Slashdot Mirror
Killing Video Games
Notice, too, the ignorance of how video games are used, by whom, and to what effect. Only a small fraction of gamers use point-and-shoot games any more. Meanwhile, violence among the young has been dropping for several years, not rising. And there is no significant or credible evidence linking point-and-shoot games with youth violence, anyway.
No less an authority than the U.S. Secret Service cautions in a special study of school shootings that it's dangerous to generalize about the causes of violence among kids. "The use of profiles is not effective either for identifying students who may pose a risk for targeted violence at school or -- once a student has been identified -- for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence." The Secret Service study cited bullying and harassment as a primary cause of the recent spate of school attacks, and made no mention of video games in general (or point-and-shoot games in particular) as a cause of school violence. You can read the report for yourself. Too bad State Sen. Toni Harp hasn't.
Harp, a New Haven Democrat and the bill's main sponsor, predictably ripped Governor Rowland for pledging to veto her inane legislation. She told the Hartford Courant newspaper that she hopes Connecticut doesn't experience a "tragedy like Columbine, because then he can take some responsibility." Sen. Harp, the mother of three apparently unfortunate children, argues that "these are games that train people to kill." Nowhere in her proposed bill or public statements did she offer any factual support of that foolish and demonstrably false statement. But many of her fellow legislators didn't appear to notice or care, sending this message to kids: lawmakers know nothing about the contemporary world, and rarely follow even minimal standards of research, accuracy or integrity.
Harp first introduced her bill -- which passed by an 82 to 63 vote --in l999, just weeks after the Columbine killings. It would require business owners to control video gaming the same way they restrict sales of cigarettes (at least there's substantial medical research supporting the idea that tobacco is unhealthy) and liquor, by prohibiting anyone under 18 from playing games that involve firing simulated guns at simulated human beings. Operators of public video-game outlets would have faced fines up to $1,000 for letting minors grab the joysticks for games Sen. Harp considers violent and distatesful.
Under her bill -- you can't make this up -- minors could kill simulated aliens and animals at will, however. As for other "weapons," the bill doesn't address violent games that don't involve guns. There must be something in the state's drinking water. U.S. Senator and former vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman has introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress that would make it a federal crime to show R-rated movie trailers in any place where children might possibly see them.
"We've got to realize that we can't legislate everyting under the sun," said Gov. Rowland, himself the father and stepfather of five kids under 16. "It's too much big government, it's too much Big Daddy. Let's send a message to parents that, 'Hey there are some games out there that are pretty ugly, and why don't you go see what your kids are doing?" Rowland also noticed that the bill would be a nightmare to enforce, if it were even possible. We are shocked by this kind of logic from public officials, even though the idea that parents ought to yank their kids out of video game parlors for playing point and shoot games is still pretty inane.
If Sen. Harp knew anything at all about the evolution of gaming, she might re-consider her stance. If point-and-shoot games actually turned kids into murderers, there would be few people under 18 left alive in the United States.
Americans now name video games as their favorite form of entertainment, according to one recent survey by the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). TV came in a distant second, with Web-surfing third. If you include home entertainment systems like PlayStation, then video games are the runaway national pastime. One hundred and forty-five million Americans play computer and video games, the IDSA estimates. The vast majority (80 per cent) aren't kids at all: typical gamers are between 28 and 30, and nearly half are women.
Gaming isn't merely hunt-and-kill challenges for adolescents -- it includes everything from urban-planning, trivia, gambling, bridge and chess puzzles to complex, sophisticated journeys into the imagination. And it's making a ton of money.
Game-related revenue totalled more than $8.9 billion in 1999, topping the $7.3 billion generated that year by movie box office receipts. This isn't a cult; it's mainstream entertainment.
MIT's Henry Jenkins and other scholars have been pointing out in recent years that gaming is revolutionizing the imagination. Yet it's been greeted by the same Puritan ethic that regards play as suspicious, Jenkins has written, and which denounced other new forms of entertainment and culture, from novels to TV.
The biggest category of games are strategy and role-playing games, followed by by action, sports and racing. (Hunt-and-kill games are now down to 15 percent of the market).
In some way, politicians like Sen. Harp ought to be held accountable for their laziness, their disconnection from their own constitituencies, ignorance of the cultural lives of the young, and lack of regard for basic freedom. It's hardly a democratic value to bring government into decisions like what movies kids can see or which video games parents ought to allow them to play.
As for Gov. Rowland, he gets the Penguin award for rational response to the post-Columbine hysteria.
musn't ... do it .... must fight.... urge to ...post .... goatsecx link ...no matter how ....appropriate
Now... Studies have shown, and I personally have seen effects of those studies, that a large portion of people who recreated with `weed' often graduated on to harder drugs.
In Holland, hard drug use has dropped with the legalisation of pot. The problem is that one has to go to uncontrolled sources to get weed and once that step is taken, you are a criminal and you have access to the full spectrum of substances. Also, more heroin users have done alcohol than weed. Ban this evil gateway drug!
As a recreational user of cocaine, the above comment disturbs me. I had smoked pot but never really found it enjoyable. I still want to know why I cannot use Heroin, Cocaine, or whatever if I so choose.
I find the parent comment to be truly bizarre. It suggests that if we have a policy of allowing new freedoms, then people are going to ask for even more new rights (specifically in this case the right to ingest "hard" drugs). Is this bad?! If open discussion and lobbying were aloud on these issues then maybe I wouldn't feel intimidated into posting as an AC.
I applaud the pot people for their responsiveness to this issue. I just wish I would extend beyond the idea that "pot does not hurt you" and into "it's my right as an American to smoke pot".Quake teaches many valuable lessons that can be directly applied to every day life.
My goodness. Has anyone even given any thought to why boys like games associated with war and strategy?
Frankly, I believe that if we remove all the virtual outlets for male aggresion, we'll see a whole lot more violence amoung those kids who aren't typically interested in sports (most sports being war-like games themselves).
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Hell, I don't see how you aren't qualified for the Senate. Are you willing to read shitloads of information and try your best to make the right decisions? Can you be bribed or bought? Are you good at public speaking- or can you learn? Most of all, will you hang on to your essentially non-corrupt perspective while trying to remember that your fellow reps or senators are just flawed people and that's why they fail you and their own constituents?
Please do run. Go find out. We need you- or to be specific (and don't you forget this), we need your _values_ and will support you, most likely, as long as you're true to them.
I'm a Vermonter- look at _our_ senator, Jim Jeffords. He's far from perfect- takes a lot of money from PACs etc- but when Bush put forth a nonsensical, meaningless education plan that would gut our schools, Jeffords couldn't go along with the game any more, no matter how well he was paid off to do it. And he quit the Republican party, threw the Senate into upheaval, switched control of important subcommittees over to Democrats- and got _cheers_ in Vermont for it. People understood. They understood that for once, and despite his other faults, a senator was siding with his constituents- specifically, he was refusing to see American education flushed down the toilet just because his party wanted to play ultraconservative and gut funding for it.
I bet he still takes bribes, but don't forget he was cheered in Vermont for his action against his own party. People _will_ back you if you are true to them. Otherwise they'll totally ignore you like all other politicians, and you'll have to whore yourself to the PACs to get elected. You've got to prove that you'll represent your people. I bet anything Jeffords gets re-elected. Hell, he earned some respect from me, and I don't like his taking bribes at all and I voted for Progressives and Green candidates.
You want a seat in the House or Senate? Find a way to _prove_ that you are what you say you are. Anybody can talk. Get busy in politics.
Need a speechwriter? ;) *g*
If anything, it looks as if _both_ major parties are so far out to lunch that _both_ of them are capable of producing rebels who can't tolerate the nonsense anymore.
I'm reminded of a statement of, I think, Lawrence Lessig- in a roundtable on electronic freedoms held by O'Reilly, he said "Where are the Republicans when you need them? When it comes to these sorts of regulatory actions- I want to see a regulatory impact statement!". The fact is, it's just as likely to see the current political climate rubbing diehard Republicans the wrong way as Democrats.
The Democrats might go "What the HELL are we doing, dismantling every damn mechanism the government has come up with for actually doing some good? What good are we supposed to be if we're not funding government programs to prop up society? It doesn't run itself. That's what we _have_ a government for."
The Republicans might go "What the HELL are we doing, writing new laws faster than we can think or read them? What are we going to do, put video arcade owners in jail? We're spinning a web of government regulation so thick that _nobody_ will be able to move, call that freedom? Let's call it maternalism. Let's call it damned interferingness. In fact, let's get rid of it!"
Expect to continue to be surprised by small rebellions and defiances by the politicians whom you thought were bought and paid for employees of Corporate America. They _do_ have beliefs- you just might not be aware of what they are. Who knew that Jeffords would throw the Senate into upheaval and destroy the Republican lock on White House, Senate and House simply over education and being treated with contempt over his centrism? More importantly, who will be next- and from which side will he or she abandon ship?
Well, yes. The father staying home would also be acceptable. Kids need to be taken care of. Of course parents who put saving up for that SUV above investing the time and effort a kid needs to grow up properly will end up with some fucked up kid who goes on killing sprees. And it's their own damn fault.
I'd bet serious money that some pothead has committed DWS (Driving while stoned) and killed himself/passengers/drivers/pedestrians.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
Or, as Orwell nicely put it "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth."
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The quote puts the guy's statement in a positive light. The bill being discussed just after that is the one he vetoed.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Sorry, that should be:
any "MORE" violent than anything our fathers and grandfathers were exposed to.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Oh! We're SOOOO much more violent nowadays! Boo freakin Hoo Hoo!
So nobody growing up in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or 70's EVER played at:
Cowboys and Indians. Complete with "authentic" "Ugh! You gottum me!"
Lone Ranger: "Kick his butt some more Kimosabe!"
Shootout at the OK Corral. How many boys (and girls) lived out a summer of eternal High Noons with their six-shooters?
Heck, there used to be a western amusement park up in the Wisconsin Dells (Fort Dells), the highlight of the live entertainment was the Sherriff capturing Black Bart, Deputizing a bunch of kids, having Black Bart escape and meet his well deserved end.
Heck, it's nearly anecdotal how most kids in the 40's and 50's had cowboy hats, checked shirts, and toy guns.
Or howabout the kids who played soldier during and after World War Two? "C'mere and die you dirty Nazi!"
Or some kids who grew up members of a fictional royal court? And routinely ran each other through with plastic swords and beat on each other's plastic helmets?
Or for those of a more contemporary turn, Sam Spade and the pulp genre. Trouncing goons. Blowing away shifty characters, and generally being "Mr. Tough". THANKS BOGIE!
Oh! But all that was INNOCENT VIOLENCE!
MY ARSE! I grew up in the 70's and 80's. I knew what "killing" really was. I KNEW that people didn't just stand up afterwards and go "Darn! You got me!"
Howabout MOVIES?
It's a Wonderful Life: One of the nicest guys on the movie screen, Jimmy Stewart.
But that's not violent is it?
Howsabout "The Dirty Dozen", or any of the other war movies out?
The Western genre is even worse. Has anyone ever seen a SINGLE western where at least ONE person DOESN'T get shot?
And back to real life. Wartime footage!
Society today is so litigious, and so hypersensitized by idiotic "initiatives" to "get the word out" about these "evil" things, that they completely miss that NOTHING we consume, media-wise, is any less violent than anything our fathers and possibly grandfathers were exposed to.
People are so hysterical, and so eager to get money that's "owed to them", that they're willing to overlook little things. Like people's RIGHTS. Common sense. SANITY!
But, worse still, they overlook the BIG thing. How little REAL attention they pay to their kids. You know. The thing you had as an accessory to your nice car, nice house, and beautiful home furnishings?
The state of the modern day family, and America as a result, disgusts me to NO end.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
AMEN to that brother! Why do people think the
First Amendment is some magic thing that lets you do anything you want?
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Wasn't that the same time we made MJ illegal? Isn't the rampang gang violence still here? Let's make drugs legal again to get rid of their criminal elements.
--Be human.
Same with my parents. Dual income home, but they spent more time with me than I _wanted_ them to. Yeah, I had about an hour and a half after school when no one was around, but I liked that. And of course they went to every event in my life.
And I was raised on a healthy diet of Aliens, Predator, Commando, and Doom. And yet I have yet to kill anyone in a murderous rage.
It doesn't take a genius to raise a kid-- but it is hard work. It's just too bad that so many parents lack the work ethic to go through with the most important job they'll ever have.
The enemies of Democracy are
This second example was the primary impetus for the clause in the Constitution, since the memory of religious persecution in England was fresh on their minds. Remember, this separation is to keep religion from being run over by politics--it's for the protection of religion!
* Although it is often referred to as "separation of church and state," this is misleading and inaccurate. It says that, "Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The use of "separation of church and state" tends to imply that people who hold religious beliefs cannot hold public office or apply their beliefs to their public actions. This is clearly not what was intended.
as long as it takes two parents to work 9 to 5 just to get by. that means having the money to get SUV's TV's etc.. then those parents will not have the time to raise those kids..
Oh sweet christ give me a break...both of my parents worked 50-60 hours a week each while I was growing up just to make sure we got by. (i.e. food on the table, clothes on my back, etc) Yet, somehow, without the advent of cloning technology, they managed to make it to my football games, wrestling matches, and academic award ceremonies in school. They always showed they cared, and often asked how everything was going.
Yes I was left alone fairly often, but the attention and caring they showed me when they WERE around more than made up for it. It doesn't take a genius or a social worker to raise a child...it only takes some interest and compassion.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
replace "video games" with "books", and think about how this sounds: "how does preventing a person from reading a book deny them their Constitutional rights? The book isn't saying anything or displaying anything of value" I know, you're playing the devil's advocate, but every statement deserves at least one challenge. :)
George Carlin has an entire rant about this:
(paraphrased)
"we're a war-like culture, and it doesn't have to be limited to the battlefield. Our government declares war on a lot of things: 'The War on drugs', 'The War on Poverty', 'The War on Underage Pregnancy'. We don't really do anything about it, we just declare War on it."
- The problem is expression has content. Jurisprudence says restriction on the basis of content is thin ice, but it's not immediately obvious to me that interacting with a video game contains any content that could be construed as speech; demonstrating a crack of the video game, maybe, but almost all interaction with such systems is within the confines of explicitly pre-defined parameters and events. And I don't think the 12 characters allowed for your name in the "hall of fame" really pass muster (the way, for example, a whiteboard or "graffitti" interface would).
- The bill does not prohibit the publication or sale or purchase of computer games per se. It prohibits their public use in certain contexts, for which there exists extensive supporting law (see other threads and comments discussing the regulation of "adult" material)
Your opinion resonates in its sentiment, but itself proves incorrect - the bill did in fact pass, as stated in the article (you did read it, didn't you?), and was subsequently vetoed. At issue is whether the veto can be overridden (is that what you meant?), and if so, whether such a law would withstand even passing judicial scrutiny - neither of which I believe would happen.IANAL, UAYOR, IMVHO, YMMV, etc...
Bzzzt! You're wrong.
By and large, the reason pot is illegal is because 1) the perception was that it was a "black" drug and there was a lot of stupid hysteria about black people smoking weed and getting out of control, 2) Hearst ran a lot of blatantly false stories in his newspapers about the evil weed, turning opinion even further, and 3) political lobbying by companies that had developed ways to make paper from wood pulp.
Please learn your history, and don't fool yourself that you get less fucked up on alcohol than you can on pot. Public protection didn't have anything to do with it.
P.S. I don't smoke pot. Not everyone who supports legalization wants to use hemp for smoking.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Truth does matter, unfortunately many people don't look at the truth in these cases. They've been spoon fed by Uncle Sam for too long.
If you value truth, the PLEASE check some things out. Gateway drugs are a total myth. Check the research and you'll see that it is unsupported. If someone uses pot and then starts using other drugs, it's not the pot that causes it. The argument is suspiciously like the slippery slope fallacy. In truth, the gateway drug myth was conjured up by people who wanted to make hemp illegal, for political or monetary gain.
The whole history of the criminalization of drugs in the US is a fascinating subject. Please try to read some of it sometime.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Drugs became illegal in the US because of these exact types of stupid legislators. Now, it's part of our culture. Walk down the street and you can find zillions of people who actually believe that pot kills.
Same with video games. Once they ban them, it's easy to "educate" people with PR campaigns. Eventually, hardly anyone will remember the days when a 10 year old could play space invaders. Zillions of people will actually believe that videogames cause violence. Truth won't matter. Science won't matter. Research won't matter. They will believe it because they don't think about it, and are afraid to take a minority stand.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Someone needs a sarcasm detector.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
This guy is either stupid or this is a troll. I recommend posting some links, but not posting any text in response. If this is a troll, it's impossible to reply to, while if this guy is just misinformed he'll be corrected.
Personally, I'm banking on the troll, because no one on earth would talk about a quote that they couldn't remember what it said or who said it.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well guess what Jon - the sponsor is a DEMOCRAT. And guess what Jon, the state is the same one as the illustrious Mr. Lieberman, of the Gore-Lieberman ticket, whose flaws you turned a blind eye to last year (evidently even Mrs. Gore's ranting about censoring records wasn't enough for you).
It is so very interesting when liberals see censorshop they will raise a cry up to high-heaven, unless, of course, it is censorship by Democrats. Interesting, also, that among the forms of censorship, that by the left is the most insidious - in the name of eliminating 'hate speech', they bypass the 1st Amendment quite effectively.
Hence we have cases such as the recent school which celebrated 'Gay Pride' day, yet the same school also threatened suspending a student for wearing a 'Straight Pride' t-shirt - in the name of restricting 'hate speech'. After all, if the media and politicians were to be taken as true, we would all know that 'hate speech' can only be spoken by heterosexual white males, and 'hate crimes' cannot be committed by minorities. Something to think about...
(Of course, our registers sometimes ask us to card for the damnedest things, just because of the department-based way in which the system is set up. Cigarette lighters, books of matches, wheel ramps, tire wrenches--once I had a 16-year-old kid trying to buy cans of fix-a-flat, and the register told me not to let him! Had to get a manager's authorization to let it go through.)
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I'm not terribly sanguine about Neocron's prospects to escape unchanged in this environment. Hailing from Europe (land of the unpixellated naked Sims), it has a bit more lax attitude about nudity, and features visibly naked strippers in the city's red-light district. (You can see them in the mpeg movie available from neocron.com's downloads page.)
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I think the problem in Connecticut is that it's a state chock-full of high-powered executives who are too busy making billions of dollars on a global scale (financial, insurance and tech firms, among others) to worry about petty matters like local state government. Hence, state government is run by people who have nothing better to do. Ms. Harp seems like a typical case in point.
You were amazingly perceptive in recognizing that the post by -razor- contained an opinion that was not entirely in line with the other comments in the thread. Furthermore you amaze me by concluding with great clarity that this _must_ be a troll!! I was truly amazed that you were able to capture this bold reasoning in the most difficult form of humor known to mankind: sarcasm. My deepest respects. Burn the heretic -razor- for questioning such holy rights as being allowed to carry the means to wipe out an entire room in seconds!!
get used to it. if you're under 18, you're a minor, and thus you have no rights. not in your high school, not in your home, and not in your arcade.
congress and the states can do pretty much anything they want to restrict your movement, your activities, and even your entertainment.
get over it.
you can't vote, you're not citizens, you have no voice. you're not autonomous under the law, and you're not even responsible for your own actions most of the time (unless they're so heinous that you're tried as an adult under your state's policy.) and thus you'll never have rights. not to free speech, not to bear arms, not to religion or to assemble.
it's something i got used to in high school, and something i remind my younger friends of when they complain that they have curfews, restrictions, detentions, in loco parentis laws, drug tests, locker searches, and bomb-sniffing dogs in school.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
That right there (Obey the Christian God) seems like a fuck-you to atheists and everyone not from the Judeo-Christian religious heritage, which is why the 10 commandments shouldn't be posted by the government. Now on the other hand, you could designate a wall where historic and important moral codes are to be placed, but usually the biblethumpers who want the 10 commandments posted get a bit annoyed when people then start putting up the wiccan rede, or the Satanic Laws, or buddhist documents, and the moral code wall goes away. But to just put up the 10 commandments is a governmental endorsement of religion, and a specific religion at that.
I was always under the impression that war can only be declared by one sovereign nation on another. Since drugs/guns/sex/abortion/cellphones/video games/Pikachu/monkeys/dot.coms/dot.bombs/Dot the Robot Maid, etc., etc., etc. aren't sovereign nations, how can the United States government declare war on any of them?
Futhermore, doesn't it take an act of Congress to declare war? I think I read that somewhere in the Constitution of the United States. Article I Section 8, if I recall.
Finally, didn't the United States Civil War decide, once and for all, that the individual states cannot declare war? That they are, in fact, not sovereign nations in their own right, but merely self-governing provinces of the US Federal Govt.? If so, then how can a state declare war on anything?
Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. I'm honestly curious, and confused.
"The dead do not shoo-bop-aloo-bah." -- Kai, 'Lexx'
"The Horror" is some idiot who thinks corporal punishment is the way to raise healthy kids, or that "the woman's place is in the home." I notice you didn't say jack about the father staying home and raising the kids, now did you? Oh, what a surprise. So much for "setting a good example for your kids." Too late.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Heh! Yeah, Republicans are against expanding government into aspects of our lives... unless you're a pregnant woman who wants an abortion, or you're gay, or.... etc., etc, etc.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
We have had this discussion several times now on Slashdot and every time people start complaining about censorship and banning.
As far as I can see this is not banning. It is not censorship either. The games are still available but now if you are underage your Parents have to do the buying for you, forcing them into making a decision about what they want you to be able to do. You may or may not agree with this (personally I do), but either way the games are still available. To be banned or censored they have to be unavailable to the general populous. In this situation that is not so.
IMHO this is not a censorship issue. It is not a free speech issue either. It is about whether you want the Government to decide how you bring up your kids.
There is an argument that these rules will effectively ban things as companies will no longer bother to produce the "adult" games. If so this is still not banning (although it is "effective banning") or censorship (at least it is not Governmental censorship), it is a commercial discussion. Like how giving a film an NC17 rating is the kiss of death (as most cinemas won't show it and hence they get reedited to get an R rating) it is purely the nature of the US and its attitudes towards adult themes.
I voted against her in the last election. She gets elected by pandering to the poor in her district. Even the republican Yalies can't off-set that. I forget what the margin was last year, but I believe it was fairly wide. To hear this woman speak would bring a tear to the eye of a knee-jerk liberal. I do agree with some of her inititatives, but in general, the woman is a tool.
Blar.
Also, how come in every Jon Katz article, years such as 1999 show up as l999 (that is, L999)? Is this due to bad OCR software or something?
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
Long ago we needed a separation between Church and State. Now we need a separation between Parent and State. Parents need to take some responsiblitity in raising their children and stop blaming every form of media that doesn't fit into their package of morals.
--
InstantCool
Before we do that, however, I'd like to comment on the general tone of the article. It reads quite similarly to many other articles/rants/editorials I've read on the subject, and I think that creates a problem. The article reads like it was written in 5 minutes by a man who heard about something, didn't think about it at all, and wrote a knee-jerk response to it that's frankly irrelevant, since as I said above, we've heard all this before. I don't even want to count how many times he insults the intelligence of the legislators; that's not how you win points in a debate, Mr Katz. And as for saying they're out of touch with their constituencies, I'd like to see the statistics that back you up. Although I myself don't have them, a claim like that is deserving of at least minimal research and the fact that you don't seem to have done it is as hypocritical and lazy as you accuse the legislators of being.
The overriding point you make in this article is that there is "no evidence" to prove video games cause violence, and that common sense disproves this. This is one of the worst arguments you or any other video game advocate could make, and yet I hear it over and over and over...Common sense does not disprove this assertion at all; in fact, it backs it up. Think about it: teenagers (who are notoriously unstable, irrational and immature people (disclosure: I am one)) are playing games where the object is to use weapons as realistic as possible, to kill enemies (or sometimes friends, I suppose) who are as realistic as possible, and the effects (blood, guts, etc) are as realistic as possible. I recognize that a normal person can draw the line between video games and reality, but I submit that even a normal, mentally healthy person is affected by violent video games. At the very least, they desensitize the player, and that alone is grave cause for alarm. But think about what happens to a person subjected (as most players are, or if not most, a great number) repeatedly to the images and actions portrayed in violent video games. What they see is pounded into them, over and over, until they don't even realize the changes that come over them. How many people, after playing several hours of Counter-Strike, thought it'd be cool to buy a gun (which, for the record, is unconstitutional, far more so than this bill, which I'll address in a moment)? If even one person, ONE PERSON, thought so, then violent video games have helped lead that person down a violent path. And I doubt they've had that effect on only one person.
As for the alleged unconstitutionality of the bill, it's "shredding of the first amendment", where's your evidence? That's a pretty heady claim to make, and if you're not going to back it up at all, as you don't, then that's simply irresponsible on your part. However, I don't even think it is unconstitutional (unenforcable, maybe, but that's really the only good point you raise in the article). Consider public indecency laws: do they shred the first amendment? How about curfew? If it's illegal for people under a certain age to be out at a certain time, and it's illegal for people to commit certain acts, or display certain images, in public, how is the bill unconstitutional? The only possible argument I can think of (which I doubt you were going for) is federalism, and even that would probably prove incorrect.
The sad fact is, I agree with Mr Katz. The law is unenforcable, and I don't think banning kids from playing "point-and-shoot" games in arcades is really gonna make that much of a difference anyway, especially if they can see movies with violence far more graphic, or go home and play Quake III for 8 hours straight.
"McBane to base: Under attack by Commie Nazis!" -the Simpsons
Second, with regards to your point that video games don't cause violence. My main point (expressed rather poorly, I'll be the first to admit) was not that video games did cause violence, but that the argument that "no study has shown they do" is an argument that really doesn't win many points, considering 1) it's the same argument made by tobacco companies, 2) it seems to fly in the face of reason (more on this in a second), 3) it's a really defensive argument and 4) it doesn't seem as though enough time has passed for the saturation of our culture with extremely violent media to be observed in any substantial way (although i don't stand by this point much, it's kinda weak, but interesting to think about).
As for the causal link between games and actual violence, the desensitization argument is key. I'll agree that video games are different from reality, and reality carries with it a special shock that video games can never have. But if your argument is that sitting in front of a computer for hours a day, several days a week, ritualistically and methodically dismembering, maiming, killing things on a screen, has no effect on people's sensitivity, I'd ask what would. And the very absence of a quit/continue button in real life is part of the problem. The more we practice killing in ever-more-real killing simulators, the more the idea that we can kill, that killing is good, and that we are immortal, gets planted into our brains. Is someone gonna play a game and think he's immortal? No (normally), but subtle trends towards violence, as well as an ever-increasing acceptance of it (things studies tend to ignore), become worrisome, all the more so in a large population.
Penultimately, regarding the constitutionality of the law, I believe (and I'm sure many other non-ACLU organizations would agree) that there's nothing unconstitutional about it. You say the law is unconstitutional because it takes away the person's right to choose what they want to do. There is no such right. It does not exist. We have a general freedom in this country, but in public places especially, it is quite often curbed (to observe the extent of our "freedom", look no further than state sodomy laws). Public indecency laws exist almost everywhere, and to my knowledge have never been found to be unconstitutional. The law merely extends indecency (well, I don't think this is technically what it does, but it has a similar effect) to cover violent acts portrayed on a video screen, and I find it unlikely many courts would overturn that law. I also submit that the burden is on the accuser to find proof of unconstitutionality, such as statutes (esp. from that state), and if they can't be found, the law is constitutional.
Finally, with regards to the efforts of legislators to be informed, I would submit that although there are some lawmakers out there who are uninformed, and who do craft their speeches for the sole benefit of the 6 o'clock news, many many more do take the time to investigate the issues, and are routinely, stereotypically and unfairly slandered by people who don't really know the whole story, and merely watch the 6 o'clock news anyway. Besides, what's wrong with appealing to the public during a speech? That's their job! The content of the laws is not compromised. I have extensive experience (I'm an intern for my state senator, and I've spent countless hours in the GPO library at Northwestern) in governmental awareness, and although it does seem as though legislators don't understand technology, it is equally, if not more, true that technologists don't understand legislation. Anyway, thanks for reading this far.
"McBane to base: Under attack by Commie Nazis!" -the Simpsons
An Editorial on the CT Anti-Video-Game Bill
State Sen. Toni Harp
Secret Service Report
Curiouser and curiouser...
Besides, just think how much money this law will save the Department of Defense by not effectively preventing videogames from training kids to be killers! ;-)
--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Yeah, sadly I know, personally, the principal who suspended the kid. When I heard about the kid having been suspended I as about to give the guy a peice of my mind, but my better judgement prevailed -- it wouldn't have done any good. I suppose he already knows what an ass he has made of himself.
And this was a man I assumed to be a perfectly rational person. *YOU CAN NEVER TELL*
And who exactly is saying that to little Jonny? Mommy and daddy who took little Jonny to the movies
No, mommy and daddy who are sitting in front of the TV with Jonny (best case scenario, as opposed to absentee parents using the TV as a babby sitter). The problem wasn't so much Trailers running at movies (although this was happening also), as trailers being run durring kids/family programing (afternoon childrens shows, and pre-9pm).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Under her bill -- you can't make this up -- minors could kill simulated aliens and animals at will, however. As for other "weapons," the bill doesn't address violent games that don't involve guns. There must be something in the state's drinking water. U.S. Senator and former vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman has introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress that would make it a federal crime to show R-rated movie trailers in any place where children might possibly see them.
Okay, I'll agree with most of the article. The bill that nearly went through was rediculous, however do you actually follow political issues? My understanding of the what Senetor Lieberman was trying to accomplish was to force the Movie industry to regulate themselves, by not playing Movie trailers for R rated movies, during PG and G rated films in the middle of the afternoon. Essentially the movie industry (those bastions of morality) were doing targeted advertising of trailers for R rated movies durring childrens programing. "Gee Jonny, I don't know why that trailer was on during Power Rangers, but your a bit young to see that movie."
Guess what? It scared the movie industry enough to clean up their act, and the bill died quietly.
While government regulation is bad, its even worse when you have a monopolistic power (MPAA, RIAA, MS) that has to answer to no one. I'd rather government threaten to use a big stick once in a while, if it forces the monopoly to do something about a problem issue instead of simply granting them free reign to do what they want.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Not to be a karma whore here, but I figure the working sites are important and after a search on the site I found the following working links on the anti-game bill veto:
= y&eetype=Article&eeid=4580891&ck=&ver=3.0 = y&eetype=Article&eeid=4583192&ck=&ver=3.0
http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?render
http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?render
--
Let's not all suck at the same time please
Let's not all suck at the same time please
You certainly make a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of activites geared towards those students who felt left out (damnit, I know I was one). I didn't even realize that what I said could be interpreted as meaning a reprogramming camp.
I'm not saying I have a solution (I don't), but what I was trying to say is that the government should look into constructive ways of helping children, as opposed to just banning anything and everything they feel might be a bad influence. I say ban alcoholics from the presidency. [Sue me, I have a horrible sense of humor. Thanks dad!]
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
I once heard someone speak about the government's obsession with declaring "war" on everything it tries to deal with. The Federal Government's most prolific war is the "War on Drugs". "War" seems to be a buzzword which drives people to rally behind a cause.
Unforunately, most of the times these wars are completely inappropriate. This war on video games, specifically of the point and shoot variety, is one of these inappropriate wars. The legislators are missing the point entirely.
Instead of banning video games, why not appropriate money to schools to adequately pay guidance counselors or set up after-school programs taillered to making outcasts fit in?
Personally, I use video games as a stress reliever. If I wasn't shooting some wierd alien from another dimension and releasing my frustration, maybe then I'd be more likely to shoot up a school, not the other way around. I'm not sure if that's clear, so let me offer an analogy: banning these video games is akin to banning stress relief balls from the office place because they reduce productivity.
Now, I understand that there are some people for whom video games are an encouragement. What people (specifically legislatures) fail to realize is that people with these said tendencies will find another way to motivate themselves if not through video games. Try banning Guns and Ammo before Quake 3 or The Matrix.
I think I've said more than enough, even though I have much more to say. [Note: I am not advocating banning Guns and Ammo, it was just an example.]
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
They can have my halflife when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Found this press release on the CT Senate Democrats' web site. Note that her rationale for introducing this bill is based on a report from the Surgeon General. I'd be very interested in seeing that report because I'm having some difficulty believing the relationship between FPS and inciting violence is that strong.
You can also see the history and the exact verbiage of this bill.
-Jennifer
as long as it takes two parents to work 9 to 5 just to get by. that means having the money to get SUV's TV's etc.. then those parents will not have the time to raise those kids..
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
This isn't quite the same as being in the state's Senate or HoR, but I'm tired of the disconnect of politicians with their constituents and the apparent disregard for the rights of the average citizen. It seems the Republicans want to give business ultimate rule of law and the Democrats want to lock down the general population so that nothing bad ever befalls them -- regardless of the consequences on people, culture, or the things that make this country great.
So, does anyone know how to run for a seat in the House?
-------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there are a lot of crack addicts that started with pot. I'm also pretty sure that most of them probably "did" alcohol or cigarettes before that. I'm also pretty sure most of them ate candy before they did marijuana. Ban this evil gateway candy before it leads kids to marijuana!
Studies actually show that the majority of pot smokers do not move on to harder and more addictive drugs. You CAN make a inference this way -- but it does not work the other way around. Plus, the sad thing is, we send our pot smokers to an unregulated supplier to get their drugs. There's nothing preventing them from selling it to minors or lacing it with other drugs or from saying "hey, I'm out of that today, but here's something else you might like."
And, you know what, if you legalize marijuana, cocaine users and crack users and whatever are, of course, going to pursue the same route. And would it be so bad? We remove a black market entirely, along with it's assorted crime and negative influences. We can regulate the distribution. We can better keep it out of the hands of minors and people who have problems regulating their intake. We can bring the prices down to a reasonable level, generate a new tax for the government, and create a new business. We can start educating people with facts and not fear and propaganda. We can actually offer treatment, rather than imprisonment for those with a problem. We don't think locking up an alcoholic will solve their problem, but apparently, we think it will cause a herion addict to "come to their senses."
By the way, drug abusers don't steal to support their habit, they steal because the prices are artificially inflated, and there's no one they can turn to when their problem gets out of hand.
Truth does matter, unfortunately many people don't look at the truth in these cases. They've been spoon fed by Uncle Sam for too long.
Sounds like you've been spoon fed for a while yourself. Go read some literature, go see how Amsterdam is handling their drug "problem".
-------------------------------------------------
500 years ago (not that long in evolutionary terms) teenagers were off fighting wars. No one wondered how it would warp their minds, as they were considered full grown. They were probably fairly effective warriors too, just because of the raging hormones you have at that age. I know I was much more prone to violence (of the fisticuffs variety) when I was an adolescent than I am today. It was easier to piss me off, and I didn't always feel like myself.
Adolescense is a very strange time, and a very frustrating time. If I didn't have some outlets for my agression, like Karate, computer games, the shooting range, heavy metal music, D&D (and other role playing games, porn, and pretty much every other devil worshipping, violence inspiring thing out there, I might well have gone insane or killed someone.
For the record, I turned out just fine, and well-adjusted. I've never brought a weapon to class or work, and I've never threatened to kill anyone. Judging by popular opinion today, I should have gone postal before I even got a driver's license.
-------------------------------------------------
What I can tell you is that the drug war isn't working. Maybe our culture isn't the same as Amsterdam's, and maybe it won't work here -- but we've been fighting the War on Drugs for eighty years! Normally, if a strategy doesn't appear to be working, we try something different. Drugs today are cheaper, easier to get, and more refined than ever. That doesn't exactly sound like prohibition is working very well. Yet we spend more on the War on Drugs than our school system, and continue to do so year after year.
-------------------------------------------------
I used ot love arcades. I'd drop $20 at a time playing all sorts of stuff. Now you go in there and it's all shooting games, racing games, or wrestling\fighting games. What happened to all of the really neat games like MoonBuggy? :-) Strange games that were just fun. You don't need to see blood and guts fly. Reminds me of that damned Quake level where you shot a POW and got AMMO and powerups as a REWARD! Talk about really crappy game desin - ick! I barely set foot in arcades nowadays but play games at home like mad. Tribes2 being a current fave along with UT. Yeah, those are FPS with UT giving extra points for "head shots" but I think that some of the arcade games are even worse. Not sure you'll ever see someone ri an arm off and beat someone with it in UT or Tribes (lol). Ah the good old days of Zaxxon, Donkey Kong, Pong, and Space Invaders. Thank God for MAME!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Hell, I'll say it now. I'm not an addict, I've never even taken any illegal drug, but all currently drugs should be legalized, and the problems that addicts have should be treated as a medical problem. Our current policies make no sense at all, tobacco is known to be dangerous, alcohol results in more crimes & problems than all other drugs put together, and yet they're legal. Prohibition does not work, and all it does is give an incentive for organized crime to step in.
God, I love being a Brit!
;-)
Much as our government is full of idiots, yours, like everything else in America, are bigger ones
--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Yet another example of our society looking everywhere but the mirror for someone to blame for our ills. I am constantly bewildered by the incredible lack of any sense of responsibility we teach our kids in this country (USA).
Johnny is a disturbed child.
What do the parents do? Look everywhere they can to place the blame on someone other than themselves and the job they did as parents. Granted, there are many good and concerned parents doing a good job out there. And they learned from their own good and decent parents. But they are becoming so small a minority as to be virtually insignificant.
In addition to this abdictaion of responsibility for our own offspring, we also abdicate responsibility from picking those that govern us. If the people of this state don't give this idiot the "bums rush" at the next election, they'll reap exactly what they've sown. Yet another law to fall back on when something we don't care to take responsibility for rears its ugly head.
It brings into mind the Columbine HS shooting. Instead of blaming Marilyn Manson lyrics, has anyone cared to ask where the hell the parents were all that time?
Ok, I think I better get off this soap-box now, I'm getting dizzy.
John Gowin
http://www.linuxorbit.com
Jon argues that a statute limiting the public play of video games is blatantly unconstitutional in view of the First Amendment. I agree that this law would be the worst kind of public policy and should never be adopted. However, as far as his lawyering goes, he might want to keep his day job.
Perhaps Jon ought to research the case law, for example, concerning zoning of adult book stores --displays of public lewdness -- and laws governing legal assault.
There is a long and well-developed body of law supporting laws that limit the scope of where or when one can publicly display certain kinds of content that is not itself contraband. (Constitutional obscenity can be banned completely, of course, but almost nothing satisfies the requirements of being constitutionally obscene).
Of course the particular text of this particular statute may have been too broadly written to fall within the intermediate scrutiny given such laws, or too content-driven in nature to survive strict scrutiny. But between you and me, I would need to do quite a bit of research before I could conclude to a certainty that any bill fitting Jon's description would be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
Maudlin parents have been moaning for generations that those kids today are just crazy, and yet we've still - most of us - clawed civilization out of the muck of crucifixion, boiling lead, sacking, pillaging, and raping cities, public hangings, lynchings, religious persecution, etc. Yeah, it's so much worse now. In the past decade, youth violence has gone down. And yet you're whining about a video game.
Here's another one for you; instead of "keeping tabs" on kids, how about raising them with standards and values and then trusting your kids (until they do otherwise) to do the right thing.
Anyone who thinks that video games turn kids violent doesn't know a thing about raising boys, that's for sure. Even the "good" ones who don't fight or use violence still enjoy play with violent themes. If they are playing with a short stick, it becomes a gun or dagger. If it's a long stick, it becomes a sword or rifle. If it's a thick and long stick, it's a bazooka. What are you gonna do next, pass a law against sticks?
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
--Ben
Note, this is how the DMCA passed.
First let me say I don't think the government should be telling any one what they can and can't do and you defiantly cannot legislate morality
I have two kids one 5 year old and one 8 I would love to let them play video games at the pizza place but seeing my 5 year old daughter with a gun in her hand killing the "bag guys" with blood and the sounds of death is very disturbing
if the death was not so life like it may not be so bad and the gun did not look so real
But my way of dealing with this is not to return to these places and my family eats out a lot and I love to feed the games to but I don't want to explain to my kids why killing some one is fun to adults and not for kids
I don't think it should be the law of the land but maybe these business owners should be encouraged to place these game some were else in the building
I am sure I am in the minority here and when they get a little older I wont mind but until you have had to explain this to a child....
Now I am just rambling
Would all this shit be going on if there was another vietnam, requisite with napalming the enenmy, drafting of young people, and lots of government-mandated death for everyone?
..don't panic
Please define children, Is a 17 year-old more vulnerable to a fps than an 18 year-old? How about a 16 year-old, how do we determine what ages are vulnerable to violent images, are all 18 year-olds more mature than all 17 year-olds?
The following sentence is TRUE. The previous sentence is FALSE.
Drugs became illegal in the US because of these exact types of stupid legislators. Now, it's part of our culture. Walk down the street and you can find zillions of people who actually believe that pot kills.
I'll get flamed for this but who cares.
I beg to differ on your notion of drugs becoming legal. Should marijuana be legal? Personally I think it should, but at the same time I think it would be a bad idea for simple reasons. As it stands its an old law, but by changing this law what's to say that somewhere down the line heroin and cocaine addicts won't start the same "Legalize It" tactics? Why should it be only a legalize pot issue when pot isn't the only drug?
Now... Studies have shown, and I personally have seen effects of those studies, that a large portion of people who recreated with `weed' often graduated on to harder drugs. This is not to say everyone will, but you still have a large portion who can, and if they do, then you should know there is no such thing as an ethical crackhead. These people rob and kill for their drugs.
So I don't think legalizing just one because people are bitching about it is a good thing unless you're not going to stop playing favorites and legalize them all, period.
Just my two cents on this... Now I don't smoke so it makes no difference to me, however it does make a difference when you play sides, which is unfair.
Same with video games. Once they ban them, it's easy to "educate" people with PR campaigns.
It's not the job of the government to educate in fact its quite the opposite when it comes to situations like this. You have to remember that the majority of the politicians nowadays are old cronies. So getting them to understand is fruitless no matter how you try to educate them, if they don't want to listen, they won't hear you no matter how loud you speak.
Truth won't matter. Science won't matter. Research won't matter. They will believe it because they don't think about it, and are afraid to take a minority stand.
Truth does matter, unfortunately many people don't look at the truth in these cases. They've been spoon fed by Uncle Sam for too long.
Want Root?
<sarcasm>
Thats right let the government take control of the tasks which I as a parent am supposed to have control over.
I don't want to be a responsible parent and teach my kid right from wrong, I want to live in a society who dictates that for me. Uncle Sam hit the ball right on its mark, I mean why should I tell my kids how to act in society, or the differences from movies, video games, and reality when I could push the blame on those darn folks who make those games.
Look when I was growing up sure we listened to people like Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osbourne, and we never once bit the head off a bat, unlike that wretched Marilyn Manson.
When I grew up, we didn't look at films by John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood and decide to go shoot up our schools. My great government at the time did their darndest best to make sure guns didn't flood the schools, and education back then was the focal point of society.
No more. I say forget spending on education and send that money towards the prison systems, where all the kids will rot for playing video games. Least when I grew up we didn't have video games. We just had World War II, and Vietnam, real man games.
Damned kids
</sarcasm>
Want Root?
It died when Political Correctness came into being. Anyway, children don't have First Amendment rights. The State controls what they do and say. The Courts have been stripping away speech rights for years. You can't say a prayer at a graduation, you can't picket close to an abortion clinic, you can't use racial slurs, etc.
Those who are upset are about 10 years too late.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
"Senator Harp tries to ban video games while our children die" with Pac Man or Pong or such in the background.
Not quite factually accurate, but pure political commercial.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I really fail to see how anyone can argue that age limits on violent and explicit material are anything other than a sane policy. It has been shown that children are more vulnerable to these things than adults, and so limiting their exposure to these kinds of materials is nothing more than caring for our future.
When violence becomes a part of society that is tolerated, then we must make sure that it does not become accepted. Currently American culture, such as it is, tolerates violence as being an inevitable consequcne of allowing firearms to be possessed by people, but it hasn't gotten to the stage yet where people accept violence as a tool for getting ahead in life. So, in order to make sure that people don't begin to perceive violence as a valid socio-economic tool of advancement, we need to make sure that children don't perceive violence as being "cool".
These kinds of laws, whilst perhaps not being strictly Constituional, are very necessary. We cannot let our children fall into the trap that violence is good, and nothing shouls be allowed to stand in the way of ensuring this. When the Constitution was drafted, if they'd have realised the threats that children face everyday, I'm sure they'd have realised that sometimes, freedom of speech is not an abolute concept.
Jon Katz:
When you start taking the entire Constitution equally seriously, just as tho it is a design document for a socio-econo-political system, I will take you seriously.
When you understand, and expound on, the system-level effects of these various violations of our design documents, I will take you seriously.
When you show some understanding of ALL of the issues of Civil Rights, I will take you seriously.
Until then, you are just another liberal do-gooder, spouting off on the issue-of-the-day.
A 'no system' view of life. By definition, naive, ineffectual. Worse, following idiots such as yourselves leads to a life of contradictions and surprises ranging from continual annoyances to social catastrophe.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
*shrug* Would you prefer bombs or fire? It's only a matter of time before a student resorts to either bombs (that actually work...) or fire plus, say, blocking emergency exits.
In many states, it's illegal for minors to have handguns -- some areas, such as the halcyon, crime-free city of Washington, D.C. even ban them from adults, thus preventing gang violence and random thuggery <snort>. But really, even if minors *and* adults were forbidden access to firearms, and current databases were used to confiscate them (for instance, Pennsylvania, or at least parts of it (can't recall), tracks *purchases*. They claim that it is legal because it doesn't track try to *ownership* of all firearms, such as the ones bought before they started doing this), many would be missed and still ready for use. So it's a little late for a ban.
You might also consider target vulnerability. Schools are obvious targets for angry teens (and in Israel, for that matter, Palestinian terrorists -- but that's another troll. Interested readers might want to check into what precautions they take on, say, field trips -- my understanding is that they pack some decent firepower, out of necessity.) -- they represent authority; they're full of unarmed, untrained targets against whom they may bear personal grudges; they're easily accessible; and they're practically guaranteed national or international news coverage. Students generally don't shoot up police stations, military bases, or airports, for the obvious reasons. A school is also often vulnerable to smuggling in weapons due to numerous windows and entrances, et al.
And what are students taught? They're sometimes even told to hide in the far corners of a room with the lights off and door closed. Which is all fine and good if you're not noticed, but if you ARE, you're not going to be able to do much except wait to be shot. One thinks you'd get better odds with an ambush right by the door -- and in a typical classroom, there are probably a variety of objects suitable for melee weapons if need be. Others may be drilled to flee via *specific* exits, which may just set them up for ambushes.
So what the situation boils down to is people that know that they may be specifically targetted, but are in a bad position to do anything about it. They may be instructed to act in ways that would appear to increase the danger from such incidents. They are generally restricted from arming themselves due to fear (with some justification; arming teachers without training them safe practices in both storage and use would probably be stupid...). And they are dealing with people who may be acting completely irrationally, and thus you can't expect to remove *all* their motivations for lashing out.
So it's with high probability an unsolvable problem if one looks for a *complete* solution. Cracking down on bullying; giving a *reason* to respect and trust authorities, including dealing with (IOW, terminating with prejudice) the ones that prove their own incompetence or unacceptable degrees of callousness; establishing sane response procedures (like encouraging assessment of a situation -- heroism and cowardice both have their place); some reasonable precautions (it's not particularly useful to have a pass-thru doorway metal detector if a firearm and ammo could readily be smuggled in through a window or another route); and perhaps proactive checking (if a student's behavior changes radically, it may be worth noting; threats, et al, may be grounds for checking with the folks... and so forth) -- these may all *help*.
But parents who ask for reassurances of *complete* safety are asking for the impossible.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Hrm. Driving is something that many kids are eager to get to (or so they say -- they aren't looking at insurance and auto maintenance bills...), while killing games fundamentally deal with power. Shooters have an extremely simple interface (aiming, reloading, possibly a button for using special weapons), while fighting games encourage kids to play a LOT in order to find and memorize hordes of combinations. Plus, the fact that adults sometimes try to discourage that type of game may increase the lure...
Perhaps those give 'em a greater draw than, say, two-person Tetris variants?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
It's also possible that the legislators genuinely feel bad if they're not doing *something* about it -- even if the steps they propose aren't perfect. It can be difficult to admit to oneself that one does NOT know how to solve a problem.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Hrm. I'm not sure that's a good idea -- it can be possible for two rational people to disagree on the exact meaning of a clause. Interpretations have changed with time, after all, and some parts of the Constitution are a bit vague.
On the other hand, it'd be a public service for people to track what bills have been struck down for Constitutional grounds, and who pushed for them. Some may have a record of doing such, but it's really up to the voters to care.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
What is everyone so riled up about? This bars kids from playing violent video games in public places, not in the home. In the home, it's parent's responsibility, but when the kids are running around town away from their parents (as all kids do), why shouldn't they be barred from subverting their parent's wills to supervise such games? I mean, it's like no one's ever heard of restrictions on violent films, etc. This IS giving parent's control over what games their kids play, because now kids won't be able to go out and play these games after their parent's have told them that they can't; if their parents want them playing these games, they can buy them and play them in the home. And if few gamers play these point and shoot games, why does it matter? This article sounds like it was written by a kid in Connecticut who's parents just told him that he couldn't play these games anymore. I agree that video games probably don't have a huge impact on a child's development. Three modifications I'd like to see made to this bill: make it cover any violence against humanoid with any weapon... and allow kids to play these games in public if their parents are present to allow it. Also, drop the age limit down to 16.
mini-rant
/rant
Do people realize that SUVs (usually) get better mileage than any truck with a 6-cylinder or better? My parents drive a newer Explorer and get better gas mileage than me with my '89 Dodge Dakota with a four-banger. I'm not a huge SUV fan, but christ, they're not that bad. And your car (if you own a car, at least) probably pollutes more than a brand-new SUV anyway. I know mine sure as hell does...
---
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
1. I own a truck because I use it to haul things. I also use it because I can not afford to sell my "POS" (which, by the way, is running strong after twelve years and 165,000 miles) and buy a car which I do not know the history of.
2. Some cars, some trucks, yeah, so picking on SUVs makes no more or less sense than picking on the Pontiac Grand Prix with a V8; SUVs are just an easier target.
3. I agree with you that a truck/SUV drives differently, but there are no more or no less idiots driving trucks/SUVs than are driving cars.
4. If you can't see around an SUV or truck then you're too damn close. You should not need to see around a truck for a left-hand turn if you're driving safely, because you should be waiting for a clear field of vision before you even enter the intersection (and yes, I realize that almost no one actually drives this way; that doesn't make it wrong however).
5. Last, if these people want to drop 25 grand on a "faddy" vehicle (agreed on that point as well, btw) then let them. The owner has to deal with shoddy construction, shitty mileage, bad emissions, (as we all do, on that one) etc. (As far as emissions go, as far as I'm concerned, unless you do not own or drive a car at all, quit bitching about emissions and pollution. If you in fact do not own or drive a vehicle, then kudos to you! I wish more people were in a postion (ie. not in the suburbs) so that they could get by in this situation.)
---
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
rant
v. ranted, ranting, rants
v. intr.
To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.
v. tr.
To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.
n.
1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: ?The vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy? (Daniel Okrent).
3. Chiefly British. Wild or uproarious merriment.
4. See also: JonKatz
I believe the key word here is responsibility, not morality. I think what religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever) brings to the table is belief in the sanctity of life (well, maybe scratch Muslim from the list), and that lends itself to not shooting other people in the face.
The real issue (and it seems that everyone knows what the real issue is - I digress) is the lack of responsibility taken by many of our citizens today. You're right, we want the government to raise our children now. Parents don't want the chore of actually paying attention to their kids long enough to know what sort of music they are listening to, or what books they are reading, or heaven forbid what video games they are playing. If we cut it off at the source (retailers) then parents have more time to shop for a new SUV.
On topic, I've been playing video games since the Atari 2600. I think it's sick that people would blame video games for violence among young people. But, when I play first person shooters, I definitely notice an elevation in my agressiveness, even hours after I've finished playing. I'm not going to go out and shoot somebody, and neither are your kids, but those game have become incredibly realistic, and I think it is potentially dangerous for young kids to be exposed to intense and graphic violence.
Nevertheless, that responsibility should fall to the parents, to the government.
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
One reason why online editorials can't compete with mainstream media outlets.
We agree with you Jon. I want to see these arguments in a medium where the average yokel will see them.
I can!
I am sick and tired of this "I can't do it, therefore no one can crap." Some of us can raise a family on one income. Some of us also don't have SUV's, huge homes, etc.
You may well be able to live with less, you just may not want to. It is a choice, it may not be and easy one, but it is a choice and you can choose differently from me. But don't tell me its impossible for anyone, because thats not true.
Ah... there it is, I had to scroll halfway down the page to find the obligatory Katz bashing post that time.
Katz is doing much better these days.
Sigs are awesome huh?
It isn't just Democrats doing this silliness. Furthermore, true Liberal Democrats are NOT so prone to this hysteria. For the record, Lieberman is as right-wing as a Democrat can get.
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
Essentially the movie industry (those bastions of morality) were doing targeted advertising of trailers for R rated movies durring childrens programing. "Gee Jonny, I don't know why that trailer was on during Power Rangers, but your a bit young to see that movie."
And who exactly is saying that to little Jonny? Mommy and daddy who took little Jonny to the movies; I'll grant that trailers are egregious and offensive (thanks for the 5+ minutes of commercials for movies I could give a flip about when I've paid $8 to see a movie I want to see), but at least grant that the movie people know their demographic, and they know that a subset of them will be interested in an antidote to the feel-good pablum that they'll have to endure for the next two hours. To put it another way, the fact that you're showing a G/PG/whatever movie doesn't mean that the audience is 100% under the age of 7 or so.
If this sort of inanity was legislated or "unoficially" enforced, then it would be illegal to (speaking purely hypothetically) show trailers for the re-release of Eraserhead or Blue Velvet before The Straight Story.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The next bill up for decision will involve a proposed 5 day waiting period for a nerf gun. You can bet that lobbyists for ThinkGeek will be crawling all over the state capital.
My 4 year old boy is very interested in video games, and when we look at home games, there are all sorts that he finds interesting and that I don't cringe at. However, when we go to the arcade at the mall, there are basically two types of games anymore: killing and racing. I steer him to the racing games and he is happy with that, for now. But I miss the diversity of games from when I was young. When "pinball" arcades were first being invaded by video, there were so many creative uses of the new medium. I guess the unnatural selection of those places is towards quick and easy to understand. Can you say "Dumbing Down"?
Who was/were the moron(s) that modded this up?
Edith Keeler Must Die
This too shall pass.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
I am sick of lazy parents trying to get the Gubment to do their job for them. Does anyone know of any organizations that have been formed to get people to Mind Their Own Damn Kids? If not, consideration REALLY needs to be given to forming such a body. Death to Soccer Moms! Viva la Revolucion!
--- It's THAN, not THEN, moron! Fnord.
Jon, please stop quoting the net value of the video game industry as a defense against its critics. In an argument over whether certain types of experiences promote certain types of behavior the economic impact is not relevant
Example : if I stood up and defended the tobacco industry by saying that it has an economic impact of $X Billion and that there are a lot of smokers all over the world, so it's a very mainstream activity I would expect a flaming, since this has nothing to do with the medical effects of smoking. Why then are these suddenly valid defenses of the video game industry ? Leave out the faulty arguments next time.
PS:Millions of copies sold don't make the Backstreet Boys good musicians!!!
Just the other day Katz was lamenting that there wasn't enough democratic control over technology. But whenever anyone actually uses the democratic process to control technology, off he goes screaming censorship.
Why can't Katz make up his mind?
Legislation like this is indicitave of a large movement in our government to legislate away whatever someone or another doesn't like. Witness the vilification of "big tobacco" and the BANS of smoking on *private property* owned by businesses in cities like Duluth, MN. "Ohh, the CHILDREN are hurt by secondhand smoke!"
My reponse to that, of course, is, DON'T GO THERE. Don't tell everyone else that they can't smoke in a restaurant unless the restaurant decides that IT wants to ban smoking for themselves!
Gradually things will be targeted that someone objects to, until life is reduced to a plain, bland, pointless existence. Cigarettes, "violent" video games, alcohol, guns, cars that are bigger than a Geo Metro, you name it, they will be chased down by these types of people.
All you who think marijuana should be legal, stick up for the cigarette smokers before cigarettes become illegal.
id Software, makers of the DOOM and QUAKE series games, present their most realistic and electrifying game yet..
SENATE RAMPAGE
A radical new first-person shooter that finally puts you back in charge of the government!
Run through the 51 beautifully detailed and painstakingly re-created senatorial chambers... including the final confrontation with corruption - the UNITED STATES CONGRESS.
Choose from a wide variety of anti-congressional weapons - honesty, free speech, human rights, privacy, and the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
Eliminate multiple "bosses" to make sure you are the most righteous - 100 bosses in all!"
Here's what the industry is saying about our latest mega-action thriller:
"[Senate Rampage] is the best game ID has released since Q3: Team Arena!! AMAZING!"
- Game Spot
"[Senate Rampage] it's so real. I could actually see the helpless senators bleeding from multiple exit woulds! Details like this are what keep id on top!"
- IGN PC
"This [Senate Rampage] redefines the FPS genre, and is id's first foray into sim and realism gaming. After playing through a few of the senate chambers, for the first time ever, i felt like my "votes" had really counted"
- Next Generation
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Most politicians come from wealthy families and lived on the "right" side of the tracks. They went to private schools, even in early years. They don't know what the real world is like, they are distanced.
It's the same politicians who don't support tax breaks for parents enrolling their children in private schools, many who claim the education in public schools is as good as private, who send their kids to private ones.
I think this is dead on - politicians really don't know what goes on in the "real" world.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
But they aren't any more secure. Little boys have always played war, or cowboys and indians, or knights in shining armor. Quake III doesn't encourage hooliganism anymore than cap guns or toy swords.
Until society stops looking for the quick fix and instead tries to hunt down its inherent problems and reform them, things will continue as they are.
Got Rhinos?
One must remember that for the most part you have no Constitutional rights if you are under age 18. The rights and resposibilities belong to your guardians. Also, how does preventing a person from play a video game deny them their Constitutional rights? The video game isn't saying anything or displaying anything of value (point and shoot video games that is...Leather Goddesses of Phobos is another story) to the free speech world. This is just a thought from the devil's advocate point of view. I personally don't believe what I just said, I've already lost enough of my Constitutional rights. We need more people on soap boxes (literally) out on the streets, people carrying guns because they can, and people who aren't apathetic of our political system.
I'm stepping off my soap box now...
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
I hope the Governor gets reelected for the forseeable future. I'm ashamed at my home states legislature, they are idiots. Anyone know how the Milford reps and seenators voted? While well intentioned, such laws don't adress the real problem. Kids who will be violent will be violent. Period. If they want to kill they will find a way. I do agree with rating video games, beyond that encouraging parental involvement is the key. Banning them won't help(or work).
During the cold war, people in the US did not take their rights for granted. There was an alternative to a free society, and it was not chaos. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Anyway, those days are gone. The biggest threat to freedom in the world is not Communism, its complacency. I am flabbergasted at the patently unconstitutional measures routinely introduced nowadays in local, state and federal legislation.
US society needs an enemy. It has always been this way. Many have served in the past. Recent candidates have included Lybia, Iran and recently, Osama Bin Laden. None but Iran have shown any staying power.
The recent dust-up with China over the spy plane is a good sign, however. A bunch of crminal thugs in charge of the most populated country in the world is compelling. The fact that they are thin skinned human rights criminals is the real payoff, though. Demonizing the Chinese government is just the thing to jolt US society from destructive complacency.
I agree with many things you're saying here too. Suicide is illeagal, and it's a tougher argument to say that it shouldn't be, but I still don't quite get the logic there, especially for chronically and terminally ill people that have no wish to die slowly and without dignity. It seems that certain things should really be your own decision. But my idea on pot as a gateway drug is that it is, but in one sense no more than alcohol if you consider the gateway to experimenting with intoxication. The way it becomes much more of a gateway to "harder" (actually doctors I know say alcoholism does the worst things to all your organs) drugs than alcohol is, tho, is that it IS illeagal, so if you smoke pot it may be nothing like cocaine but you have found and consumed soemthing illeagal, if not purchased and possessed this illeagal thing. Then you've broke the ice, so to speak, for engaging in unlawful criminal, risky (if nothing else cause you could go to jail) behavior.
;-D
offtopic I know, but a non-flamey and intelligent reply is sometimes rare and happy thing here.
ooky
MY namesake medallion sez 'Never trust a Hal 9000'! - bboys
Drugs have been proven to cause real physical harm
So has alcohol, cigarettes, processed foods rich in preservatives and saturated fat, excessive sunbathing, excessively loud rock music, sedentary lifestyles, soldering with lead solder, and excessive vibrator use.
Does that mean all of these things should be legislated against as well? Surely it (as in LIFE!!) will be a utopia then. What about gambling, cell phone use in cars, daredevil and extreme sports, or just having children (I don't know, but I hear they shave YEARS off your life and make you old before your time, just like what I've heard drugs do.) No offense, but I think that your position is the silly one here if doing physical harm to ONESELF is your criteria of what should be illegal.
ooky
"As flimsy as it is, it's open mike...punk rock. Red, white and blue, you turn the screws. It's what you choose to do. And you think that I will choose that too." - cake
Wow, hyperlinks in a Katz article! And I hear they're having a bad frost in Hell right now too : )
Ironically on CNN.com there is a link about a "New video game recreates hysteria of WTO riots".
The CNN story goes like this "If you missed out on the tear gas, rubber-pellet fire and window-smashing fun of Seattle's 1999 anti-World Trade Organization riots, cheer up, you can still play the video game."
Check it out WTO story on CNN.com
I guess I can see why Conn. passed this law.
---------------
Sig
abbr.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Don't you normally eat the 'wild' mushrooms first, then start to think you are a raccoon?
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
I bring this up not because I support the party, but because if he had been in favor of it, the word "Republican" would have preceded his name in every news story about it.
I generally don't think of Slashdot as left-leaning, although it's impossible to characterize the site and its members by any specific political tag. If a Republican legislature had come up with this bill, then it would have been used as an indictment of the party as a whole. Likewise, a Democratic governor who opposed it would have been championed as a hero and representative of his party as a whole. But since he's a Republican who did something intelligent, his party affiliation is left out of most stories (including the one linked above), and he's considered just an individual who made a good decision (which is really the case, I'm just pointing out the usual media portrayals with the other examples).
Brief info on his political history:D N96_08_14_1ao.html
http://www.sddt.com/features/convention/speakers/
Rather than get into any sort of partisan arguing back and forth, let's remember this for future discussions. Responsible AND Irresponsible politicians can be found on either side of the political debate.
(Also, I'm well aware of the fact that New England Republicans are generally not lumped into the same fire-and-brimstone category as Southern Republicans.)
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
Could be wrong, but the arcades over here downtown also have 25 cent peepshow booths. It's probably the xxx content more than the games.
I wonder what Frued would have to say about all this. Maybe these kids couldn't get laid and were really pissed off. I guess Kip had a girl who was playing with his head, and maybe Columbine girls only went for the jocks? Maybe we should start a national campaign to get nerds laid. I'd go for it.
"It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs
And I'm sure we all know that this has nothing to do with the fact that to get their marijuana they're coming into contact with illegal drug dealers, who have an interest in selling them onto more addictive (and more lucrative) stuff.
Life isn't fair. Get over it.
Harp first introduced her bill -- which passed by an 82 to 63 vote --in l999, just weeks after the Columbine killings. It would require business owners to control video gaming the same way they restrict sales of cigarettes (at least there's substantial medical research supporting the idea that tobacco is unhealthy) and liquor, by prohibiting anyone under 18 from playing games that involve firing simulated guns at simulated human beings. Operators of public video-game outlets would have faced fines up to $1,000 for letting minors grab the joysticks for games Sen. Harp considers violent and distatesful. This bill didn't pass, AFAIK (and I'm a minor and live in Connecticut). I can gotot the movies, mall, what-have-you and still be able to play point-and-shoot games. In fact, that's exactly what I do while waiting for movies to start in one theatre.
There are more games at the arcades besides Area 51... What happened to the days of Pac-Man, Centipede, and Galaga?
I don't see how this is a violation of any constitutional right. And if it is a violation... why don't we let 13 year olds go rent pr0n at the seedy store on the corner? Isn't that taking power away from the parents as well?
----
I believe the stats are that in any given election, 40 percent will vote democrat, 40 percent will vote republican. Therefore, you pander to the other 20 percent. And they tend not to vote for issues, they vote for who they like better. I believe it was Scott Adams who pointed out that generally the taller candidate wins, and where he doesn't, his opponent has better hair.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
While such is encouraging, I don't think you are addressing the issue that the orriginal poster was concerned about. That is, mass school shootings, similar in nature to the old "going postal" stories, which seemed to begin with Jonesboro. Whether they were there and hushed up before, or not, they are not addressed in your stats.
Now, the general idea seems to be "so what? Schools are getting safer, so this attention is unwarented." I think this is a foolish view. It assumes that all violence is the same, and that mass violence incidents can be veiwed as just a statistical blip, rather than a seperate phenomenon from individualized violence. I see it as far more likely that average violence is going down because of school and society wide programs that address and reduce individual on individual and small group on individual/small group violence. AND at the same time, other factors are leading to a at least partially unrelated increase in indiscriminate indivual on large group violence.
To lump these two trends together and say "violence is going down, why are you worried" sounds a little to me like if someone had said after the implicatons of AIDS had become widely known, "Look, compared to the 1700's the number of people dying of STDs has actually decreased dramaticly. The deaths have gone down, but everyone is acting like this is some big new deal. Its just media hype." This would be silly, since the near elimination of other STDs as a cause of death was due to medical advances (esp antibiotics) that had no relation to the real and new threat of AIDS.
I would think a little more about the issue before dismissing concern about mass murder with generalized stats that show individual violence in on the decrease. I can be glad that little timmy isn't snapping and stabbing little bobby on the playground over personal fights as much and still be concerned that little martin is for possibly the first time making a planned effort to take out a dozen kids he barely knows.
On the more general issues, my social psych background tells me that yes, modeling and desensitisation, even in a "fantasy" setting can have a contributory effect on various kinds of violence. This does not mean that first person shooters "cause" violence, or that all concerns can be dismissed. I'd also note that the actuall law being proposed was aimed at business owners and letting minors play video games, presumedly in arcades and similar settings. I think it is dishonest to try to turn this purely into a "parent's responsibility" issue. Does a "good parent" really shadow their child 24/7 walking arround the arcade or movie theater with him and commenting on his video games choices? Yes the parent can communicate with the child in general about the issue, but where did the "gameboy as babysitter" comments start comming from? try to address the real issues.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
To expand ont his, parents never were around constantly. The difference is NOT that TV or the internet has "become a babysitter" anymore than books were babysitters in the past. The difference is that parents controlled which books came into their house. However, controlling which TV shows can make it into your house is more of a all or none affair and /.ers roundly condemn people who would use software to control what web sites come into their house. Also in the past, parents had more children and kids could be left to play with each other with the parent doing things around the house and keeping an ear out for crashes or screams. Now responsible parenting means not having kids you can't afford.
If and when I have kids, I will likely be something of a Luddite. NO television, because its rediculous to expect me to supervise all watching, and I'm not going to let it become a forbidden fruit by saying I'm the only one adult enough to watch. Even radio is a lot tricker than it is for our parents.
Bottom line is, people give modern parents such a hard time for not wanting to have to monitor their children 24/7, but they didn't do it in "the good old days" either. Technology and public standards made it easy on them. Now we make it much harder and insult parents who want half the top level control that the previous generations had as a matter of course.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
What's most infuriating about all this aptly-put "post-Columbine hysteria" is that school shootings are nothing new, even in the United States. People get killed by violence in schools all the time, and have been for decades. The difference now is that it's in white, middle-class schools that the shootings are happening.
No one took notice when it was happening in schools in the ghettos of this country. And you still get these (white) liberals insisting that this country is not racist. It's the most sinister form of racism -- blissful ignorance.
max
How many votes does a political donor get? 1. How many votes does a $1 million dollar donor get? 1.
How many votes can $1 million worth of Big Media-funded commercials on TV buy? More than 1. Politicians do what it takes to get themselves re-elected, even if it means turning back on their campaign promises and selling out to Big Media.
If you don't like what is happening, run for office yourself.
I am constitutionally prohibited from running for federal office on account of my age, even though I am a natural-born United States citizen who has never set foot outside United States soil.
If you don't like a candidate, donate money to his/her opponent.
What if no candidate for a given office makes a promise that "I will not let campaign contributions from big ugly corporations influence my voting patterns in any way whatsoever"?
Write your Congressman, your Senators
Do you think they'd listen to somebody who is not old enough to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Never forget, representatives DO represent the will of the people. If they fail to, they get replaced by those next in line who claim to. It's the beauty of the american democracy
If that were true, we wouldn't have a DMCA or a Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. The United States of America is not a democracy but a plutocracy, which Webster defines as "government by the rich." Our representatives have learned that campaign money is more powerful than integrity in getting a fellow elected; a Congresscritter generally represents her constituents up until the day after inauguration, after which she represents special intere$t groups such as RIAA and MPAA.
But in a slightly more sinister sense, special interest groups do represent the will of the people. The pure capitalist would say that "if consumers don't want effectively perpetual copyright terms, they wouldn't buy from producers that funnel their money into lobbying for such laws." The public voices its approval of loss of rights by buying tickets to Disney's Pearl Harbor and Atlantis. There just isn't that much economic demand among consumers for freedom.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
While I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree with you that this is a freedom of speech issue. While the tenth ammendment would probably stop this from becoming a federal law (unless the all-powerful and highly abused interstate commerce clause kicks in), I don't see much that can be done to stop states from creating such rules.
The proper way to fight this is in Connecticut's system, and with a new Constitutional Ammendment, not by claiming that it's a free speech issue. It simply isn't.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Is this really a fact? Or is it just that school shootings are being reported on a wider scale?
It seems to me that, since Columbine, every time a kid brings a watergun to school, it's called another "kids with guns tragedy." I don't know if this concern is just media hype, or if there really is an increasing problem.
Things like this Connecticut law are proposed and passed by people who turn media hype into "it is a fact" without checking the numbers. "Everybody knows" that there's a problem. "It's obvious" that it's caused by this, that, or the other thing. Rarely do I see the media present research that says "hey, we went and got actual impartial data, and we did a real analysis on it, and we found some trends!"
That kind of factual reporting doesn't get ratings. "Bloodbath at Boomtown High!" gets ratings.
I've seen precisely one "game" designed to " teach" people about killing. It's called FATS, or Firearms Training Simulator. It's designed to teach people how to make the "shoot/don't shoot" decision under stress. Predictably, it's commonly used by police officers and is decidedly a niche market otherwise.
There can be a legitmate case made for a predisposition to violence caused by graphic first-person games. In his book, On Killing, David Grossman explores the fact that throughout history, human beings have been reluctant to kill unless conditioned to it, such as through realistic targets. He then uses this to make a case for violent TV and videogames causing a sort of dehumanization in the viewer. This dehumanization won't necessarily turn a mild-mannered adult into Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold, but it does remove one of the psychological barriers to killing.
I don't necessarily buy all of Mr. Grossman's conclusions, but he does argue them through in enough detail that they cannot simply be discounted without examination. I've taken an interest in these things, since I've had to take a professional interest in violence and its prevention.
FWIW, people often complain about the state usurping the role of the parent. Yeah, that's a legitimate gripe, but is it that legitimate in the face of parents who refuse to parent? I'm not talking about the apathy one might think happens in the inner city minority family (one might think, but it doesn't). I'm talking about the white upper-middle-class parent with the white upper-middle-class child, who gets huffy with me when I arrest Junior Darling for Domestic Abuse or DUI. Apparently, Junior Darling would be just fine if he didn't have the pigs on his ass every time he beat the snot out of his girlfriend.
It would be really nice if the parents actually parented. The only problem is, there are entirely too many that don't, thereby forcing the burden onto the rest of society.
Nope. Let's look at the Fourteenth Amendment, which says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their laws, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."
Or words to that effect.
The exact definition of "privileges and immunities" has been a subject of some controversy for the last century and change. One current understanding is that they include, but are not limited to, the Bill of Rights protections.
Another is that they include the BoR, but only once each specific BoR provision is "incorporated" into the Fourteenth. For example, there has never been a USSC or even Circuit-level ruling on whether the Second Amendment actually protects an individual right. However, there was a ruling by a Circuit (appellate) court about fifteen years ago, stating that whatever rights were or were not included in the Second were not yet incorporated into the Fourteenth. (Gun control being a touchy political topic, the court didn't want to even touch the underlying question.)
But anyway, the Federal Bill of Rights is binding upon state and local governments. Otherwise, I wouldn't necessarily have to give arrestees a Miranda warning when arresting them on state charges.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can be completely devoid of the ability to detect humour.
Unfortunately Inazuma, you appear to be missing the point. While JonKatz can often get a little emotional in his writing, he does have a point in that there is no direct connection that you can make between playing a violent video game (e.g. Counter-Strike) and real-life violence. If such a link existed, then there would be a rise in violent crime to support the rise in video game usage. The fact is that there is no such statistical link and furthermore, your claim that violent video games "help" a violent person down the "path of violence" is misleading because it ignores the fact that the individual was predisposed to violence anyway, and the fact that he played video games was actually a very minor factor. Study after study has shown that poverty, real-life violence, harassment and bullying are amongst the main causes of violence and that video games in the vast majority of cases aren't a factor at all.
The truth is that children (and teenagers) learn so much more from the real world (ie. what kids are in when they're not playing Quake 3) than they do from video games. Many violent crimes are committed by people who grew up in poverty and where violence was a daily, accepted practice in real life. Furthermore, repeated, continual schoolyard harassment and bullying as well as the inability of administrators to do something about it is what causes events such as Columbine. Combine that with the impulsiveness of adolesence and the easy access to firearms (which should always remain secure in your home) and you have your school massacre. Sure, the killers played violent video games, but the step from playing Doom to planning and actually committing a violent crime of such a magnitude is so large that the vast majority of the population will never take that step. Also, the idea that games desensitise children to violence holds no ground when one truly considers how realistic games are. Even the most realistic violent game around (eg. Soldier Of Fortune) pales in comparison to the real-life act of violence. There, it's so much more shocking because it's real, and you can't press Stop or select Quit to make it go away.
The proposed legislation is, in fact, unconstitutional because it takes away the person's right to choose what they want to do. If you don't want to play violent video games, then don't. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us who are able to realise that in the end, it's just entertainment. Granted, there are restrictions on your personal freedom (eg. can't murder/steal/etc) but these are more often than not for a good reason. Public indecency laws are questionable in their nature and often assume the role of defacto public censorship. While it's true that JonKatz needs more to back up some of his statements (something we all need to do more often), it's the ignorance of the elected representatives that worrys people because more often than not they don't do the proper research and their speeches consist of not much more than soundbites for the 6:00 news. These result in knee-jerk legislation that is not properly considered before being rushed through so that the government can say that it's "protecting children", which is supposed to be the responsibility of the parents. Parents need to take a more active role in their children's lives, and be open-minded about what their kids play.
So please, do post to Slashdot if you feel the need to comment about issues such as these, seeing as how America's a democracy and all. But try to think it through before you do so, otherwise your comments might be equally misleading as some of Katz's.
Self Bias Resistor
"For if you doubt your courage or your strength, come ne'er further. For death awaits ye with nasty, big pointy teeth." - John Cleese, Monty Python & The Quest For The Holy Grail
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
My main point (expressed rather poorly, I'll be the first to admit) was not that video games did cause violence, but that the argument that "no study has shown they do" is an argument that really doesn't win many points
Point taken. But what I was arguing was not so much that video games don't cause violence because there is no proof (and to be fair that argument is somewhat defensive), but that there is no proof either way. No study has conclusively shown beyond a reasonable doubt that video games either do or don't cause violence because, like you said, not enough time has passed for the study of violence in our culture (which I would argue is not at saturation point) to be observed in any substantial way.
And, to be fair, I wasn't making a personal attack on you specifically not reading the whole story before you post, but as a general comment to the Slashdot readers who don't observe this crucial step. And I will be fair in saying that there are politicians out there who do know about these issues and do their research and don't do speeches by soundbites. But it's the ones who don't that worry me because some politicians do this and it's when the really good comments are drowned out by the rhetorical rubbish of these ignorant politicians that I start to worry.
So I'd just like to say that you had some good points there, but to legislate against the "harmful" effects of media violence when (as you rightly said) we don't know exactly what effect, if any, that this violence is having is a path we should not go down.
Self Bias Resistor
"I don't think video games are affecting kids. If Pac Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching on pills and listening to repetitive music." - Unknown
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
From the Wall Street Journal's Zero Tolerance Archive.
In Jonesboro, Ark., eight-year-old Christopher Kissinger has been suspended from South Elementary School for three days. Christopher's crime: pointing a breaded chicken finger at a teacher and saying "Pow, pow, pow." The Associated Press reports that "the incident apparently violated the Jonesboro School District's zero-tolerance policy against weapons."
Nearby Westside Middle School was the site of a 1998 shooting in which four students and a teacher were killed. No poultry was involved in that crime.
Physics, Cosmology and
Ahh! You have just stumbled upon my definition of stupid: Doing the same thing twice, but expecting a different result.
Congradulations!
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
As it stands its an old law, but by changing this law what's to say that somewhere down the line heroin and cocaine addicts won't start the same "Legalize It" tactics? Why should it be only a legalize pot issue when pot isn't the only drug?
:^)
It's an old law bred largely from misinformation combined with knee-jerk reactions. The main difference that I can see is that the harmful effects of heroine & cocaine are more immediate & severe. Those addicted to these substances will rob & kill to get a fix, whereas most potheads (none that I have ever known) will do this for weed.
Studies have shown, and I personally have seen effects of those studies, that a large portion of people who recreated with `weed' often graduated on to harder drugs.
My personal experience was that, after hearing what the "authorities" said about pot & finding that it did not bear out from my personal experiences, I figured if they're bullshitting me about pot, they're probably lying about the other stuff, too. This unfortunately led me down a road I wish I hadn't taken, and one I have gotten away from since. But, the fact remains that inconsistancies & untruth led me to make certain judgements at the time, which could have been different if people had simply told the truth.
So I don't think legalizing just one because people are bitching about it is a good thing unless you're not going to stop playing favorites and legalize them all, period.
How about this idea: legalization of naturally-occuring substances? This would allow the use of pot, peyote (used in various indigenous rituals) and mushrooms (not that I'm advocating them), while banning man-made concoctions such as cocaine, heroine, etc. Personally, I've always wondered how society could outlaw something that was placed on this Earth by God. We are presented with choices along the road of life after all, & not everything can be sanitized for your protection. I do believe, however, that man-made substances (of all sorts) should be used with restraint, especially as we often do not fathom the full impact of our clever inventions until it's too late.
OK - back to the topic at hand. Talk amongst yourselves...
The best part of this troll is that it is difficult to tell whether the author is trolling on purpose, or really does believe the things he posted. Again, kudos to -razor-.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
Look, I know this is "News for nerds" and all the news is tech news. But I get the impression from the discussion that follows such stories that most geeks are interested in little more than these topics. People get whipped up into a frenzy over video game legislation, but would show little interest in other areas where injustices were floating through government. Perhaps it is just an age factor in most cases, but it is just an observation of mine.
It seems to escape everyone that none of "us" are living in a free society. We are living in a liberated society where the only true freedom, much like a prisioner, exists only within the mind of the indivudial. Our true freedom was never born... nor should it be. Can you really say that we would be where we are today w/o regulations... rules... to live by. Freedom doesn't work. The question is simply, or not so simply, how much liberation to give.
----------
do { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); } while (alive)
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
Children are already being expelled from schools for doing such things.
----------
do { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); } while (alive)
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
"Anyway, why don't these politicians just look to their own childhoods" HAHA, as if you could ever expect a politician to EVER be so honest!
----------
do { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); } while (alive)
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
Now, as an avid gamer and a father, I must say that I really REALLY dislike going to the movies with my kids only to see games like The House of the Dead or others openly displayed so my kids CAN'T miss it unless I blindfold them. That ticks me off. I don't want my 5 or 6 year olds seeing blood and guts at the same place they come to see a Disney movie.
Maybe this bill instead should make a point of just moving graphically violent games out of public view. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the point and shoot games were gone from public view. Put it in the homes if you want where parents can make the choice what they want their kids to see and not businesses.
Chris
Annoying Legislator in secret lair:
:)
When I was young, the kids would laugh at me, they would say things like "What's the matter? you can't jump and land on the koopa? don't run into it! you moron!", and "I've never seen someone play pong this badly! you suck eggs!", they used to say suck eggs back then.. But now, now, muahaha, I shall have revenge, in two decades all memories of video games will be lost, and I shall triumph at the only remaining game known to human beings.. checkers! Muahahaha, Muahahahaahaaa.
This may not be factual, but I have a feeling it may be true.
Klowner
proceed to mod me down
The solution then is for women to quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, is it? Brilliant.
---
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Hey, why didn't we think of that before? Forbidding something to adolescents will surely make it less appealing. While we're at it, lets forbid smoking, drinking, and premarital sex, and the whole world will be a big, happy Disneyland.
Elegance is for tailors. -A. Einstein
i fail to see which part of the first amendment this bill violates: the 1st amendment guarantees the people the freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of petition, and of peaceable assembly. playing point-and-shoot video games in public places, i think, constitutes none of these.
one could, of course, argue that playing video games, like burning draft cards or contributing to a political campaign, is a form of speech and therefore protected. but in order for an action to be a form of speech, i would think that the person performing the action would be trying to communicate something. i don't know if i speak for everyone, but when i play games, i'm just trying to have fun, not make any kind of political statement. (of course, if this law should pass...)
really, i agree with everyone else that this is a dumb law that encourages parental irresponsibility, but i really can't see any constitutional (especially first-amendment) grounds to oppose it on.
Recursion (n): See recursion
As a manager at a recreation center in CT (name withheld because corporate lawyer nazis from our Ontario home office love negative comments!), this bill directly targets some of our games, it sucks...parents should allow kids to play or not play, not some bill passed by people who are 50 or 60 years removed from the kids age. According to our corporate compliance officer , it's a US $1000 fine for any children to play games such as Maximum Force (the area 51 spinoff), Dark Sillhouete - Silent Scope 2 (the badass sniper game), Time Crisis (1 and 2), and Area 51 (which is a funny game, because the story line has you shooting at aliens inhabiting human bodies-technically legal by this godforsaken bill) The skinny on this bill is that it was originally proposed by Sen. Joe Liebermann, and that it was over two years old but it was parlayed to death...funny how it gets reborn after a failed white house run. One benefit to entertainment in CT is that it's not taxed formally by the state government, but now...it's getting regulated and is a fineable offence to have certain types of games in my building. I guess if the gov't isn't gonna tax us for fun, they might as well remove the TWO MOST SUCCESSFUL games from my building in hopes of preventing some kid from pointing a blue plastic handgun at someother kid and then going home and boresighing his grandfather's World War 2 Luger at his friends forehead. only in CT.
If someone does piss an american voter off, he/she will simply not vote in the next re-election
And those people deserve what they get. When you abdicate your responsibility to the democratic system, you give up your right to complain about the outcome. If you don't like the way things are, you DO something about them. you don't whine about how unfair the system is, because there isn't a more level political playing field anywhere in the world.
Once they turn 18, they won't give a shit because they are not effected.
Again, why should I be bothered about the feelings of people who abdicate their responsibility?
The USA has a little thing called "recall"
There is no recall provision on the Federal level, and there is no universal recall provision on the state and local levels. At the Federal level, there are four ways to remove a President: death, resignation, Impeachment and Conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors (Article II, Section 4), or inability to discharge the office (Article II, Section 1, and various amendments). There are also four ways to remove a Senator or Congressman: death, resignation, supermajority vote by the members of that Legislative body (Article I, Section 5), and assumption of another office (Article I, Section 6). Not even a criminal conviction necessarily removes a Legislator or President from office. State laws on recall vary widely.
In some way, politicians like Sen. Harp ought to be held accountable for their laziness, their disconnection from their own constitituencies, ignorance of the cultural lives of the young, and lack of regard for basic freedom.
Uh, Jon? This "accountability" system already exists. I give you one guess as to what it is.
That's right, the ballot box. That's why we don't elect people for life. After a period of time, you get to consider their record, match it against their promises and the prevailing political climate, and decide whether to send them packing or not. The voters already have more power in this regard than any law or structure you could consider setting up. And that's the way it is supposed to be in a Democratic Republic.
"I would hope if he vetoes it, we don't have a tragedy like ... Columbine, because then he can take some responsibility," she said.
OK, maybe some of that quote was taken out of context or something, but does that make sense? "I hope we don't have a Columbine tragedy, because then the govenor will have to take responsibility for it"?
Sounds to me like she would like to see an incident of some kind, then make a lot of hay blaming the govenor.
But that's what all this is really all about, isn't it? Political Grandstanding. Pick a hot-button topic, and come out publicly on one side of the issue. Doesn't matter which side, flip a coin. Your opponents naturally take the opposite side, and you fight it out for a while in the court of public opinion, see who comes out the victor. Repeat ad naseum.
A great way to create the illusion of working for a living.
Ok, parents should to a better job. But this won't happen because having money for a big SUV, big TV, big computer is more prestigious. When was the last time you were praised for being a great parent opposed to be complimented for your car? Therefore parents will buy their kids a game console and put them in front of it - it's so much easier.
At the beginning was at.
Not a bad idea. I'd email you for buttons except I never seem to leave the house anymore. :)
How about a web campaign too? I'll have to cook up a "Dark Heart of the Internet" banner for my site. I'd link such a banner to a well-written anti-censorship page.
Generally I like Bush but like any politician he has some truly retarded ideas.
Look, get away from slashdot, Adolf. This isn't the place to shit yourself on fascis---oh I mean "conservative" issues. We have rights. Right wingers take away our rights, "for our own good" BUT IT IS NOT FOR OUR OWN GOOD. WE DO WHAT WE FUCKIN WANT YOU NAZI! HEIL HITLER, NAZI! RIGHT?? Rightwingers try to take away our rights, force beliefs down our throats, and tell us that they are the world's authority on what they think is right, and make us follow their perverted concept of civilization. You're one of them. Bye Bye loser.
faith (fath)
n.
1. Persons skilled in the art of getting elected.
2. People whow know how to make a crowd-pleasing argument but little else.
3. People who strive to achieve a position with the authority to make decisions for other people. Syn: fat-cats, morons, carbon-bags-of-mostly-hot-air
I can't understand the purpose of these all-purpose legislators. These people don't know anything but making good press and saying crowd-pleasing things, no matter if those things are grounded in superstition, popular myth, or are completely erroneous.
Why don't we let the EPA set environmental legislation and elect the environmental experts? Why not vote for Department of Transportation officials? What use are these jackass-of-all-trades, competent-at-none, easily-corrupted monkeys in office? We need to elect experts for the field of their speciality, not lawyers.
"You're too stupid so we're going to decide for you," is the mentality of this legislation. People put a lot of trust in these elected officials -- it's time for them to start trusting us.
[pink beam of light]
That was the most lame troll I've ever had the ill luck to come across. Re-tool the thing in reply to my post.
I know you can do better.
I have never met a child over the age of 4 who couldn't say what is fake and what is real--in video games, tv, movies, and imagination. Maybe there's something in the water where you come from...
...because you really need that all-terrain SUV for driving to work every day.
--
--
#nohup cat
Get a listing of who voted FOR this bill, who helped draft it, and then remember their names when it comes time to vote.
All votes of bills issued into state or federal Congress is public. Don't like how a bill is written and hurts your freedom? Make sure people know who voted for it, and make sure they don't win again next election.
Dragon Magic
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
If the parents did their jobs the government wouldn't have to.. I say that violent/sexual games should have the same laws as buying weapons / cigs / alcohol or going to the movies... Can a minor get into a movie if he's under 17? Then why should he (or she) be allowed he buy a videogame that's just as bad violent / sexual / vulgar if not worse?
--
8vO
--
8vO
... and it's not the stores responsibility to keep them from buying a pack of smokes, or a gun, nor is it the movie industry's place to prevent kids from getting into x rated movies, the evidence is all around, everyone needs to open their eyes, it doesn't take a scientist to see the effects.. While I agree that parents should be ultimately responsible there are 9 out of 10 parents that just don't care..
--
8vO
--
8vO
We put in a violent movie the other day in fact, and when I told my son what it was rated, and what it contained he went and played, and didn't come back until it was over, just because he didn't want to see people getting killed.. I'm thinking he would react the same away from home. Believe me I have thought of that..
--
8vO
--
8vO
You will also see in another post that I will reserve the right to determine if a movie is overrated though I agree that we need to be tougher about what the rest of the world allows my children to see. As for the movie he was not given the option.. "Hey we are going to watch Jurassic Park, it's Rated R, and has dinosaurs eating people in it (laugh)" "ok, I don't want to watch that" ... "Hey, the movie's over" "Can we play the PSX" ... "sure" ...
had he wanted the option he wouldn't have been allowed, the point is that my method works for my kids.. They have no interest in it.. The rule stated above stands, but I would bet $$$ that I will never need to enforce it.
--
8vO
--
8vO
But while we give them m-16's, m-203G's, MP5's,
God Bless America!
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off hyper caffeineated
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Back when I was a kid, not all that long ago (the 70's), there was an disturbing game that was sweeping the nation. Many young children, myself included, were participating in this particular form of "mind altering" recreation and the "moral majority" was quick to point out it's evils.
The game: Dungeons & Dragons.
For those of you who don't know or remember what D&D was, it was a role playing game that allowed players to assume the role of an imaginary alter-ego. This alter-ego would then have adventures which consisted of, but not limited to, fighting monsters, going on quests, and of course, slaying dragons. To play D&D one needed only a few friends, a handful of dice, and some books that provided a rough outline of how to play the game. It was free form, open ended game that required the player to use quite a bit of imagination, not to mention a good deal of intelligence, and it was quite successful.
D&D was popular throughout the 70's and on into the 80's. It is not uncommon to find people still playing D&D but it has long since faded into the background against such other games as Pokiemon and Might and Magic.
During it's heyday critics of D&D cited quite a few evils that playing D&D caused. Just to name a few: it encouraged violence, it was blasphemous, it was degrading to women (much of the artwork done showed topless women), it was too time consuming, and it encouraged gambling.
I was too young to remember if any particular bills were sponsored relating to D&D, but I do remember the media's portrayal of D&D players as bloodthirsty teens. If a person was ever involved in an incident that made the news and the media was able to find out that they played D&D, it was sure to report that in true sensationalistic fashion.
I'm sure as we progress throughout the ages there will be new "evils" that the "moral majority" will attempt to pin society's shortcomings upon. Prior to D&D I believe many thought that Rock and Roll music was quite evil. Before that I'm not sure, but you can be sure that there was something, SOMETHING, that was causing all that violence.
Because man is certainly not violent in nature. Certainly.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Nobody told Senator Miller that, apparently.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
She's moving to Canada to get away from thought police? She is in for a rude awakening.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I find it easier to stay in the US and drink imports. Labatt tastes terrible to me.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I guess I can relate. A lot of people try Budweiser and assume all American beer tastes like shit, having never samples the joys of Samuel Adams Boston Lager, Schmaltz's Alt, or Pete's Wicked Ale.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
...mis-guidedly assigning that role to government and the operators of small businesses
This kind of lawmaking happens quite frequently in CT. In the State of Connecticut, liquor stores have to be closed at 8 p.m., all day Sunday and on all major holidays. Yet, Connecticut still has the highest drunk driving rate in the US (at least they did 3 years ago when I still lived there).
-----
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
..blaming America's obesity problems on Pac-Man? Fuzzy
I absolutely agree! While I have nothing against kids or parents like some new movements in this country, I'm finding it hard to deal with the fact that the government (and corporations albeit to a lesser extent) are effectively censoring things that I have every right as an adult to have.
We are in agreement. I certainly don't think that the government should abandon children. I can appreciate society taking a role in the development of young people.Its obvious to me that I have a vested interest in what happens to younger generations (retirement among other things). I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Perhaps it's _because_ of their violent childhood. They may (wrongly, in my opinion) think that is not a good way to grow up as a child, and may want their children to not have a violent childhood. Many parents tell there children not to do something because they once did that, or went through that, and do not want their children to go through the same thing. This may not actually be about screening violent video games, but in protecting their children from the violence that they grew up with. Of course, I think most politicians are ignorant liars, and should be replaced with honest folk, but that's just me. :P I also don't agree that banning violent games, in any way, will help at all, I mean, come on, they're just games! Right?
"To many, a tux is something you wear for formal events, to those of substance, Tux is a symbol of freedom." --sandalle
it calls into serious question its sponsors fitness to hold public office
This is your first clue?
What about CIV? If I attack an enemy city with atomic weapons in CIV, am I more likely to launch nuclear missles at my neighbor?
So, then, I guess it's OK to harass small groups of people who are enthusiastically into some hobby, but if a lot of people like to do it, then it's OK? Wouldn't it make sense to try to enact legislation to stop "mainstream" "harmful matter", as it affects a much greater proportion of the people? Going after "cults" is only going to address a very small amount of the harm being done.
Let's look at the activity itself, identify who, if anyone, it harms, and whether that harm is something that legislation could (and also whether it should) be used to stop that harm, or if the risk of harm is "reasonable" or outweighed by the benefits of that activity.
Then make sure that the legislation to prevent the harm isn't worse than the harm that it's supposed to prevent.
The best argument to make on the behalf of video games is that they are not harmful. Argue that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. Punish murderers; not the publisher of "Murder for Dummies".
For more stupidity, be sure to read This.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
This is the first Jon Katz posting I can recall that didn't result in massive verbal pointing and shooting.
FPS's are not real-person versus some imaginary computer-controlled "human" anymore! Given, in days past, we didn't have "multi-player." But realistically, the very day that multi-player was introduced to the FPS, the single-player FPS died. Sure, you can play in single player mode, but I think by-and-large players only use it to train for the multi-player mode. OK...I'm barely old enough to have enjoyed Wolfenstein...arguably the "mother/father" of all First Person Shooters. Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem, Marathon, Quake, whatever, are certainly "violent" games. The point I want to make here is that violence comes naturally to humans. As a human race, we've strived to replace murder as a form of gratification for this natural tendency. We've historically tried countless replacements (many of which I'm sure I'm not aware of,) but for the sake of this article, I'm going to concentrate on sports. I'm a basketball player. I've played for championship quality teams, and had the option to play collegiate level ball (I chose a well-paying computer job instead.) I admit that I'm genetically inclined for such competition...not all people are. Allow me to give my perspective to those who are not experienced in this particular sport. Basketball, from a distance (anywhere that one is not competitively playing the game) appears to many to be a non-contact sport..."non-violent." Bullshit. Why was (and possibly still is) Charles Barkley one of the greatest players to play the game? It certainly wasn't because of his physical presence...the man's only (at some point in his career anyway) Height: 6'6" Weight: 252 lbs...not particularly big for a professional basketball player. Charles Barkley was so successful because he was the most violent man on the court. He intimidated everyone around him. He started a fight with Shaq for cryin' out loud. Charles Barkley stated that he never wanted to be a role-model for children...I believe that this was because he knew that to be successful in the game, he had to play violently. When I played, I employed very similar strategy, as I believe most athletes do. As a player, you must physically dominate your opponent...but never intentionally injure another player (I don't believe that Sir Charles ever intentionally would.) Don't fool yourselves...Shaquille O'Neal is no different. People use the excuse that he's "just that much bigger," which no doubt gives him a natural advantage. But when Shaq's on the court, he's not trying to be nice to anyone on the other team. Readers, this is no different than WAR...except that on the modern sports battlefield, intentionally inflicting physical injury on another player is considered dishonorable...I see this as a sign of social evolution/improvement (IMHO.) I've been saying to friends for years that I see FPS's as being sports (I personally play Tribes/Tribes 2, but I think the concept applies to all FPS's, and probably role-playing and strategy games.) FPS's don't require physical strength or size. Particularly in the case of FPS's, I think they DO require eye-hand coordination (a physical skill,) which in my mind qualifies them as a sport! Video Games provide a sense of accomplishment to the successful player...there's a winner. Psychologically speaking, is my ability to physically force my opponent out of my way on a basketball court any different? No, I'm not killing that basketball player, but then again in an FPS (or for that matter an opponent in a role-playing or strategy game) they can always re-spawn...they didn't eternally die. I think it's universally agreed that murder is "evil" to say the least. Over the ages, humans have developed sports as an outlet for this natural human drive to dominate the sociological group(s) around them. Unfortunately, physical sports naturally lend themselves to the physically stronger and faster...those are the players who dominate (yes, intelligence and skill play equal roles.) Yet, where does that leave the humans that God gifted with other abilities...music, computers, mechanics, etc.? Isn't it a natural evolution, given the available technology, to provide all humans with a physically equalized environment for exercising our inherent competitive spirit? In my mind, video games of all types (not just FPS's) offer a medium for such competition. Some might argue that non-violent games can offer the same gratification. My argument is that all games, at least on some level, involve killing...no matter how disguised it may be. What's the point of chess? Kill the king (some might argue that's it's capture...who ever heard of a captured king that lived?) If someone out there has an idea for a game that adequately satisfies the human need for competition with others without any (even indirect) equation to killing, I'll be the first to try it out. Up to this point, I've heard of nothing of the sort. In my mind, to even consider the possibility that FPS's, or any other game-type for that matter, cause kids OR adults to commit violent acts is ridiculous...unless of course we're willing to admit that basketball has the same effect. No. Video games provide competition and the resulting satisfaction of accomplishment...not the opposite of killing, but instead, a substitute...just like basketball J A couple of thoughts along a related train of thought: Firstly, as a Christian, I see no alternative than to believe with absolute certainty that aliens exist...by definition: (www.dictionary.com): "alien - A creature from outer space" Yes, there are several alternative definitions, none of which contradict this definition. God sure aint terrestrial, so he must be from outer space. (www.dictionary.com): "Outer Space - Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to the boundaries of a celestial body or system, especially: a. The region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere. b. Interplanetary or interstellar space..." Not that it matters, but I don't rule out the possibility of beings (not God) on other planets. Therefore, why is it any better to kill an alien than a human? I don't think it is. Secondly, technically speaking, persons under the age of 18 cannot be citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, technically speaking, any US governmental body could constitutionally deny the right of persons under the age of 18 to do anything "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights (including free speech.) Additionally, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter into any type of contractual agreement in the US, which would obviously rule out their rental of computers in video-game parlors/cyber-café's (public venues...I suppose public schools and libraries are outside this realm, but that's another discussion.) Interestingly, this also technically makes it illegal for a company/organization to allow a 2 year old to put a penny into a bubble-gum machine for the purchase of candy, but we all know there's no feasible way to enforce that law. Bottom line...the concept of blaming video games for violence is ignorant. Perhaps more importantly, it's adverse to human nature. In my opinion, video games generally reduce violence among youngsters by providing socially challenged kids a method for working out their frustrations in a physically non-violent manner. I think it's well established that the physically inferior - although very possibly intellectually superior - kids tend to catch the brunt of "teasing", and as such have need for emotional release. However, video games do not provide an end-all solution to the problem...people can very easily equate online video games with real life, which is obviously not a cure for the core problem. Perhaps when used properly, video games might help such struggling youngsters to find intelligent (non-violent) solutions to their social problems. Personal Note - I am of Christian faith...although some Christians might call me a blasphemer. I would ask readers to apply their own beliefs to this article before flaming me for that...I'm not attempting to force anyone to agree with my faith. I was a kid that early on became the brunt of the typical "nerd/fag" jokes that I'm sure many Slashdotters are familiar with...I believe mostly because I was generally more intelligent than the rest of the "crowd". I was also gifted with somewhat extraordinary physical abilities, thankfully through which I learned to stand up for myself...albeit through somewhat violent methods. We can't expect inexperienced kids (a redundant noun?) to fully understand right from wrong, but we can expect kids to understand hurt from not-hurt...I learned that the hard way. Please do not take this as any suggestion that physical punishment is an end-all solution for teaching children life lessons...it's not a good solution...not even close. It's just how I learned it. Kendell Tribes2 - (RSV)El Mariachi
Didn't realize I had to do the
's by hand...here's that same post with line breaks.
FPS's are not real-person versus some imaginary computer-controlled "human" anymore! Given, in days past, we didn't have "multi-player." But realistically, the very day that multi-player was introduced to the FPS, the single-player FPS died. Sure, you can play in single player mode, but I think by-and-large players only use it to train for the multi-player mode.
OK...I'm barely old enough to have enjoyed Wolfenstein...arguably the "mother/father" of all First Person Shooters. Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem, Marathon, Quake, whatever, are certainly "violent" games.
The point I want to make here is that violence comes naturally to humans. As a human race, we've strived to replace murder as a form of gratification for this natural tendency. We've historically tried countless replacements (many of which I'm sure I'm not aware of,) but for the sake of this article, I'm going to concentrate on sports.
I'm a basketball player. I've played for championship quality teams, and had the option to play collegiate level ball (I chose a well-paying computer job instead.) I admit that I'm genetically inclined for such competition...not all people are. Allow me to give my perspective to those who are not experienced in this particular sport. Basketball, from a distance (anywhere that one is not competitively playing the game) appears to many to be a non-contact sport..."non-violent." Bullshit. Why was (and possibly still is) Charles Barkley one of the greatest players to play the game? It certainly wasn't because of his physical presence...the man's only (at some point in his career anyway) Height: 6'6" Weight: 252 lbs...not particularly big for a professional basketball player. Charles Barkley was so successful because he was the most violent man on the court. He intimidated everyone around him. He started a fight with Shaq for cryin' out loud.
Charles Barkley stated that he never wanted to be a role-model for children...I believe that this was because he knew that to be successful in the game, he had to play violently. When I played, I employed very similar strategy, as I believe most athletes do. As a player, you must physically dominate your opponent...but never intentionally injure another player (I don't believe that Sir Charles ever intentionally would.) Don't fool yourselves...Shaquille O'Neal is no different. People use the excuse that he's "just that much bigger," which no doubt gives him a natural advantage. But when Shaq's on the court, he's not trying to be nice to anyone on the other team. Readers, this is no different than WAR...except that on the modern sports battlefield, intentionally inflicting physical injury on another player is considered dishonorable...I see this as a sign of social evolution/improvement (IMHO.)
I've been saying to friends for years that I see FPS's as being sports (I personally play Tribes/Tribes 2, but I think the concept applies to all FPS's, and probably role-playing and strategy games.) FPS's don't require physical strength or size. Particularly in the case of FPS's, I think they DO require eye-hand coordination (a physical skill,) which in my mind qualifies them as a sport! Video Games provide a sense of accomplishment to the successful player...there's a winner. Psychologically speaking, is my ability to physically force my opponent out of my way on a basketball court any different? No, I'm not killing that basketball player, but then again in an FPS (or for that matter an opponent in a role-playing or strategy game) they can always re-spawn...they didn't eternally die.
I think it's universally agreed that murder is "evil" to say the least. Over the ages, humans have developed sports as an outlet for this natural human drive to dominate the sociological group(s) around them. Unfortunately, physical sports naturally lend themselves to the physically stronger and faster...those are the players who dominate (yes, intelligence and skill play equal roles.) Yet, where does that leave the humans that God gifted with other abilities...music, computers, mechanics, etc.? Isn't it a natural evolution, given the available technology, to provide all humans with a physically equalized environment for exercising our inherent competitive spirit?
In my mind, video games of all types (not just FPS's) offer a medium for such competition. Some might argue that non-violent games can offer the same gratification. My argument is that all games, at least on some level, involve killing...no matter how disguised it may be. What's the point of chess? Kill the king (some might argue that's it's capture...who ever heard of a captured king that lived?) If someone out there has an idea for a game that adequately satisfies the human need for competition with others without any (even indirect) equation to killing, I'll be the first to try it out. Up to this point, I've heard of nothing of the sort.
In my mind, to even consider the possibility that FPS's, or any other game-type for that matter, cause kids OR adults to commit violent acts is ridiculous...unless of course we're willing to admit that basketball has the same effect. No. Video games provide competition and the resulting satisfaction of accomplishment...not the opposite of killing, but instead, a substitute...just like basketball J
A couple of thoughts along a related train of thought:
Firstly, as a Christian, I see no alternative than to believe with absolute certainty that aliens exist...by definition: (www.dictionary.com): "alien - A creature from outer space"
Yes, there are several alternative definitions, none of which contradict this definition. God sure aint terrestrial, so he must be from outer space.
(www.dictionary.com): "Outer Space - Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to the boundaries of a celestial body or system, especially:
a. The region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere.
b. Interplanetary or interstellar space..."
Not that it matters, but I don't rule out the possibility of beings (not God) on other planets. Therefore, why is it any better to kill an alien than a human? I don't think it is.
Secondly, technically speaking, persons under the age of 18 cannot be citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, technically speaking, any US governmental body could constitutionally deny the right of persons under the age of 18 to do anything "guaranteed" by the Bill of Rights (including free speech.) Additionally, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter into any type of contractual agreement in the US, which would obviously rule out their rental of computers in video-game parlors/cyber-café's (public venues...I suppose public schools and libraries are outside this realm, but that's another discussion.) Interestingly, this also technically makes it illegal for a company/organization to allow a 2 year old to put a penny into a bubble-gum machine for the purchase of candy, but we all know there's no feasible way to enforce that law.
Bottom line...the concept of blaming video games for violence is ignorant. Perhaps more importantly, it's adverse to human nature. In my opinion, video games generally reduce violence among youngsters by providing socially challenged kids a method for working out their frustrations in a physically non-violent manner. I think it's well established that the physically inferior - although very possibly intellectually superior - kids tend to catch the brunt of "teasing", and as such have need for emotional release. However, video games do not provide an end-all solution to the problem...people can very easily equate online video games with real life, which is obviously not a cure for the core problem. Perhaps when used properly, video games might help such struggling youngsters to find intelligent (non-violent) solutions to their social problems.
Personal Note - I am of Christian faith...although some Christians might call me a blasphemer. I would ask readers to apply their own beliefs to this article before flaming me for that...I'm not attempting to force anyone to agree with my faith.
I was a kid that early on became the brunt of the typical "nerd/fag" jokes that I'm sure many Slashdotters are familiar with...I believe mostly because I was generally more intelligent than the rest of the "crowd". I was also gifted with somewhat extraordinary physical abilities, thankfully through which I learned to stand up for myself...albeit through somewhat violent methods. We can't expect inexperienced kids (a redundant noun?) to fully understand right from wrong, but we can expect kids to understand hurt from not-hurt...I learned that the hard way. Please do not take this as any suggestion that physical punishment is an end-all solution for teaching children life lessons...it's not a good solution...not even close. It's just how I learned it.
Kendell
Tribes2 - (RSV)El Mariachi
Sorry dude...Bill of Right's don't count till you're 18. They CAN force a kid under 18 to take the stand at his/her own juvenile trial, and they CAN impede on any of the "inalienable" rights. Not saying it's right...I don't believe that it is...but them's the facts.
Video games aren't the problem. Easy access to guns for minors is the problem. I believe in the right to bear arms, but why is it so easy for America's youth to acquire firearms? That's the real problem.
Old, but apposite:
"If video games influenced childrens behaviour, all those among us who grew up playing Pacman would spend our spare time in badly lit rooms rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music..."
Rav(e)ing Loony
Not confused enough? http://translate.google.com/translate?u=www.slashdot.jp&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ja&tl=en
...if a lawmaker drafts and passes a bill, and it is later declared unconstitutional (whether state or federal), then that lawmaker loses his/her job immediatley, and is barred from holding public office (even on a school board) for 5 years. No more waiting for the public to forget about it, by the next time they run. No more spin doctoring (like Dubya has done with his federal medical "privacy" laws). Make it retroactive so current bills could be reviewed and action taken (DCMA anyone?) With this system we would have, within 10 years, laws that actually WORK & PROTECT the people of the USA.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
The current issue of PC Gamer has a nice story about the gaming scene in other countries. I don't know if it is available online, but you might want to go and get the issue. Germany for example is banning ultra-realistic violence games from being advertised and being sold to minors (under 18 that is). Game Developers often try to avoid this by changing the gfx to contain robots and oil instead of flesh and blood. But the Germans on the other hand side are not so prudent about Boobies. Well, I think this is a better way to go for it. The people who (at least by law) should be able to handle it (adults) can get the stuff and minors can have the fun but do not see reality like blood and guts. An American minor geek knows how a human looks from the inside but he doesn't know what tits look like.
Just my $.02
Yesterday -- my daughter's great, but my car's a '92 Escort.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
I took a class in American Government in high school, and they didn't even give us any hints how to run for school board. Being able to run for office is the fucking backbone of the US government and NO ONE KNOWS HOW!
The House web page isn't giving any hints. I did about 30 Google searches and the closest I could come up with is this. Maybe I'm just not the best searcher but it's freaking me out that "how to run for congress" gives me nothing useful. By the way, it seems this isn't just a US thing, as "how to run for parliment" gets the same kind of noise.
Someone cluefull speak up. And sorry for the shit and 3 fuckings.
What's changed between then and now? Well, for one thing, it's a much smaller world. Perhaps this kind of thing happened back then too.. we just didn't hear about it because news didn't travel too far past the local area. Now, something happens in Colorado, and it's instantly news across the country.
As far as the fact that's cited above; I dunno. I haven't seen anything that suggests that school shootings are more common now than before.
Recently, I've been reconsidering. While things like this law in Conn were certainly way over the top, I'm not sure that the issue is as black and white as we previously thought.
The thing that set me thinking was the following quote:
This was in response to charges that violence in movies led to violence in the streets. And the response is, well, of course not. Except for that time when I was in grade school talking about the Simpson's episode the night before... actually, that happened a lot, didn't it.. I guess we also joked about some of the other TV we were watching... or told jokes and repeated gags from movies we'd seen. We weren't in the streets (crosswalk monitor would've had a fit), but I suppose it was close enough. We also imitated stunts from movies or cartoons... so, yeah, things we watched certainly had an impact. Learned curses from TV and movies. I still joke with friends about the Simpson's (or Kermit the Frog's interview on the Daily Show... anyone have that on mp3?).
Have the movies we've seen had the same effect? Apparently not... probably because we're not taught to 'not be funny', though we are taught to 'not be violent'. If it wasn't for that, then maybe we would be... And if this is the case, what about the people who haven't had these moral barriers against violence put up strongly enough? Perhaps they would be more prone towards violence. It doesn't seem too out of reach.
Does this mean the government needs to step in and take over parenting from parents? Hell no. But if they can make it easier, they should. They should institute a labeling system for games, or at least threaten to so that the game companies will self-regulate (see MPAA ratings)... same deal with TV. I don't want to see V-Chips taking over the role of parenting from parents. But I would like to see them warn parents of what's going on and help them keep track. Life is too busy for parents to be around *constantly*... what might have been possible once is no longer with the rise of 2-parent income families. Not only that, but media is so pervasive now that it's now a monumental task to keep track over what kids are doing... parents can't hear the music kids listen to on their headphones, can't watch every game a kid plays when he cycles through 4 games in an hour or two, can't keep track of every show the kid watches over the course of a week. Even if the parents spend lots of time with the kids, they're not able to keep tabs on everything. And I think that's what lawmakers are starting to realize. They need to do something, but they're overreaching and pushing too far. I think they need to help parents parent, but not take over the role themselves.
What about the 'killer' tackles I employ in various football (soccer) games... Am I now only able to scythe down cattle and martians. Alien Mod for FIFA 2000 anyone?
BTW, How easy is it for minors to acquire firearms in Connecticut? Is it now easier to get a real gun than play Smash TV?
(Ok I haven't been to an arcade for years - Ironically because they're too full of kids...)
Somewhere I read that the Federal registry was one volumn up until about 1860 or so. We now add a whole stack of volumns every year to the registry. Some single laws are a whole volumn by themselves. And you are responsible for every law, which is of course impossible, even for the blood sucking lawyers. I think I can see why you need a moral based people in our Republic. Either ingrain the morals into the people, or force it upon them with Stalinistic tactics. The parents and guardians are not performing their duties, and are looking for the heavy hand of government to wave their magic wand and "fix" the problem that they are causing. All the while admitting that it might not solve the problem, but we have to do SOMETHING!
Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
If/when I have kids, I'm going for home schooling... Thank gawd I'm self employed, so I can be at home to do it... Those schools aren't getting their hands on my kids, I can do far better, and I'm a high school dropout...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Y'know, on the zero tolerance theme, I just had a thought:
Kicking the kids out of school is the best thing that the dept of education can do! In fact, they should give them all the boot! Why?
To pwotect the wittle chiwdwennnnn!
In order to remove all references to guns, violence, and intolerance, they would have to:
Remove history as a course, this is self explainatory, every history class covers US history, which technically was one of the bloodiest histories in the world, second to the crusades! "(expletive deleted) and they signed the declaration of independance in 1776, (lonnnng expletive deleted)"
Remove science, because science is the gateway drug of intellectuals, teaching children how things work, and more precisely, how to make things EXPLODE!!! The same applies to the evil bugaboo that is the internet...
Remove social studies, because social studies introduce a historical basis for intolerance, racism and further violence (see above, history)...
Remove mathmatics, once the moment the kids figure out E=MC2, the cat's out of the bag, and we can't have that...
Remove music, because you could be teaching the next Marilyn Manson, which could inspire future Columbine shooters, aieeee!
Remove cooking, how many here have heard of Sweenie Todd, Eating Raoul, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
Remove sports, because it inspires violent aggression, drug abuse, and greed for multimillion dollar contracts...
Remove art, because someone, SOMEWHERE, will draw a picture of a gun...
Therefore, I propose that until the educational establishment can provide a safe learning curriculum for our precious sweetumseses, that they remove our children from the dens of iniquity that are our schools, lest we inspire entire legions of future homicidal lunatics!
We must act now! For! The! Children!
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
You forgot to mention something important: Need For Speed is also a great substitute for a normal Driver's Ed class. Especially if you buy one of those wheels.
here and here
For once I find myself whole-heartedly in agreement with Mr. Katz. Politicians and the people who shape public policy aren't interested in facts; they're interested in good sound-bites. An article at alternet by a social scientist makes an excellent case for the youth of today being at least as well adjusted as they were in the past. They may even be better adjusted in some ways. However, it's the tragedies like Columbine which get public attention. And that's what politicians use to justify wrong-headed policies that deprive people of basic freedoms.
Onorio Catenacci
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
-- Stan Dunn
You exercise your 1st amendment rights so eloquently, as the amendment was intended.
and blatantly unconstitutional
It's a wonder there's not an entire highschool class addressing how these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." got to protecting the rights of people to be taken advantage of, and the rights of greedy bastards who keep pushing the limits of free speech for the almighty buck.
When it's actually free then they might have something. Last I looked these inalienable rights cost 25-50 cents a play. For my money, Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, London, could teach americans a lot about what freedom of speech is really about.
that it calls into serious question its sponsors fitness to hold public office.
What? People unfit to hold office shouldn't be allowed to hold office? What kind of facist regime are you in favor of?
It shreds any notion of First Amendment freedom. It removes parental responsibility for children's moral and recreational lives, mis-guidedly assigning that role to government and the operators of small businesses.
Never forget, representatives DO represent the will of the people. If they fail to, they get replaced by those next in line who claim to. It's the beauty of the american democracy. Not the best system, but compared to others, it's still pretty damn good. Oddly enough, people do seem to want the government to raise their children more and more, even if they say they don't in polls.
It's kind of like people opposed to oil drillin in Alaska until the price of gas is $4/Gal. Get the government to look after my urchins, but I'll scream if they go too far. Americans is the funniest peoples.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Old saying: As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.
There's some wisdom there and parents who, themselves are missing a few sprinkles from their donut, raise some pretty bent, twisted even children. When children are largely neglected they are raised by whatever influences they run into: friends, teachers, mentors or TV, video games, popular music.
When the village fails to raise the child, then what? Fix the village or call the child a victim and bend the village itself to fit the tree?
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Really? That's a fact? Got a source for that? Or is it just one of those things that "everyone knows"? "Everyone" is usually wrong, as they are in this case. School shootings are not "occuring on an unprecedented scale." They've been on the decline since early last decade. Here's a few real facts that actually cite sources:
The Centers for Disease Control reports a 20% drop in students being injured in a physical confrontation since 1993.
The National Center for Education Statistics reports there has been 34% decline in school violence since 1993.
The National School Safety Center reports a 53% decline in deaths associated with school violence between 1993 and 1999, from 55 to 26.
And finally, from a table also published by the National Center for Education Statistics there were more school shooting deaths in the 1992-93 and 93-94 school years than there have been in any year since then.
First, let's stop being hypocritical here. Katz points out: "Gaming isn't merely hunt-and-kill challenges for adolescents -- it includes everything from urban-planning, trivia, gambling, bridge and chess puzzles to complex, sophisticated journeys into the imagination. "
It seems he is implying that children are learning something from these other types of games. What are they learning from the hunt-and-kill games? Or, is it the case that kids suddenly stop learning from the same medium because the context of the game has changed?
Do I think these types of games should be banned for kids under 18? No. But I think my belief is based more on my liking to play these games and and unwillingness to believe kids are learning something evil from them.
Anyone here with a degree in behavioral psychology that could actually lend an opinion that matters?
Also, I like the idea of banning R-rated previews for movies when kids might be exposed to them. I don't want to take my child to a PG movie and have them looking at an R-rated preview. And just so everyone is clear here, I'm talking about an R-rated preview of an R-rated movie. Not a PG preview of an R-rated movie. There is a difference.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
One of the things that all these damn legislators keep doing is looking at the problem from THEIR perspective. I don't know about you, but I have a little bit of trouble understanding the motivations and though procees of children under 18. And I certainly don't know what truly influences them. ATTENTION LAW MAKING OFFICIALS - I am most certain that you do not know what a 15 year old latchkey kid from Georgia thinks about when he KNOWS he is alone. And there is no way to know. Maybe the child DOES think about killing the bully at school, or offing the teacher that embarrased him in class, or blowing up what he believes is the structure to blame for his lack of influence on the world and the frustrating constraints that aren't fully understood by him. BUT, you can stop him from ACTUALLY DOING THESE THINGS! Not by adding restrictions that are a little out of his worldview to completely understand, that will just cause more frustration. Parents, step up to the damn plate! I was a latchkey kid, I saw my dad on weekends, I saw my mom 3 hours a day....but, when I did see them, they TALKED to me. Forced me to put away my toys and INTERACT. Repeat with me...INTERACT. Form boundries, give them tools to deal with opposing forces without violence. What does a child with no boundries do when he wants to rebel? And if one day I have to kill your child defending myself from him, you just created two killers.
> Didn't you already post something like this already Katz?
Where's the "-1, redundant" when you really need one?
Virg
I think that's his point. It's your responsibility to keep tabs on your kids. It's not your government's responsibility, or a video arcade owner's job to keep anyone's kids (save their own) from playing shoot-em-ups. This bill just pushes responsibility on to people who don't deserve it because there are parents who don't step up to the plate. I'd be inclined to say that it's worth the effort to protect kids whose parents don't, but there's not a shred of real evidence that it causes any harm, and so it becomes a simple issue of legislators thinking (incorrectly) that they are better parents than parents, and that's what's really not right here.
Virg
> And you know what, they have NO INTEREST in any sort of violence
> what so ever.. But yet they have more videogames than most kids can count.
You may wish to consider that they exhibit no interest in violence in your presence because they get punished if they do. Whether this is teaching them not to like violence or simply teaching them to cover up their interest remains to be seen.
Virg
You've got a real inconsistency here, then. You stated in another post that if you heard that your kids were involved in a violent movie/game, they'd be punished just as if they'd done it at home, but now you're saying you told your son that a movie had violence, and he left the room, which implies that you'd have let him stay if he chose. What happened to the above-mentioned "If I over hear that either of them were involved in some form of violent movie / game elsewhere they will be punished as if he had done it at home" statement? Do you punish them for "being involved in" a violent movie or not? From this, I'd say you need to do some more thinking on my original statement, since inconsistency isn't good parenting.
Virg
> What are they learning from the hunt-and-kill games?
Why, they're learning how to hunt-and-kill effectively. Where reason separates from Sen. Harp is that knowing how to hunt-and-kill effectively does not induce hunting and killing. In other words, being good at it isn't going to make a kid think that it's okay to do it.
Virg
> "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
> will lose both, and deserve neither."
According to Bartletts, Ben Franklin said this, not Jefferson.
Virg
> The solution then is for women to quit their jobs and stay
> home with the kids, is it? Brilliant.
Caution. Your assumption of sexism on the poster's part reveals sexism on your part. I suspect the point was to stop trying to get the money for the big SUV, TV and computer and spend the time instead with your kids. That's my answer, at least. I'd be careful, were I you, not to assume that having a single income family necessarily means that the female partner (assuming M/F relationship to begin with) is the one staying home. I'd stay home while my wife went to work in a heartbeat if we could afford it, but she hated her job when we started having kids so she decided it would be better to quit than deal with keeping it, so she stays home.
Virg
It targeted a specific type of game. Arcade coin-ops that use replica weapons as input devices with simulated Human targets. So Area 51 is ok (despite it's M rating) and Police Squad (or whatever.) isn't. There are perhaps legitimate conserns with games like Silent Scope (If that's the right name, can't remember. The big sniper rifle is the only interface.).
From the sound of it, those are the type of games this law targeted. One good point doesn't make up for a bad law however.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Who needs unhealthy fps games like Quake? Games that teach you that killing human shaped things in a non realistic environment is OKAY? I would not want my children playing such awful awful kinds of entertainment. Pointing & Shooting? Why, no wonder so many kids are shooting up schools!
I would much rather my children play healthy, non fps games that teach them healthier lessons! Like Need for speed 3 or Grand Theft Auto 2. This way my kids will learn valuable driving skills and will know the proper respect to give authority figures.
First of all, this is good news. I live in CT and didn't find out about this until now. But I am very happy to hear it.
Even more shocking is the fact that the ever idiotic Jon Katz wrote something moderately intelligent. I think the end of the world is coming tommorow.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
...barring children under 18 from playing "point-and-shoot" video games in public places.
Yep, and next they'll outlaw Cowboys and Indians (but only secondly because of shooting - it's very politically incorrect nowadays), and after that, it's making a pointing gesture that resembles shooting a gun at another person.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Perhaps the Democrats are bickering about these games (and movies in Liberman's case) because they allow non-democrats to edge into their "action"
y'know, backstabbing, grabbing the money, making the military out to mutated goons, showing all guns have hypervelocity shooting and unlimited clips, and finally all women constantly in distress and undress!
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This comment is pretty old, I know, but I think it's worth repeating. Here we go.
During the second presidential debate Governer Bush proclaimed that 'a child could turn to the Internet and have their heart turn dark'. During the third debate Gore spoke of the 'battle' between popular culture and parenting, and of the need for federal regulation to help parents 'win'.
Many people think I am a sarcastic asshole. I do not pay attention to warning labels on music. I wept not only for the victims of the massacre at Columbine, but also for the persecution that followed, and the resulting paranoia of people like the Trenchcoat Mafia. I enjoy reading the Onion (http://www.theonion.com). I am not one of 'the right people', whoever they are. I feel that my way of life is threatened. I feel that Al Gore wants to ban MAD Magazine. I am scared when Bush claims 'there should be limits to freedom' in response to a website parody tilted against him.
I want these politicians to know that I am not a grumkin hiding in a sewer or a dark alley, ready to pop out and sing some Tom Lehrer songs to innocent, impressionable youths (I don't like sewers that much). I am not the enemy, and I am not an insurance liability. _We_ are good people, and _we_ will not be silenced or legislated against, or used as a debating "straw man" to symbolize something that is wrong with America. In fact, I strongly believe that America without people like us would be a bland and boring place.
I've printed up a whole bunch of little buttons with dark hearts on them, a la pink triangle. If you agree with my views, or even if you think I'm a total whiner who should move to Canada anyhow, I would be honored to have you wear a Dark Heart button.
Anyway, if you want some buttons, I'll send you five anywhere, for free. Just send your snailmail address to ohako79@hotmail.com, and I promise to delete your address afterwards.
Sincerely,
Keith Page
=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
"Hey there are some games out there that are pretty ugly, and why don't you go see what your kids are doing?"
Computers, televisions, playstations and all similiar products are toys, not babysitters. Parents need to realize this and actually get involved with their child's life. Because if parents don't get involved with their children, the government will and that doesn't sound too exciting to me.
=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
I was wondering if anyone had links or bibliographic information to some of the studies that Katz has quoted?
If there's a castle floating upside down in the sky, then there's a castle floating upside down in the sky.
Robert Hutchinson
Robert Hutchinson
Smash it. Smash it good.
I have no intention to defend the arguments of the Connecticut, but I do have one point to add on the consitutionality of the proposed law. The law appears to inhibit, among other things, free speech; ordinarily, this would be clearly unconsitutional. With the age proviso, however (the law is specifically targeted at minors), the consitutional question becomes much more complex. The US Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that minors are not entitled to the full protections and freedoms of the Consitution and Bill of Rights. As such, the proposed law could pass muster in the Supreme Court, if the impact on adults is shown to be trivial. This is the same situation as pornography laws--a minor cannot walk into a bookstore and buy a copy of Playboy, but an adult can. Those laws have been challenged, and upheld; if this law were passed, it would likely be defended with the same legal strategy. Mind you, I do not agree with either law, I only say that "this is the situation." IANAL, but dad is, and it's inevitable that I will pick up a little bit from him, no matter how well I wash.
That said, there is a very real problem here. The problem is not so much with the politicians. When you get right down to it, politicians (in general, I know there are exceptions) have exactly one goal: to be re-elected. To achieve that goal, they have to convince a majority of their voting constituents that they are doing a better-than-average job of governing society. The politician, therefore, is just a mirror of what the voting constituents believe. The politician is just the symptom! The cause is not in the legislature, it is in the constituency.
The problem with the constituency is the complacency. The people have chosen not to take the time to become informed on the issues; they do not take the time to educate themselves about the true nature of the problem, of the possible solutions, and the ramifications of each potential solution. They still form opinions on the subject, but without that effort, their opinions are uninformed, and their choice of solution if usually poor. Furthermore, the people have decided, by conscious choice or by fiat, to shirk their responsibilities as parents and allow (nay, require) the government to raise their children. In many cases, it is due to the parents worshipping the Almighty Dollar, both parents spending more time with their cow-orkers than with their children. Any developmental psychologist worth his salt will tell you that perhaps the single most important factor in the development of a child is the involvement of his parents, particularly the mother. With both parents working long hours, the involvement of the parents is effectively nil, so the child must be raised by somebody else. Enter Big Brother. A further consequence of the lack of parental involvement is that the parents develop guilt complexes stemming from their lack of care for their children, and frequently ease their consciences by attempting to "buy" their way back into their children's hearts. They buy their children anything they ask for; after all, they have the money, why shouldn't little Junior have what he wants? Junior ends up with a TV, VCR, computer, PlayStation, etc. in his room, his own phone line, a car on his sixteenth birthday, etc. This has several disastrous consequences: 1. Junior spends increasing amounts of time secluded from others, leading to social problems, 2. Junior becomes accustomed to having everything he wants, and fails to become accustomed to the reality that you can't always have everything, and 3. Junior becomes accustomed to instant gratification.
With this culture of parental disinvolvement, Junior being used to getting what he wants, when he wants it, and Junior lacking social skills, it is only natural that he will have problems when he starts being forced to deal with other people. Recent studies have confirmed this: children raised by babysitters, nannies, and even day-care centers (yes, there are other children, but social skills are not taught at most) show a much stronger tendency to have serious problems in school.
There is only one real solution to this problem, and that is to get parents to get involved in the lives of their children. I heard one of the parents of the Columbine thugs (and that's what they are, just schoolyard bullies with bigger toys) say "Oh, that was his room, I couldn't go in there" about the room where he assembled some of the explosives he took. Parents, YES, YOU CAN go in there! His name is not on the mortgage, that is not his room--it is yours! You are responsible for raising your children. Think about it this way: if he is to be caught and prevented from taking those weapons to school, his room will need to be searched. Would you like to raise your own child, and search his room, or would you like the government to raise him? Do you really want Big Brother inpecting your house? My parents rarely went through my stuff, because I rarely made it necessary. But when I did, you'd better believe I got the third degree. When my dad found a copy of The Terrorist's Cookbook hidden in my stuff, I was interrogated for a week. I wasn't doing anything else that even hinted I was doing anything wrong; indeed, I was actually doing research (I have a keen interest in fireworks and pyrotechnics; I did a search on the internet, and came across that book. I printed it out, read it, and proceeded to talk to my Chemistry teacher about the book on an academic, chemical level (thank you, Mrs. B for understanding what I was doing!). Oh, and by the way, don't ever use that book--most of the recipies will get you killed.). It took me a week to convince dad that I wasn't planning to blow anything up, and even then, he kept an eye on me for a while. About a year later, when I got interested in nuclear physics, I got some raised eyebrows, and had to answer some questions to again convince my parents I was only interested academically. (It helped that I mentioned that you can't exactly buy fissionable material at Ace Hardware...things like that tend to make people more rational.) Parents, you have to do this. Not only will it help your children develop properly, it will also build a healthy relationship between you and your child (truly an enjoyable thing to have--there's nothing quite like that feeling of having a close bond with your family), it will also build a trust between you and them, so that you don't have to worry. Now that my parents understand what I'm doing, I can walk in the door with just about anything and not have them worry (for example, when I walked in with a half-pound of magnesium turnings).
Not to pick on the women, but it's doubly important for mothers to be around for their children, especially at the younger ages. I'm not saying you can't, or shouldn't, have a career--God knows I'm a strong supporter of equal rights for everybody, and I think you should have every right to have a career for yourself. However, kids are in fact a full-time job--if you don't believe me, go ask your own mother. Every job has certain responsibilities associated with it; it just goes with the territory. This includes having children. You need to consider whether or not having children is worth the loss of other opportunities. I do not mean to tell you how to live your life or how to raise your children, but the fact is that a child forms and especially strong bond with his mother, particularly early in life; this is, in fact, true in most species, not just humans. It's a lousy deal, but that's how it works. The father gains influence later in life (so you dads can't run away, either!). This is not just my opinion, either--again, if you ask a decent developmental psychologist, they'll say most of the same stuff.
Anyhow, that's how I see the problem. Parents who refuse to be parents force the government to raise their children. The people (mostly the same parents) refuse to educate themselves about the issues; they think with their emotions, and allow themselves to be swayed by emotional arguments (if I ever hear the words "it's for the children, think of the children," again, I'll puke), instead of looking at facts and logic. They don't act, they react. This leads to the people clamoring for a solution that they think they want, even though it will not solve the problem--it's a band-aid, mere window dressing. The politicians hear a clear, loud voice from a majority of the voters, and glad to have such a clear choice act on it. They act in their own best interest--you can't blame them for that, really; would you do something that you know would get you fired? As long as the people don't take responsibility for their own choices, the problem will continue to exist. It may manifest itself in different forms, but the underlying problem will still be there.
Enough of my rant. Now that I've told you all how to live your lives and how to raise your kids and how to vote and basically everything else, I'll shut up. What significance you choose to give my opinion is entirely up to you; reject it, ignore it, write it on nice paper and put it on a pedestal, I don't care (OK, I'm lying; I rather you do the latter!). All I ask is that you think about it before you pass judgement, and if you decide to reply to any of my arguments (agree or disagree), please support your ideas. I promise to listen to all well-reasoned replies and give them due consideration.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
they see on TV everyday. Don't these politicians think it is better for a kid to take out his/her frustrations on Unreal Tournament or Soldier of Fortune, than too take a rifle to class?
I've played lots of violent games. And it hasn't made me into a psycho. And I'll fucken kill anyone who says it has.
"Damn, that's the only place those games are any good.
Ever see that Konami sniper game in a mall or wherever, with the big rifle and the magnifying scope on top and you're supposed to shoot villains out of windows in a building, but you get occasional bonus points for spotting sexy ladies in the windows, and there's a picture on the side of the machine of a digitized model in her underwear with a windowframe and giant crosshairs overlaid on it, and the caption FIND HER FOR A BONUS or some such underneath? Man that cracks me up, the Japanese are great."
The coolest voice ever.
I can just see it now, some kid running around, throwing a D-20 at someone, checking to see what it landed on after it hit them and then saying, "I got a twenty! You're decapitated!" Or maybe running aound with a video game controller, acting like he was using it control himself, and then 'shooting' at people and wondering why they refuse to turn into a bloody pulp of a mess.
In other words, pretending to do something is a tad different from the real thing. I've played both FPS games and D&D type games, and I'm safe to be around ... right?
I am sane
It's probably worse in Canada. I remembering a number of years ago, a kid was prosecuted for saying he hates his teacher.
You are right that both parties believe in limiting freedom in one form or another but less government isn't going to be achieved by throwing ones vote away. The Repubs are still against expanding government into aspects of our lives and that's why I support them. Sure there are Pubs that would like to see certain limits to freedom but they really don't have the power that most people think. Most Repubs that I've noticed are pretty responsible with the 1st amendment.
What still makes me wonder is why most computer geeks and teenagers these days are liberals (and maybe democrats) considering Democrats are the people usually attempting to pass laws of censorship. In fact, former vice president Al Gore's wife, Tippur, is the founder and currently the president of the national agency to put those 'Parental Advisory' labels on your music. Democrats are also at the front of bills to eliminate public cryptography, stop kids from playing "dangerous" video games, and the ones who headed ratings on your TV shows.
The democratic philosophy is "bigger government." Basically, increase the size of government to manage the daily lives of people. This is liberal thinking, but not very liberating at all... just more control.
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
Eventually, the only thing that won't be illegal in the US, will be owning guns.
I would say also that we desperately need a separation between Industry and State, so that the stuff going on that really does undermine the parents' ability to raise their children--like child-targeted marketing, and marketing in schools--can be regulated.
All that corrupt politicians like Harp are accomplishing is a transition from one violation of parent's rights to another, but that's okay as long as no Sacred Dollars get damaged. It is the parents' responsibility to monitor and decide their children's entertainment, but how easy is that when your kids are bombarded by slick commercials everywhere they turn? Industries are allowed to spend billions per year studying child psychology, and they can use every trick in the book against the parents...but parents have very little recourse against the Industry, and which lobbyist do you think your congressman is listening to?
If parents are to take the responsibility, they better have the right, as well. So when will somebody get the balls to tell the Industry to back off our kids?
Sara T.
our government doesn't work that way. it's do what we say or we fine/arrest you.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I work as a mentor at a local school. My fifth grade mentee child got suspended and almost kicked out of school permantly because a BULLY said that my mentee threatened HIM! Oh boy...
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Liberman try for something similar back in '96 or '97. I'm from Connecticut, and I cant stand all this BS... Perhaps someone should mail these guys a copy of Q3 arena or UT, so they can see that these games are perfectly harmless.
True, but US cryptographers had already cracked the Enigma code before the Brits nabbed the machine.
You know, I love nuking things in StarCraft, Red Alert, and various other games that involve "the Bomb." Yet, even though I have four or five semesters of physics under my belt, I've yet to feel the need to build a bomb.
I'm the only person I know that plays first-person shooters through to the end, from Doom to Half-Life. Yet I still haven't bought a gun (unless you count the BB gun).
What's next? Is someone going to come out saying that Mario games cause kids to jump on the heads of innocent by-standers?
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
I can see both sides of this one, and you can tell which of the posters smokes dope. For the record: I smoke dope. OK, on to the post:
The argument that the argument that self-injuring practices are not illegal is stupid. Most states have helmet laws for bikers, and a little known fact is that suicide is illegal in many states, assisted or not. The State inacts laws to protect people from themselves all the time, this is no exception.
Pot is probably somewhat a gateway drug. My experience is that a lot of pot users have tried other drugs, at least once. I know I have. Has anyone ever gone straight from cigarettes to crack? Probably not. This might be because one illegal drug isn't much different than another in the eyes of the law, especially with the ridiculous "Zero Tolerance" policies a lot of states/communities/schools have.
However, pot dealers/users are a pretty tame bunch. You don't need to buy a gun to sell pot, unlike coke or heroin. Pot users don't get all ramped up and rob a liquor store after 2 days without sleep. They get hungry, then they take a nap.
Yes, pot is a drug. No, I don't think it should be legalized. I think possession should be summons-able, like public intoxication or speeding.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Some of the most insightful posts here are off-topic. My whole point was that laws to protect us from ourselves are common, and I don't disagree with them, in certain cases. If people were smart enough to know what was best for themselves, we wouldn't need government at all.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
And what about parental negligence? It is in no way right for a parent to leave a child to fend for his/herself in this world. However, with children treated like adults the parents can legally abandon their child. Children are not small, short, dumb adults. Adults are relatively inert in emotional and intellectual development as compared to children, where the development strongly depends on environment provided by children.
While InstantCool makes a valuable point that the government should stay away from doing certain parts of the parents' job for them, a total separation of parenting and state is a very bad idea. The government presently has laws telling parents what they can/cannot do. These are good. These are the laws that outlaw child abuse, molestation, etc. However, I do agree that the government should stay out of the parents' business when it comes to teaching moral values. This is the job of the parents, and the government should not be expected to make up for what the parents lacked the initiative to do.
Bugs Bunny cartoons have lots of guns in them. Do they encourage people to kill? I think not. And how do FPS teach kids to kill? Everyone knows you pull the trigger. Circle Strafing, perhaps?
Yes, video games are the real problem... at least we can still play lasertag, or paintball, or go shooting at a range with a parent...
And I suppose racing games made me a bad driver.
And WarCraft made me want to plot World War III
And after all the Super Marios, I thought A. I was a raccoon, and B. eating wild mushrooms was a good thing
Are these laws thought up by the same people who try to ban books?
RC
RC
Communism- A type of government where as you the citizen has no basic rights, can't have a "say" in the government. Also known as Big Brother. People, if you want to stop the government from being ignorant VOTE!!! Any slashdot in Conneticut who is against this bill should have gone to City Hall and voted against that bill... I would have, but I don't live in Conn.. But my point is if you don't want the gov. to make rash decisions then help point it to the right direction you won't be charged of treason or whatever.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Senator Toni Nathaniel Harp, 10th District Assistant Majority Leader (Federal Liaison) Room 3000, Legislative Office Bldg., Htfd., CT 06106 Email: Harp@senatedems.state.ct.us Legislative Aide: Phyllis Silverman, (860) 240-0567 or 1-800-842-1420
People who are against human cloning must be bitter they are not good enough to be cloned.
1. Genuine concern over how and why young people are commiting such violent actions.
2. A ploy to gather support and popularity by pandering to the masses.
3. One of many steps leading up to some other method of resticting freedom, to what purpose I cannot guess.
I'm not going to pick one, as I suppose it's all 3, and a hundred more. And that's what makes me look to the south (I'm in Canada) and wonder how long before it moves up here (it being the paranoia). Who am I kidding. It's here.
Even if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you can't be sure until you see the RealDuck
... is how we treat kids, period. As stupid twerps that need to be sheltered until they're 21, and then thrown into the pressure cooker of life completely virginal in every resepct.. That's what the Connecticut legislators want, it has nothing to do with video games. They want to reinforce their partriarchal rule, by controlling kids and family.
Screw em. Let kids shoot REAL guns after taking a gun class. It'll come in useful when World War 3 happens in 10 years.
Canada may not be much better, but... it's a safe haven for now.
Cheers
No wonder americans don't like our beer. You guys only drink Blue. UGH.
We have some good ones damnit!
Wouldn't want to give aggressive teenagers a way to vent their aggression!
If they want to do THAT they'll need to do it the good old fashioned way - backyard wrestling followed by a trip to the ER!
Well, I would first like to open up my comments by telling all of you to read this article from a website I often read from.h egun.htm (delete the space in the url)
http://www.antimtv.com/images2/antimtvchildrenoft
I am 16 years old. I live in a world of political bull crap if you ask me. How can somebody say that playing "violent video games" can cause someone to shoot somebody else? How can the type of music people listen to cause them to harm somebody else? How can the way someone dress give an authority figure the right to judge if the he/she is dangerous or not? I just don't understand how the world works today. Adults need to look at the world through the kids eyes for once. Adults need to stop judging us kids until they look at the world with our eyes and see what we see.
I'm sick and tired of hearing all the law makers ban everything that is fun today. You can even go out and buy a simple video game anymore without being carded. I don't understand how the age of somebody gives them the right to buy a video game or when they can't. The only reason why kids shoot up their schools is because of the parents. They are never there for their kids anymore and they expect a kid to make decisions on their own. Parents rarely show love toward their kids anymore, as I've seen with my parents and my friends' parents. Parents these days only care about themselves and getting to work and supporting the house. When is the last time you told your kid if you loved him/her?I thought this nation was supposed to be freedom for everyone? It's obviously not if we have a bunch of old men sitting up on their little thrones telling us what to do. I don't see how my friends and I are free when we have to obey censorship rules that are placed upon us unfairly. I can't even see a movie right now if it's rated R because some legislator decided I don't have the mental capabilities of handling what goes on in the movie. They are basicly calling me an immature bastard right to my face. Why do I have to pay an adult ticket if I can't see an adult movie? I don't understand it.
It's time for a change. If adults want to stop the problems in society they must have to start looking at the system. They must look at the system and see how they censor everything that they think is "bad". Kids don't even have a choice these days and must follow your rules. If you want us to act mature, start treating us like adults. I think detention in High School is worthless. What is the point of it seriously? Make the kid stay after school so the teacher gets overtime? I haven't had detention in a long time but when my friends do for something dumb like swearing I don't see the point in handing out detentions. Are detentions supposed to rehabilitate the kids and stop them from doing it again? Even if you argue with a teacher now a days you can get suspended. I thought this was supposed to be a democracy and not communism? What happened to America that I read about in history books? Everything used to be free and open and not controlled by money and the government. It pisses me off how adults don't care about kids and only look at their view and not the child's that they are judging.
I've got an idea, let's create a law that will disband immoral games from the public view, such as "3d Shoot'em up" and "point and shoot" games. YES! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo.
This is a "democracy", the morale code is not and should not be the law code. I'm surprised that anybody with half a brain would even be able to comtemplate creating such a law in a non-theocracy. It just doesn't make sense.
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
1) Freedom of speech. I have the right to express myself as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Computer games are a type of expression that doesn't hurt anybody.
2) Freedom of the Press. Computer games are a type media that are allowed to say and do whatever they please. The government should not limit media unless violation of personal rights.
I think this law is extremely stupid and certainly won't pass.
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
This piece of brilliant legislation is from the same people who decided you cannot order a rare hamburger.
I've played video games for many years, ranging from Pong to point and shoot to RPG's and they haven't affected my behaviour in any way. In fact, those games are quite cathartic; a release of anger and frustration from a long working day.
It's ust another example of the notion of "it takes a village...". No thanks, I have two wonderful parents already.
After attending Columbine High School and living in Littleton for most of my life I am sick of seeing people laying the blame in other places. It is not the video games it is people. Video games don't kill people kill people. I hope that more people open their eyes. Bills like this should not even be considered.
OK. I'm 16. I first played wolfenstein at 7 years? Played Doom2, Rise of the Triads and many others at 10. Bought Goldeneye (MA) at 12-13. The Matrix (M) is my favourite movie. I saw Three Kings (MA) when I was 14. I'm a nerd. I'm quiet, and often seem depressed.
Australian ratings: M - suggested 15 years and older. MA - restricted to 15 years and older.
According to these people, I should have shot up my school long ago. In America I would probably be suspended if administration found out about some of the comments I have made.
Contrary to what people say here, my parents provide little, although some, support. This is where I would like to acknowledge my best friend and sounding board, Rhys Tate.
Also, I wouldn't know where to start about getting a gun. I would never kill or seriously injure another person, if only because of the consequences.
I play violent video games, watch violent films, I'm a nerd but have not shot up my school, and wouldn't know where to begin if I wanted to.
----------------------------- Currently serving a 13 year sentence at juvenile "education" centre.
Kids have been playing "war" and pointing imaginary weapons at each other for centuries. I would prefer to have today's youth playing violent video games, than throwing rocks at each other like we did when I was kid.
Recently there was an article somewhere (I forget where) that stated that 99.99% of school in the United States has never had a school shooting. And as many people have pointed out violence has been dropping. That just not what the media would have us believe because violence does sell, and CNN and Fox News need rating too.
When my dad was a kid growing up in the 50s and 60s, kids got into fights all the time, they all owned air rifles (and shot them at each other), they played tackle football. They lived in a violent society. We didn't become so concerned about it as a society until we became so damn litigious. Sadly, as a law student, I fear that I may contribute to that (hopefully not -- ambulance chasing isn't in my career plan). Anyway, why don't these politicians just look to their own childhoods, look at the violence that was an inherent part of that time to see that video games are simply substitute for that real-violence lifesyle? I have an answer: because they're too far removed from the real world -- from real human experience -- for the most part to honestly and effectively repsond to these problems. Yes, it is a fact that school shootings are occurring on an unprecedented scale, and that they are far more violent (in a single instance) than, say, the average fistfight. But overall, I think we live in a less violent society now. People are just so concerned about it because of the countless lawsuits, the media, and the politi-whores who make careers out of scaring the hell out of people. Anyway, that's my .02 of rant for the day.
D'oh -- the stuff that buys me beer! Ray -- the guy who sells me beer!
Have you ever seen the Senate (or any government, whatsoever) pass any kind of bill. It takes for fucking ever! Those are tax dollars at work, and that's a lot of money for not a lot of work, especially when we have people coming up with mindless, ignorant bills that they think will make them look like a good guy. What if there was a bill that would censor and/or impeach government leaders for proposing bills that are unfounded. Fuck government leaders making this decision! They'd never pass it! I say we take it directly to the people. It's time we make those bastards do some fucking work!
--Jon
--Jon
AIM: FearNotIAm
You Katz, would be the later.
It's spelled 'latter', speaking of ignorance.
Obviously, some people just don't understand what Mr. Katz is trying to say. I'll try to make an anology:
It's like in recess, you're all having fun playing kickball and whatnot, and then some kid jumps off the backstop of the baseball field and breaks his leg. He's retarded and that's his fault (I think we should reserve the right to let children hurt themselves, keeping Darwinism in the equation of life and ensuring a more evolved future). Everyone completely freaks out, and no one can have any recess. Of course, had someone like the teacher been watching and not neglecting his/her duty, it may not have happened.
Had the government made stronger laws and/or had teachers, parents and peers shown more concern to two students, Columbine may never have happened. How many people have used (fake or) real guns and not gone in and blown of the heads of their classmates???!! Hell, how many people have played with that thought in their mind and not done it? I'm not ashamed to say I have done all of the above and my death count remains at zero.
Hell, as soon as kids are 18, the Government wants them to go and use real guns and shoot real people so that they can prosper. But that's called "War" not "Tragedy."
--Jon
--Jon
AIM: FearNotIAm
"Point and shoot" seems vague to me. Does this mean galaga would be taboo, but games like street fighter are ok? The answer is that they will blacklist whatever THEY want.
WTF
I wish we had kept out of the war and let everyone fend for themselves, except sooner or later they would've come after us too. I realize that Americans are hated all over Europe and the world for sticking our noses into business that doesn't concern us, but had it not been for the Japs bombing us, than you'd be living in one large country called Germany right now.
Did your schools over there in the U.K. also teach you how you fought in and won the Spanish American war, and how you all fought along with Genghis Khan and helped him conquer most of asia... no? Damn, from the ignorance that you're writing, I would have thought so!
blah blah blah, I'm right, and all evidence proving I'm wrong is insufficient and false.
I will admit that the fact that the Japanese caught most of the Pacific Command of guard during the first few months of the Pacific Theater, but we did finally get our act togehter before they invaded Austraila and India (two of Britains colonies that they could not protect) but at least we could mount counter-attacks and did eventually take back what was ours (Wake Marshall Phillipines). But still in the early months the Japanese were running down the China coast towards India and British ports. If it were not for the American Silent Service and the Flying Tigers of General Chennault the Japs would have taken over both your colonies (India/Austraila). As for holding your own, yes and no. I do recall the British were in a defensive battle from the get go. German Armor had both the French and British forces on their heels and it was a good thing you had the English Channel protecting you from the Germanic Horde of Hitler's Panzer Corp or England would be speaking German now. And those galant RAF boys that fought the Battle of Brition, for your information, were flying American made "British" Spitfires, not all were but most; America called it the Lend Lease Act, it allowed us to lend/lease our products to Brition without needing to get paid for it right away. America did have a hand in the survival of the British, so, before you go bad mouthing your brother in arms get your facts straight. For I will conceed this about the British: they are hardy folk and had it not been for their stubborness, America would have had two enemies in two different oceans.
Your right chainxor, U-571 was historically incorrect, Hollywood writers and their poetic license be damned. And it is Hollywood that I blame for the ingorance of American youths today, but cannot find out who to blame for the ignorance of the British youths ;), believing what is put before them on screens and not reading about them in books. But I have to disagree about who FIRST stole the Enigma Machine from the Germans for it were the Poles (Polish) that accomplished this feat.
http://home.us.net/~encore/Enigma/text.html
I do not endorse all facts in this site but some of the information I have read does coincide with that I have read about the Enigma.
I primary concentrated on the land battles of Patton's 3rd Army and the battles of the high seas concerning Halsey's Fleet. Not of cryptology and cloak and dagger.
Now i didnt see this quote allready posted but i'm sure it was and i will hear about it later. But none the less here it is. "Games don't effect childeren...look at pacman, think of all the kids who played pacman. If we were influenced by video games we would all be sitting in a dark room, popping colorfull pills, and listining to droning repititive music"
Let's put emphasis on the word ENCOURAGE. If the true saviors of the U.S.'s overall political well-being, MODERATES, must continue to humour these fringe nutballs by giving them a chance to serve the public, I would highly recommend self-regulatory-with-benefits measures like the example you mentioned.
---------------- Meat is murder...and murder is GOOOOOD!(especially with murder sauce) ----------------
Questions answered in the order in which they appear in your post:
1. You know how it can happen but I'll answer the why aspect. To my knowledge, there's no concrete proof that violence in the media is the cause of violence in today's youth, but that doesn't stop glory-hungry politicians from using ignorance to further themselves and/or their personal agendas at the cost of most everyone else's happiness. If you don't like what's happening, start paying attention to what government officials are doing in your area, state, right up to the Federal level, then GET THE FACTS THEN SPEAK UP...VOTE(when you're legally able to). There's no excuse not to take part. You can even at least leave an email for your reps/senators and to the president!
2. see #1.
3. The way someone dresses is no concrete indication of what drives them, psychologically speaking. It's more manipulation of adult cluelessness by unethical politicians. What gives the authority figure the right to judge you based on how you dress is how ignorant you are of the system in which the authority figure works and more importantly, how ignorant you are of the laws that govern how said authority figure is required to "deal" with you.
4. I don't have kids, but I tell my cat I love 'im even though he upstages me with his cuteness!
5. The nation is indeed supposed to be about freedom for everyone, but it is up to each person to aggressively DEFEND those freedoms. That means knowing the law and making sure that people who could potentially be abusive toward you are aware that you KNOW the law that governs them too. It is up to YOU to do your part to protect your freedoms. Don't expect everyone else to guard your freedom for you. If you don't like a bunch of old men sitting on their little thrones telling you what to do then GET TOGETHER WITH YOUR FRIENDS in your town AND on the net and get ready to VOTE their lame asses OUT when you are all ready and able to. "Those who will trade liberty for a measure of safety shall have neither."(paraphrased)
6. You have to pay an adult ticket to watch a movie even though you're not allowed to watch an R-rated movie because that's how the MOVIE THEATER CHAIN decided the ticket pricing should be set up. That's a business decision as far as I know, and the only way you can change that would be to boycott the theater chain, again that requires LONG TERM EFFORT...something many people in this country are afraid of.
Yes it is time for a change, but no, most adults are too comfortable with, or defeated by, things the way they are to WORK to change them, that's why I'm saying it is up to YOU and your friends and their friends and their friends to agree on things that need to change, then to start VOICING your opinion and to RESPECTFULLY let those old foagies in your city, state, and even Washington DC, realize that you(the group of you) will soon be registered voters whose needs and wants they'd better start paying attention to.
You're right, kids have fewer and fewer choices these days, and then adults have the GALL to be surprised when you all do something outlandish in order to express your displeasure with things. What you're going through isn't anything new, been happening for a while. The only difference now is that you kids have easier access to information so adults are finding harder and harder to manipulate your ignorance to control you. GET INVOLVED, LEARN AND KNOW THE LAWS. LEARN HOW FAR THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO.
7. The point of detention in high school is not to teach you anything, though administrators will argue otherwise(and maybe innocently so).
8. I'm not a teacher, but I don't think they get paid by the hour. I think they're on a fixed, and rather shitty, salary.
9. The only thing that detention teaches kids is to be more careful next time while they're doing something defined as wrong by school administrators drunk on their pseudo-power or whom are being pressured by clueless higher level school board officials(who are probably being pressured by hypersensitive, lazy parents) to put these rules into place.
10. Democracy has no place in the school system. Besides America is not a Democratic country. It is a REPUBLIC. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you want to lay the smack down on a school admin, you have to do it *LEGALLY*, that means you have to be aware of what rules or laws say what they can and cannot do with/to you, and you have to be sure they know that you are WATCHING THEIR EVERY STEP. Nothing scares an adult more than being under constant threat of being labeled incompetent or worse.
11. The America you read about in history books is mostly propaganda. If you'd like to find out some interesting facts about american history, I'd suggest finding a book entitled Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen.
If you don't like what is happening, then it is up to YOU to GET INVOLVED with your government on the community, city, county, state, and federal levels and to VOICE YOUR OPINION and to get all your friends to do the same thing and for them to get their friends to do the same thing, so on and so forth. The reason why this country is setup this way is because young voters AREN'T VOTING. Senior citizens rule this country via their votes. Why else do you think the main theme of these elections centers around social security and medicare and such??? Because OLD PEOPLE VOTE. That's why the last presidential nominees spent so very little time on issues young people are facing as compared to issues old people are facing.
Devon
---------------- Meat is murder...and murder is GOOOOOD!(especially with murder sauce) ----------------
cock fights and witch burnings involved harm to another living creature. When you shoot someone in Doom, you're not taking a life as we presently define it. Nice try.
If we were all merely products of our environment, then we'd all have been dead long ago. I know I would have gone on a killing/torture spree to gain the Dark Powers of Ravenloft...*EG*
Devon
---------------- Meat is murder...and murder is GOOOOOD!(especially with murder sauce) ----------------