their own part. Furthermore, singling out Walmart then tagging on "other retailers" also screams bias. They're going for what they think is the big boy on the block, or for the one they can think of up front. Sloppy. Honestly, T2/R* could very well take the County Commissioners to court over that little piece of legislation. Defamation and bias by government officials is a nasty, nasty business that can cost a city or state millions.

MDT: The Miami-Dade County Commission has adopted three resolutions in the last five years dealing with violent video games — R-1447-03, R-248-04 and R-573-06. You may look up all three at www.miamidade.gov/govaction/searchleg.asp?Action=searchleg.
The first resolution specifically condemned the “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City” video game for its “hate-filled messages” and for appearing “to encourage or condone violence against ethnic minorities” and called on retailers to remove the game from their shelves. The other two condemned violent video games in general and urged retailers not to make such games available to minors.
Miami-Dade Transit is a department of Miami-Dade County and as such follows the policies set by the Miami-Dade County Commission and Mayor.

In none of the resolutions does it state anything about decency, which was not violated by the advertisements. Nor are there any displays of violence in any of the ads, which makes referencing these three resolutions null and cheap talking points handed out by the Miami Dade Board of Commissioners. They are all non-binding resolutions that carry little to no legal weight, and any judge worth their salt would look at it and say that it is flatly biased against a particular company (since it is named) or media without regards to multiple forms of media. Miami should be praying very hard that T2 looses in Chicago, or their ass is on the chopping block next.

Yeah, if you pay someone to put up ads, and it doesn't show anything remotely inappropriate ie. sex, violence, etc. then I don't reallt think that Miami or any other transit system has the right to just pull those ads since they accepted them in the first place.

I'd assume that T2 isn't waiting on the outcome of their legal action in Chicago before bringing legal action in Miami. I'd assume they're drafting their complaint against Dade County as we speak.

Hey, Jack. Suit by T2 against Dade County would be a good opportunity for you to seek permission to file one of your officious, intermeddling, and fallacy-filled amicus curae briefs. Good look finding an 11th Circuit or Southern District judge who'll give you the time of day, though. I suspect you've thoroughly burned all those bridges.

Damn firefox.
As I was saying..
That interview had some intense "don't answer the question" action going down.
It's quite sad that their fallback for their censorship is that they're a "full government agency."
I would think that would mean they have less slack in doing this sort of thing.

I wouldn't blame it on the religion itself, I'd put it on the religious group that comitted the crime.

I wouldn't throw an Arab Muslim in prison just because certain Arab Muslims (whose names, if anyone knows them, must not be disclosed) took part in 9/11. Hell, I wouldn't throw a Japanese person in prison just because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor during World War II. That's just wrong.

And nightwng2000, this wasn't to say you were wrong, I was expressing my views in relation to what you said.

Typically, I'd agree. But when the transit authority is a government agency, it must adhere to the US Constitution. As such, pulling the ads could easily be seen as a violation of the First Amendment, especially when the company which paid for the ads to be there, already had paid. Even so, without a good justifiable (that is: constitutionally safe) reason to pull the ads, the Transit Authority might have some... future difficulty in legal circles.

So what would you do if Take Two also sues Miami-Dade Transit like they should over free speech?

There was an agreement between you and Take Two to not mess with their games and it seems like you are really breaking that agreement.

Since you said that you are just only trying to stop the sale of games like GTA 4 to children then go ahead yet you are just making a bad image of yourself by messing with the games themselves for adults to play how they were intended.

I thought you couldn't do a removal due to complaint unless it was by multiple people, not just one, especially if the complaint is not "offensive" to them directly in any sense...

Would it be possible for T2 to go to the courts and get an even stricter "restraint" against Jack Thompson, seeing as he has not only violated the last restraint but has now caused the (potential) loss of profit for GTA IV due to his sole complaint, even though he has a history of attacking most T2 games? Can they do that now?

This is ridiculous. The ads don't say or show anything offensive, violent, or racist. If they had the main character and the words "Kill whitey in GTA IV" or "Cops are worth bonus points!" then yeah, I could see the problem. If I recall right, all ads have just pictures of the people...nothing really going with them. So stupid. Thanks, Jack.

Sorry, that's The Other Shadow, or T.O.S. for short, messing around. Sometimes I swear he won't discard his youth, acting like he's 6 when he's about... 16, I think. He genuinely annoys me, so I gotta shout him down to shut him up. He also types stuff and cries when I delete it, so for the sake of my hearing I leave them there and post my responses to his antics.

I am sure Joke Thompson faxed them a bunch of e-mails saying the game was pornography and that if they didn't remove it then they would face a lawsuit.

What he didn't tell them is that the game is NOT pornography. The game has been rated for Mature Audiences 17 years of age and older.

I am pretty sure that what JT has done goes against his agreement with TT. They may just be waiting for the verdict to come down on him before taking any action. JT might try to get any action taken against him stalled if he is involved in litigation at the time.

Who knows at this point. JT stop making sense a long time ago when he decided to try and get interactive entertainment classified as porn.

As an aside, I was playing GTA IV, and a random pedestrian yelled out C.U.N.T. F.L.A.P.S. as I was walking by. Was good for a laugh. It is funny that JT has increased my enjoyment of GTA IV. If he stayed out of it, I would not have been as interested in it. I was tired of GTA from playing the others.

Thank you for giving the game more advertising than they could ever have paid for. Not only that, but they will get back a chunk of that money they spent on ads because you decided to fax and threaten in your usual way.

Jack Thompson, you are a fucking joke and a pathetic excuse for a human being. Practise what you preach, grow up and get a life.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

Wymorence: For me it just boils down to the fact that, even at a giant company, when a game comes out annually it just gives it a vibe of being rushed out the door. And god knows Unity sucked some major lemur with all its bugs...03/31/2015 - 4:22pm

PHX Corp: I launched my spotify account today, and I kinda went a little overboard with adding music03/31/2015 - 3:59pm

Sora-Chan: Con't. Games like AC are a pain to someone like me who likes to play games in order. So when a game gets too many releases too quickly, it puts me off. Only exceptions are games that have no interconnected underlying stories like the FF games.03/31/2015 - 2:53pm

Sora-Chan: Wikipedia has rarely let me down on matters like this. But yeah... AC needs a break.. like two.. or three... or eight years.03/31/2015 - 2:51pm

Conster: There's 9 already?! I think I played 1, 2, and the ones inbetween 2 and 3.03/31/2015 - 2:23pm

Sora-Chan: Con't There are now Nine... of just the main entries into the series. There are 13 more in the "other games" department.03/31/2015 - 2:15pm

Sora-Chan: I tried to get into AC. Was having a decent time with the first one, at which point they had already released three titles. Then a fourth came out... then a fifth... the wall kept growing before I could finish the first.03/31/2015 - 2:14pm

Daniel Lewis: I think ubisoft should give AC a break before it's milked to death,and i'm a big fan of the games03/31/2015 - 1:15pm

Daniel Lewis: The only thing said i disagree with is the final quote on Men's experiences are seen to be universal but women are gendered,though doesn't anita say that games with male protagonists are male power fantasies,so in turn both are gendered03/31/2015 - 1:08pm

Daniel Lewis: i found the video to be much better than any of the TvW series and it's about time the positive women are put in the spotlight03/31/2015 - 1:06pm

Daniel Lewis: So feministfrequency released a positive female character video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ03/31/2015 - 1:05pm

Daniel Lewis: I think the guy who made the direct leak said it was an april fools joke when a real one was announced03/31/2015 - 12:43pm

MaskedPixelante: No way Nintendo would let information like that get out. Remember, they shut down a memoir about the localization of Earthbound by enforcing a 20 year old NDA on the author.03/31/2015 - 12:42pm

james_fudge: Conster: the larger issue is that Ind. does not protect LGBTQ+ people under state law03/31/2015 - 12:11pm

PHX Corp: @MP I think it is confirmed(not an April Fools joke) http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/31/nintendo-direct-confirmed-for-wednesday-april-1st/03/31/2015 - 12:00pm

Conster: Apparently Pence intends to amend SB101 so denying service isn't allowed - without explicitly protecting LGBT+ and while still allowing the many other things you can get away with now if it's motivated by your religious beliefs.03/31/2015 - 11:53am

MaskedPixelante: http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/30/rumour-nintendo-direct-on-april-1st/ A supposed full leak of tomorrow's Nintendo Direct, so you can all laugh and laugh about how wrong it is.03/31/2015 - 11:35am

PHX Corp: http://kotaku.com/why-a-tekken-7-character-is-being-called-a-phoney-1694724959 Why a Tekken 7 Character Is Being Called a Phoney03/31/2015 - 10:08am