Slashdot Mirror
Indianapolis Restricts Display Of Violent Games
Darren M. writes: "This CNN article talks about a new law passed in Indianapolis. Apparently, starting the 1st of September, arcades will be required to place games with violence or strong sexuality away from non-violent games, separated by a wall or curtain. They will also be required to only allow persons 18 and over to play them. I cannot imagine how this is constitutional." This seems like a thin excuse to harden and extend the age stratification that passes in many areas of life for "common sense." Remind anyone of jamie's story about age restriction on Soldier of Fortune in British Columbia?
I personally am not so sure as you about whether or not violence in the media leads to violence in the real world, but let's assume that it does. What right does that give us to restrict access to violent videogames? The answer to societal problems is not increased govermental regulations. This can only lead to disaster. I mean, look at the tax code. Now if something as simple as taxation can be made so complex by the government, then imagine how impossible it would become if we relied on the government to regulate every aspect of our society! This example seems silly, but I think that it does make a point. The answer to societal problems (if there is an answer) is not to build up mountains of legislation. The answer is to attack the root of the problem: our society. Now everyone has their own opinion of what is wrong with our society, and that is a debate that I don't want to get into right now. But I think it is pretty obvious that the government simply doesn't have the power to stop the problems that we face. And if it did have that power, that would be a bad thing also, because then the government would have too much power... and absolute power corrupts absolutely...
First of all, this law is more than likely constitutional. I don't see how its a violation of free speech or free association. If that were unconstitutional, then not allowing minors into porn theaters would be unconstitutional. It's best to actually read the Constitution and have at least a working understanding of it before using it as a blanket defense.
That being out of the way, I belive that this law is probably doomed to a quick death. Simply put, it will kill arcades throughout the city. Games like Mortal Kombat and its ilk are the bread and butter of these places. Denying the vast majority of the customers access to those machines will seriously hurt the bottom line.
Even should that first supposition be wrong, having a roped off section behind a curtain with a big bouncer not allowing kids in is sure going to be a great draw for families, isn't it? Who in their right minds would have their kid's birthday party in a place like that? Even those who don't play those games will be effected by this asinine piece of legislation.
Personally, if I were an Indianapolis arcade owner, I'd tell the city to frag themselves and move to the suburbs out of the way. Consider the lost tax revenue plus the cost of enforcing the law would be rediculous. There's no way that the city can reasonably expect this law to stay on the books without it having a negative and demonstratable effect on the city. This law is doomed to failure, and anyone with half a clue should have been able to figure it out.
If I were an Indianapolis resident, I'd seriously thinking about a recall petition.
If you think violence in videogames doesn't affect children, then you are living in a fantasy world. Media, of which videogames are one facet, have an incredible effect on children.
Personally, I don't dispute this. Children exposed to violence at an early age probably turn out to be a little more screwed up than others.
However, the question is whether you are willing to gradually give up more and more personal freedoms and allow censorship in order to prevent this from happening. I am not. You can either decide to take personal responsibility for protecting your children from that which you feel they should be protected from, or let the government dictate to you how things should be. As everyone knows, freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular ideas. It it to protect the unpopular ones -- or in this case, the politically incorrect ones.
The games are put behind a curtain? Doesn't that seem a little ominous to anyone else?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
This is going too far. I get carded trying to buy an R-Rated movie, get carded to buy Soldier of Fortune in BC, get carded to play video games in Indiana but don't get carded when I walk into a bar. Go figure where our priorities are.
kwsNI
Well you're mostly right. All of Greece didn't exactly join forces to fend off Xerxes. Something like half of the Greek city-states sided with Persia. During the course of the Greaco-Persian wars Athens and Sparta were the most powerful of the Greek city-states and bickered alot about the best strategy for defending greece. Athens being a port city was in alot of danger of being invaded by sea, blockaded or backed up against the ocean by a land force (in fact Athens was evacuated, captured and burned twice during the persain wars) Sparta on the other hand was landlocked and pretty self reliant, lots of good farming land on the Peleponese (sp?). So they disagreed on the best strategy, Themisticles, leader of Athens for most of the period, wanted a united greek navy commanded by Athens. Sparta wanted a coalition army to hold up on the Pelelponese at the ithmus to wait for Xerxes to attack and defend from there.
;->
The Spartans also had a problem with slave revolts. They're slaves wern't happy, and in fact the only thing that kept them under control for the most part was the massive standing army Sparta kept at home. So for politcal reasons they didn't embrace the Athenian strategy. That is not to say that the Spartans didn't play a crucial role in the war. Their most famous battle is Thermopylae, a narrow passage near the sea where 3000 allied greek soliders (300 Spartan hoplites, 700 from other allies, and about 2000 support personal, archers ect...) held off Xerxe's entire army (over 100,000 men, 1,000,000 by some accounts) for 3 days. It could be thought of as the Alamo of ancient greece. Anyway the death toll was astounding, Xerxes lost something on the order of 10k men. Anyway that holding action disrupted Xerxes supply chain and ruined the tight integration between his land and naval forces (the navy could not operate with out the land forces) and likely supplied the edge Athens needed to spank the Persian navy soundly at Salamis and elsewhere.
A couple of good books I recomend about the Persian wars are:
The Greco-Persian Wars by Peter Green.
and
The Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfeild.
The Gates of Fire is a fictional account of the Spartans involvment at Thermopylea, takes a few liberties but overall is a very good piece of historical fiction. I recomend reading Green's book first (it reads like a novel not a text book) for an overall picture of the war and then reading Gates of Fire for a first person perspective of warfare in ancient times. History was never more exciting
I should also note that shortly after the wars, Athens essentially started extracting protection money from her naval allies and sacked a few island cities that refused to pay dues to her defense coalition. This growing Athenian empire is what led to Sparta and Athens fighting (with Athens losing) about 100 yrs later.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Fundamentally, I have no problem with restricting access to certain materials for children. However, I'd love to see our imperfect system replaced with one which truly reflects the philosophies of the child's parent.
The current US system has two major flaws:
In order to allow parents to exert some degree of control over their children's intake of material, yet at the same time allow them to customize the access based on their personal views and reading of the child's maturing, I propose the following system for all media (TV, print, videogames, video, movies, etc.):
I know this is simplistic, but I do think there are some reasonable ideas that we could use to replace the current botched up system.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Typical zoning laws do not all adult businesses in all but the worst part of town, in the industrial zoned areas, far out of the way of everything, and certainly far away from schools, malls, and kids. Arcades may be forced to get rid of the violent games or see their business licenses revoked.
If they boot the games, arcades may see their customer count dwindling. So wheather by zoning laws or simple fall off in profits, arcades could find themselves forced out of business.
See what a tiny piece of legislation can do?
Errr...no. There is no age interval for citizenship; anyone born in the United States or of American parents abroad is a U.S. citizen from birth to death or renunciation of citizenship. Furthermore, the constitutional protections of basic human rights apply to all persons in the U.S., not just citizens (you may dispute this one in practice based on a few human rights abuses committed by U.S. authorities unto its own citizens, but it's the legal truth).
The issue here is not that the right to play violent video games is protected by the constitution but does not apply to children, but that there is no constitutional right to play violent video games. The vast majority of "rights" in this country have been constructed by the courts or the lawmakers based on the principles of the Bill of Rights and the ninth-amendment protection of "unenumerated rights."
Do, indeed, the constitution or the laws of the land mention anything about the freedom to play violent video games? No. The legal question is not whether children have constitutional rights, but whether a municipal government has the power to prevent children from accessing games it finds objectionable in a public place.
The inevitable lawsuit will be a very interesting one to watch, because the current standard for deciding if objectionable material can be restricted by government decree is whether the offending material is totally devoid of either artistic merit or social value. Certainly this is not the case with (most) violent video games, but it will be fun to see the city's arguments to the contrary!
change how people behave? Are you nuts? Have speed limits changed how people drive? For the most part, no. Not until they pull every speeder over, every time, and pull their license - and incarcerate for driving on suspended licenses, will behavioral changes occur.
Sorry, but you're wrong about this. When California raised its freeway limit from 55 mph to 65 mph four years ago, average speeds dutifully rose from 65mph to 75mph. Drivers, on average, drive at 10 mph over the limit. Even though only 1 in 700 minor driving offences (speeding etc.) are prosecuted, most drivers stay close enough to the limit. The threat of being caught is part but only part of why the vast majority of people obey the law.
Sailing over the event horizon
I don't know if this weak curtaining thing is mandated by Australian censorship -- sorry, classification -- laws or whether it is self imposed, but I suspect the former. There's no requirement for the game to be set apart from other games as mentioned in this particular law: the machines with the curtain rails poking out oddly from the body of the game stand right next to the ones with the exposed screens.
The article in question quotes someone as saying "the law's not going to do any good." Well, duh! It's political grandstanding, same as usual, and the only "good" it's meant to do is to increase the popularity of its proponents with the moral majority -- and it will work in its own small way. It's also yet another law in the ever increasing pile of the stuff that most Western democracies are miring themselves in. That fact, more than "restraint of free speech", is what I find offensive.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
I believe this law doesn't go far enough! We need to protect our children from board games which teach them that enough money will solve all your problems.
Consider Monopoly, for instance. The object of the game is to get as much money as possible and bankrupt the other players. Children see that it is okay to financially destroy other people! And look at the high amounts of money used when playing it. Exposed to routine use of those incredibly high sums, children will see the high sums of money in the drug trade as no big deal!
It doesn't end at board games either! Games like jumping rope and basketball teach children that it is okay to exclude the handicapped. That intolerance is unacceptable! Ban those games and let the eggheads figure out how to make hopscotch ADA compliant!
Violence, as all rational people know, should receive scrutiny. I'm glad that the focus is on violence rather than sex. Now before you all get your panties in a bunch, this is not about video games. It's about gratuitious violence in videogames that desensitize children. If you think violence in videogames doesn't affect children, then you are living in a fantasy world. Media, of which videogames are one facet, have an incredible effect on children.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I am not sure why anybody would think that this is shocking. You have to be 17 (legally) to see and R rated movie. You need to be of age to look at "adult material" (ie porn). Why should a video game this is violent or sexual in nature be any different? I am not endorsing this kind of law. I do not think that I should have somebody tell me what my kid can and cannot see. However it is not a surprise to me either. J
I fail to see how limiting access to stuff like this is such a big deal.
If the community deems that these things are offensive, and should have a restricted audience, what's the problem? You're still even allowed to take your kids to the arcade, if you don't mind them playing. It merely moves the decision to play that sort of thing into the parents court theoretically, rather than letting possibly uninformed, immature kids make the decision on their own.
I have yet to see any strong advocacy movement on slashdot to allow children of all ages to see XXX porno freely. It's about the same issue.
There is a fairly long standing acceptance of movies being rated PG, meaning that a parent needs to guide the kids to see it. It's about the same issue. It's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can see.
The Constitution protects the expression of speech. And the game companies are still allowed to express the game however they want. They are merely being limited to who their audiece is, to a group that possibly is more mature, and better able to deal with it appropriately.
Now, if you want to discuss the futility of a measure like this, I'm on board. I don't see this changing anything in terms of what kids play. Not significantly. I went to R movies long before I was 18, and I fully expect Indianapolis kids to skirt this with impunity. And I do feel for the arcade owners who have to deal with this stuff. It's a hassle for them, and they can't win either way. Either the customers will get pissed at them, or the law will be all over them.
It's a stupid law, I think. But far from a meaningful one.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
The government is taking the role of the parent for today's youth. Being 19, I know what it's like to have gone to an arcade to play "violent" games. I was a Street Fighter II (and all various flavors) player and my parents knew it. They allowed me to play such games and trusted me to behave myself after playing such games. I find it hard to swallow that the parents of the city of Indianapolis are having that hard of a time controlling their own children. This not only puts a "taboo" effect on violent games as "the games to play" in the eyes of the little rebel wanna-bes. This also puts strain on the parents of the children. How many parents trust their children enough to go to the arcade alone in the mall for an hour, leaving the adult(s) to do as (s)he pleases? I know my parents did. This will get on the nerves of parents as well as make children and teens frustrated at the fact that they can't spend their own money the way THEY want to.
They will also be required to only allow persons 18 and over to play them. I cannot imagine how this is constitutional." Um how is this un-constitutional? Kids in the USA do not have constitutional rights. If they could, they would have the right to vote. They do have basic human rights however. And playing viloent or objectional games is not a right by any means.
-Sid
Or is British Columbia the only place in North America being overrun by retarded reality-based Japanese videogames?
Wah!
Feh. This merely increases the glamour/attraction of these games for the kiddiez. Just like sneaking into R movies, forging ID's for bars, etc. we now introduce yet another opportunity for kids to see how ridiculous age limits laws are & thus reduce their respect for all of society's laws. If only our society had a sane, gradual ramp up of introducing possibly harmful ideas/substances/tools to children instead of the current "You're a child - no no no" vs. "You're 16/18/21 - do what you want" gate functions (cars, guns & booze respectively; sometimes I think we have the order exactly wrong there)....
> I'm sure ACLU lawyers are cleaning their guns as we speak
Errr...
"The importance of it is that it's an effort to begin to attack the culture of violence that I believe surrounds our young people these days virtually from the day they're born," the mayor said.
So I take it this guy is planning on going after TV next? All those cop shows and what not? Heck, he should watch some old cartoons. Maybe he'll go after our government and the "culture of violence" they practice that helps keep gas prices low.
Sorry, but I just can't help but laugh at people who say things like "We must attack the culture of violence." Shouldn't you be making peace with it?
This attitude (Which also comes into play with the drug war, Kill the Drugs, liquor and cigarettes) of trying to hide the bad things and act like they are not there, only adds to the "cool" factor of accessing them. The motivation for a teenager can be quite simple. q:"Why'd you do it?" a:"You told me not too." and attitudes like this play directly into it. These types of laws also help to marginalize certain individuals, and in this case, it is those individuals that perhaps shouldn't be marginalized any more than they already are.
--
+&x
Being born outside of America and only having been here for a few years, the amount of violence in American entertainment from music and movies to video games and television has left me stunned.
,3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 is their constitiutional right. Now I do not claim that violence would not exist without violent games nor that video games cause violence but even a blind person can tell that we (in America) are extremely disensitized to violence. Nowhere else in the world is so much violence consumed by the public nor is it as easily accessible to minors as in America.
In a country were the average youth (especially minorities) is disenfranchised, ignored by their parents and has easy access to mind altering substances it is in my opinion a deadly combination to combine that with the current cocktail mix of easy access to firearms and constant daily diet of violence in all forms that children get.
That Americans are desensitized to violence is no longer news, but it amazes me when someone claims that a diet of gratuitious violence and entertainment that consists of 1, 2
In my opinion until there is a movement to curtail the excessive amount of firepower in the community then moves like this are a stop gap measure on the journey to ridding our communities of violence. Yes, I know violence goes beyond violent video games and is more likely due to other factors (abuse at home, poverty, feelings of persecution, resentment) but the fact is that violent video games are not blameless. But two wrongs do not make a right (allow violent video games to minors since they have access to other violence), after all, the Columbine kids didn't play long games of Pokemon before going on their killing spree.
PS; If you've ever lived in a neighborhood were you go to sleep hearing gunshots and wakeup to sirens you'll know where I'm coming from. Lakewood, Atlanta, GA.
What amazes me is that people think that by obscuring or forbidding access to such things, we will remove their influence upon those who we assume are impressionable (i.e. children). Children may not see rated R movies alone, but they do. Children may not view pornography but they do (and did long before the Internet ever existed).
I don't think that the lawmakers are nearly as naive as you make them out to be. Of course they realise that many of the laws that are passed are not going to be directly effective. Not all laws are meant to be strictly enforced. Many are aimed at signalling what society believes to be acceptable behavior.
In this example, of course many kids will get around this law (I'm using "law" in a non-technical way: IANAL). But it sends a signal that Indiana doesn't believe that certain depictions of violence are appropriate for children. Even if the law is never enforced, the publicity surrounding the law will send a message about what society believes is civilized and what is not. This helps parents enforce these rules on their own children because it allows them to point to how most parents expects their children to behave. This does actually have a positive effect.
Anti-racism and other anti-discrimination laws are like this. There are actually very few prosecutions under these laws, but they send a strong signal that society doesn't believe racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are acceptable. Over time this can change how people behave.
Sailing over the event horizon
There should not be an age requirement on anything, but rather a maturity requirement. In a perfect society, the society would judge the individual's maturity level, sort of like the coming of age in indian tribes. After you had passed certain tests you were a man and a full member of the tribe.
-- Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
If only they had this policy when I was a child. Instead I was allowed to play fighting games all I wanted. As a result I ran away from home and joined a cross dimensional martial arts tournament run by an evil wizard. I was forced to fight and decapitate burly marines and thong clad women in order to protect earth from invasion. In the end I had both legs broken by a large speedo wearing Russian dude. The cops found me in the hospital and sent me back to my parents. I am sadder, wiser and crippled and I wish that I had never been allowed to play video games a such a young age.
This law is needed.
--Shoeboy
I love violent video games. I grew up playing Street Fighter (in all it's incarnations), Final Fantasy, Doom, etc. Although I tend to dislike violence in games for the sake of violence, if it's a good game, *and* it's violent? Hell, I'm interested...
Now, that would mean that after uppercutting, shooting, stabbing, slicing, and kicking digital people my whole life, that I'd be desensitized to violence, right?
Wrong. On December 1st, 1999 in downtown Seattle, I was engaged in a peaceful march with locked-out steelworkers. As we marched, we chanted "Assembly Is A Right!" with peace signs in the air, and moved towards the "no protest zone". About two blocks outside of the designated zone, we found ourselves trapped by urban control vehicles and black-clad riot police. And then the tear gas came.
Oh, but this wasn't regular tear gas. They had run out of that stuff, this was military grade tear gas. It didn't make you cry. It fucked you up. Potentially, it could have killed somebody.
I did my best to evade the gas, running down alleys, kicking canisters back at the police. My adrenaline was pumping, so I wasn't doing much thinking, until I saw this guy sitting on the sidewalk...
He was around 55 to 60 years old, and he looked anything like a typical protestor. He looked homeless. He was sitting, slumped against a parking meter, almost completely comatose. He was spitting up a kind of mucous that definitely looked unnatural. People were trying to wash his eyes out with water, and see what was wrong with him. He either was having a major allergic reaction, or he had gotten a full-on dose of military grade (CN gas, I believe) tear gas.
I turned around, and saw a group of people running past me. Two more urban control vehicles had moved up to us, and I heard three or four loud bangs as more tear gas was being shot at us...
A canister fell right at my feet, and I ran down an alley faster than I ever have before. On the other side were people being pushed towards Pike's Market by riot police. Among them was a woman with a baby in a stroller, desparately asking a private security guard where she could go to be safe...
I started crying. Sobbing, really, like a little kid. The kind of uncontrollable sob you remember from when you were six, where even talking isn't an option. I don't know how long I was crying and wandering in and out of the police riot (as best I could), but eventually this young woman (and I wish I remembered her name) came over and calmed me down. We took some time to help people who were injured, but eventually decided it was time to find a way out of there.
We walked through Pike's Market in order to escape, and on the way out, I saw a woman with her hands out, sitting on the curb, bleeding from the mouth, her chin burnt from what I can only assume was a tear gas canister that had hit her directly in the face. The only thing I could do to stop myself from crying was to repeatedly hit a stop sign with my bare fist...
I grew up watching violent television, movies, playing violent video games. And when I was attacked with chemicals, when I saw people being beaten and terrorized, I couldn't take it. When I was finally confronted with real violence, Mortal Kombat didn't mean jack shit.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
As much as I hate to admit this, some companies in the game industry have seemingly been working toward making regulations like this occur. Some notables in this regard include Xatrix (Kingpin), Raven (Soldier of Fortune), and Virgin (Thrill Kill, which was cancelled). With all of the anti-game press swirling about, releasing games that use *extreme* violence as entertainment for younger males is completely irresponsible. Note that I'm not referring to Quake-style frags here, but games that go to great lengths to make horrible, realistic deaths a reward for the player. Did the developers really expect these games to go unnoticed in the current video game crackdown? It's like an artist, protesting the objection to public funding of weird fetish art, taking a crap on the steps of the white house and claiming to be artistically inspirred.
Yes, freedom of speech, blah, blah, blah, but repeatedly trying to push your luck is just plain stupid. I don't know if the developers of the aforementioned games were trying to profit from controversy, or if it was just an example of the juvenile attitude that the game biz is getting to be known for, but it showed poor judgement.