Slashdot Mirror
Banning Violent Arcade Games Unconstitutional
zTTTz writes "The US District court ruled that it was not
only unconstitutional to ban
violent video games from public arcades, but also ruled that the city of Indianapolis pay $318,000 in legal fees to the video game industry. This will probably make other cities think twice about trying to censor video game content again." Update 17:45 GMT by J : We covered the Indianapolis story previously in
July 2000,
October 2000, and
March 2001.
Check out
NCAC's open letter,
too. We haven't bothered covering the
recurring
news of
declining real-world violence
(while video games just get more gruesome and explicit), mostly because it's the same story over and over.
the US Supreme Court has said that any video game that contains the letters D, E, C, S, or S, may be siezed and dropped into large vats of acid.
Have any of you played GTA? That game is violent as hell. Shoot a cop, you win!...
I think games can be too violent, but I don't think it really matters that much.
What violent games was Hitler Playing?
I beleive that Grand Theft Auto III is currently banned over there....
I might be able to understand not selling a game to a kid under a certain age, but to bad a game like Grand Theft Auto III for everyone? Makes me think twice about moving there!
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Is this a great country or what? :-)
John
John
The Govenement gets a gold star today for taking a positive step towards protecting Citizens rights that puts the score at 4 for and 90000 against.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Now, how am I going to keep my kids away from this filth? I can't watch them 24/7.
People who are trumpeting this victory as a "win for free speech" need to think twice and consider that there are parents out there who feel otherwise.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The world is now free for Elevator Action! For a moment, I was afraid I wouldn't be able to go into those "secret" red doors anymore!
but also ruled that the city of Indianapolis pay $318,000 in legal fees to the video game industry...
Thank goodness, this ruling comes not a minute too soon. Have you seen John Romero's monthly hair care bill lately?
It hurts when I pee.
Australia upholds ban on Grand Theft Auto for PS2
Sometimes our Constitution is "Of The People, For The People, By The People" Sometimes
http://www.kubuntu.org/
I was watching a movie on TBS a few nights ago... They showed a persons heart being ripped out while at the same time bleeping the word "bastard"...
It just seems that people are so worried about being correct these days, that they've forgotten what correct is.
It's refreshing to see a limit placed on the kind of standards for "clean society" that can be imposed on the public.
I like having the freedom to play obnoxious video games with no redeeming social value. It's a great outlet. It also makes me happy to see all those worry-wart pissants who can't mind their own business get a good slap in the face.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
don't put your quarter in the machine.
but don't take the right to choose away from everyone else.
ender-iii
what Cincinnati does.
Anticipating a Jon Katzicle about "violent"
video games. Of course, this is a great way to
train our children for the Cheney-Rumsfeld
administration's "war on terror".
If I chose to play a game, then its my right. If not, then we may as well be living under the taliban , when thing are banned because the state does not like them.
Cruise TT
The Us Supreme layed the smackdown on Indy! (Of course, this is a rarity that the "smackdown" is good. I will still remember the big stink about the California measure to legalize hemp, only to have somebody arrested because the federal courts still said it was illegal.)
Zodiac Survey
I wonder if the games in question had been David Duke's Klansman 2001 - where the players burned crosses and burned down black churches if you would still be so gungho about allowing that in an arcade. Or maybe Fraternity Date Rape 2, where players try to slip a mickey to high school girls (or in Michael's case boys)
Free speech!!
You could always lock them in the basement. That way they'd never be exposed to any harmful influences and they'd grow up to be fine, upstanding citizens.
--
E_NOSIG
To paraphrase a quote I read recently:
20 years is all it takes for a liberal to become a conservative, with no change in his opinions.
The judges were right. But there will always be something else to pick on.
jer
We may be human, but we're still animals
- Steve Vai
You have to look at it this way, there definitely are games that small children should not be playing. Anyone who says that all games are good for kids of all ages just doesn't know what they are talking about. I do have to give props to Indy for at least trying to do something about the situation, their heart was in the right place just not their minds. Again it comes back to this being a parental issue, if parents would take the time to teach their kids right from wrong and maybe show them a little affection they wouldn't feel they have to turn to video games for vindication of their worth. Games should be for recreational purposes not to measure someones worth as a person because they are good at all games. I am ranting a little but I think most of you get what I am saying.
-- I am baseball in Minnesota.
Arcades are belong to us!
Datm
Now that we finally have a strict Constitutional literalist in the White House, we can expect more judges who understand what "shall make no law" means.
It's about time. Thank God.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
This is most excellent. It should be up to the parents to monitor what their children are playing anyways, not the local government.
Of course, and I highly suspect it, I may be talking out of my ass. -oqti
I am all for free speach and free beer but when it comes to public items, you cannot have a porn arcade and expect it to be okay. There are kids in public places, currently alot of the games are really really gorry and young'ens don't need to see that stuff. My two denari.
This bill didn't cause any problems, though. It was more of a "look at how much I care about the children" move by a politician. I don't know of any instances that it was ever enforced.
I am glad to see it annihilated though.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
The state of Indiana once tried to declare pi as 3.2.
(Ironically, Indiana is also the state where the radio show Bob and Tom is syndicated from.)
Adult bookstores are by far more dangerous that pretend violence.
And Over-The-Rhine is the happiest neighborhood in the world. A center of peace and harmony.
I am not on crack, damnit.
Hopefully, the courts will also start striking down "Hate Speech" codes at public institutions next. Once Government and our public institutions start governing what can and cannot be said, it limits the ability for the disenfranchised to respond. No one has the right not to be offended.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Hmm... which kind of 'courier' service is he running that the city might not approve of either. Suspicious. Video games are being backed by the "bad guys"! :-p
If it's unconstitutional to ban any old idiot from buying a firearm I have to say the chances of it being constitutional to ban video games is pretty damn low.
Its unconstitutional for a city to ban violent video games, but here in St. Louis, one of the subburbs decided they had the right to pick and choose which events could play at the city stadium. (Weezer = ok, Marilyn Manson = people in the parking lot picketing and the show being cancelled)
I'm not a Manson fan btw, just using that as an example.
This is currently taking place in Norway too .. where someone in the government is trying to get a full ban on Grand Theft Auto 3. This has led to every store in Norway being sold out of GTA3, which probably is more than rockstar games ever hoped for :-)
mats
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
I was really troubled by the fact they struck down the statute on violent games, but the ban on sexual content was left alone. Does anyone besides me find that really troubling? I find it really troubling that its alright to show someones head being blown off, but you show a breast and suddenly its banned.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
Didn't I hear someone once say that "the function of parents is to isolate the children from the realities of the world until they're too old to learn to cope with them?"
It bothers me that the very laws of the land underscore the public's acceptance of violent behavior and rejection of sexual behavior.
-Eldurbarn
Instead of banning the games, which violated the rights of the video game manufacturers as well as the arcade owners, they should have pushed for better control over who is exposed to those games. 10-year old kids should not be able to play those games at the arcades without their parent's (or other adult's) consent, just like they cannot go to a rated-R movie by themselves.
It was stupid for Indy to think they could take the quick and easy approach to the problem and just ban them.
I Heart Sorting Networks
I'm amazed that a decision was made by the american government about a censorship related issue that the majority of slashdot readers would agree with. Although many people would consider many of the arcade games of today to be very violent, there is more explicit violence in movies and tv shows. To Wakko Warner, I would say he should be more worried about what his kids are watching on tv than what they might hypothetically be playing in an arcade. I will say this, however. This could be considered a double standard when compared to pc and console games. Those games have ratings on them and they (supposedly) will not be sold to people who are under the age that is specified. What it comes down to, however, is that children are the responsibility of the parents. The government can provide all the information it wants, but it can't restrict decisions (at least theoretically).
(I apologize if this post seems to be rambling, I havn't slept for quite a while)
We can't stop here! This is bat country!
the /. crew can get pretty jaded, but yes, there are some powerful people who still believe in liberty and haven't been bought.
As much as we here in the US would love to force our values on everyone, just because the US Supreme Court says that something violates our constitution, doesn't necessarily mean it is agains the law in Australia.
Here in Seattle, Gameworks had a nice solution to the problem of violent video games:
When they brought in Silent Scope (very bloody sniper game), they put it in the bar. Since no minors could go in that area anyway, problem solved.
No legal mess, no fuss.
The agreement the court approved Monday bars the city from enforcing the portion of the law related to violent video games. The industry did not challenge the sexual-content provision.
Even though there is also no evidence that sexual-content has any ill affects on children. So I'm not quite sure where the video game industry's moral righteousness comes from. They seem willing to accept political based censorship, despite their claims to the contrary.
"This will probably make other cities think twice about trying to censor video game content again." Sadly, it will not. The next round will just take place in another circuit and they will change the wording just a little bit.
This is just another example of the government intruding into matters of private businesses. Businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, without the Big Bad Government getting involved in it.
I, for one, don't want games like GTA3 influencing the next generation of school shooters. I'm not saying that video games cause violence; I'm saying that reinforcing bad behavior by making it publically available is wrong.
What do you think?
People can be so short sighted. Only one of the many reasons kids end up in arcades in the first place is lack of good public parks and facilities, and here's a large urban center spending money trying to keep kids doing nothing, rather than spending on creation of more places for these kids to go!
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Education.
Respect.
Tolerance.
Understan ding.
Parenting.
Knowledge.
EDUCATION.
Educati on is very important. But don't just tell them this is right, this is wrong. They need to understand what the hell you just said. I think the US would do very well if common games were as violent as the GTA series, as long as everyone's education and understanding level was also raised.
Maybe we should start jumping up and smashing bricks with our hands to find the hidden "power ups" in life.
Yes it is banned in Australia. I have no clue why though. Probably because they don't have a 18+ rating for games...
Now if people took a look of what they ban in Germany and Austria... There was an article at the NYT about how they deal with Nazi content in games a few days ago. Pretty interesting stuff and imho I would not mind if that stuff is banned.
It is not the government's job to determine what should be displayed/promoted/used by the public.
You as a parent can:
1. Be aware of what your children are doing. This does not mean watching them 24/7, merely being aware of what they are interested in, and what they like to do.
2. Make your children aware of your feeling. If you tell your children that you don't want them to play those types of games, they may actually listen to you.
3. Instill values into your children. This does not in any way mean religious values, but everyone needs to have a sense of right/wrong. Even if no value system is comprehensive, it at least creates a basis for your children to make their own decisions.
4. Explain the difference between reality and fantasy. Explain what "fake" or "movie" violence is, and how it differs from what you see on the news.
How do I know it worked? Well, it worked on me.
In no way should the government ever have more say than you about what your children see. The government is no substitute for you, the parent. Letting or forcing the government to do this is setting ourselves up for a "Big Brother" government, and is a much greater danger than the FBI, CIA or NSA ever were.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
Let us immature kids have our fun. God knows you adults destroyed the planet and ruined everything else, so could you back off and let us listen to our offensive music, play our violent games, and watch all the perverted TV we want. Our society has become dependant on these things anyways, so have fun trying to take them away. Oh and at the rate things are going these games are just going to get more violent to satisfy our cravings.
"where are we going, and why am I in a handbasket"
But slave ownership at the time was socially accepted. I wouldn't go so far as to judge an 18th century man in that environment against 21st century standards.
... that's not such a bad idea.. I think I'll give it a shot.. I'll let you know when there's a demo... :)
It's about time that the decision as to what is considered violent is (legally, anyway) put back into the hands of kid's parents.
Triv
we need that in Australia.. I wanna play GTA3 :(
now if we can only get the parents, state officials, etc... to accept the fact that video games are not necessarily the cause of creating a "violent/evil minded" child... usually the cause of a child gone bad is because of bad parenting... and the parents have to use a scapegoat such as video game companies, TV shows, music groups, etc... to get the blame off their shoulders...
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
Why not? The europeans and canadians are always coming in here trying to tell us America is bad. I guess we're not socialist enough for them.
At least we believe in freedom of speech
BTW, how did the parent of this comment get modded "off-topic"?
Best Slashdot Co
I support the courts ruling. Lets face it, if the court did bane violent video games, than someone would make the case for banning violent video movies (and p0rn) from video stores. And who knows what would be next on the pipe line for being "___" (fill in the blank).
What we need (and this is just for starters and as an example of my $0.02) is a system similar to what video stores have: ID check, group videos with titles, separate p0rn from none-p0rn in an isolated section, etc. After getting those basics elements in place, we can now start fine tuning things. A complete 7 is not the solution.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
This finally pokes the so-called "Moral Majority" in the eye and, hopefully, will make them realize that it is the part of the parent to regulate what his/her child is playing. My wife, when we were still just dating, asked me how I can justify my love of violent games when I know I want children and am wary of them being exposed to violence. I answered her very clearly that I am an adult - I know the difference between violence and death in a movie or a video game and violence and death in real life. Playing GTA III or Quake III isn't going to affect my view of the world, though it could affect the view of a five-year-old. Hell, I don't think I would let a kid under 11 or 12 play Shenmue, even, because Ryo is dealing with things that even teenagers are just beginning to understand.
But, that isn't the place of government or another organization to judge - if I feel my child is ready to play a game, see a movie or read a book then it is my judgment to make. We all have to be responsible for our actionsand the actions we take as parents - allowing a city to take said action is allowing the parents to serve inabstentia and with minimal involvement...
FYI I don t live there but...I just hope this appears on the on the "reviews" of Douglas when he tries for re-election. People who support censorship in any form should not be in the government. 1st amendment says "There shall be no law..." so this should'nt have been chalenged in the first place. Sounds like someone was pushing their own opinion, and not that of the public interest.
Sorry, should have said Flame-on! (with apologies to Marvel comics (human torch)
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
Granted, I hate censorship as much as the next guy, but am I missing something here when the article talks about public arcades? I think a certain amount of restriction properly placed on public arcades is not such a bad thing as everyone seems to think it is. I mean, these are kids who are potentially as young as 6 years old, maybe they're with their parents, maybe an older sibling, maybe not. The point is, at that age there should be a lack of exposure to the level of violence common in most modern day video games (which I love btw). I'm not saying do away with excessively violent arcade games, just don't put them in public places.
I downloaded a bunch of video for linux related code, include xine, libdvdread, and libdvdcss, and, hot damn!, I can now view encrypted DVDs on my Linux box.
I intentionally, and deliberately, cracked the encryption mechanism on the DVD I had purchased as a gift for my wife, so I could play it on our computer while our new DVD player (which suffered a fit of infant mortality) was in the shop for repair. Wary of using Microsoft Windows, because of all the recent security and spyware issues, I chose to make it work under Red Hat Linux 7.2.
It is my understanding that, under current U.S. law, this makes me a terrorist. Because I am a foriegner working here on a valid work visa, I can be held without charge for up to 7 days and tried by a military tribunal for this action. While I would consider such actions against me unconstitutional, it is not for me to interpret U.S. law, but the courts. And this brings up two issues of importance.
First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary? Should I even consider killing, or trying to kill, anyone who tries to arrest me for these actions which I believe harm no one and are perfectly consitutional? In short, should I take the law into my own hands? I think, at this point, the answer is no: there may be a time for such vigilante justice when large numbers of people believe the law to be wrong, and letting mob rule dictate defacto law, but that time has not yet come: people are not (yet) being arrested by the thousands for watching DVDs under Linux. I think I would neither resit nor assist any arresting officers -- I'd let them carry me away, though.
The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity? After all, if I truely believe my actions to be correct, I should have nothing to hide, even as the short-term consequences (i.e. arrest, incarcertation) might be unpleasant. Surely the eventual exposure of the naked media industry emperor justifies public criticism and civil disobedience. If not I, then who? But, a voice has to be heard to have effect, and the attention an imminent public confession of my actions might garner would be a positive thing. I will keep them guessing for a while longer.
Finally, I have not been altogether secret about all this. While not publicly announcing it to the world, I have told plenty of individuals what I am doing, and would have no hesitation in identifying them to the authorities if I am arrested -- after all they disobeyed the law as well, by not turning me in. Their subsequent arrests, or not, would, either way, further draw attention to the lunacy that now pervades a country which was built on that most noble of ideals: liberty.
You could've hired me.
On the topic, however, I usually find myself disagreeing with alot of what I read here, but for once I also see this as a victory. There's no good argument supporting the ban on games that, in terms of movie ratings, are PG at worst for violence.
Some here are worried that children may be influenced by these public displays of violence, but I say that any parent who feels their child is prepared to go out by him/her-self should also feel that their child knows the difference between animated and real violence, and right and wrong.
Any parent who does not feel their child understands these differences, and still allows them to go out on their own, has alot more to worry about than arcade games.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
"Videogames do not affect children. If Pacman affected us as kids, we would be running around in dark rooms, munching on pills and listening to repetitive music."
Me's wondering how many /.ers don't get this one...
PK
Where are we going... and why are we in this handbasket?
Engineers arn't boring people, we just get excited about boring things.
I hope the reader isn't taking me too seriously here heh. There are upsides and downsides to everything, but sometimes it's fun to play the Obnoxious American to the hilt (Like going to Innsbruck and calling the mountains there "Little Bumps" heh heh heh.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...the penny arcade strip that will surely touch on this.
I'd hate to see them jump on the violent game bandwagon as well. I'm sure some people around here already have, it just hasn't made it to the so-called local politicians and the local media.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Nah.
If the supreme court had more liberal judges this probably wouldn't be the case. I never understood why liberal citizens think liberal politicians are the ones who support free speech and liberty the most.
Quit contrary. It seems to me that liberals are most likely to ban things that they deem offensive. Like Al Gore tried to do before he was VP. Just like the liberals don't want racism to be allowed, politically incorrect words to be used, or violence to be allowed. They are all of the view that people (normal citizens) are so stupid that they cannot filter good from bad on their own, we need them to lead us in the right direction.
Perhaps the reality is that the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" don't fit the true political and social views correctly when it comes to issues of free speech. I couldn't agree more that these games should not be banned, I just wish self described liberals who support freedom of speech could see where its defenders are coming from. The defenders of free speech are the conservatives.
Now that I am off my high horse, I am sure I will get flamed like mad. I don't intend this as flamebait. The reason for my post is that I think censorship is bad, in any case. I just hope this belief is not loss in the sriving for a more politically correct society.
-Rupert
[FromTheMorning]
i say the state government should provide the hardware to the children of indianapolis ... perhaps ps2's, with some classic doom style gore to help them through this fragile time.
then the open source community can offer free gore software that needs no licensing.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
laws regarding R-rated movies are unconstitutional as well. Government has no place deciding the morals for everyone nor has it any place raising someone else's child.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I think Grand Theft Auto 3 is great. I rented a PS2 during time off from school and played GTA3-- I haven't had that much fun since playing the NES! It's a game with a dark sense of humor and a pretty wild physics engine (I jumped a Fire Engine!). The fact that there are hookers and you can kill cops just reflects the sensibilities of a college-aged gaming crowd. I mean no one complains that there are movies like "Godfather" or TV shows like "Sopranos" (I'm sure some people do, but, hey, change the channel). Frankly, stores pulling GTA3 and countries banning it, etc. is just a reflection of people ignorantly thinking that Video Games are only for children. I'm 25-- who wants to dispute I have a right to play this game if I want to buy it or rent it? This game is a genuine work of art.
Arcades Exist anymore??? I havent seen one in a while with all the console games and PC games out there. Also i find it funny how ppl are so afriad of thier kids going to an arcade and seeing 20 mins of "BAD THINGS"(about 5 dollars worth of games) meanwhile they can go to thier "Morally Bankrupt" friends house to play GTA3 on PS2 for hours on end...
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
Most stations won't let you say "motherfucker," hence bleeping the "mother" part. Fine by me.
What you gotta love CITY for is their Friday night pr0n movies, over the damn UHF airwaves (ch.57, cable 7)
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
What if I make a game that you gain points by going on a shooting rampage in a mall? (you know game over when the police sniper takes you out) or better yet you play the game as a serial rapist?
There are some things that do need to be seperated from children, Granted parents should have 1/5 of a brain and do this work themselves. Where do you draw the line?
I'm waiting for the lawsuits to srart like back in the 80's of parents suing the game companies because johhnie went out and drove the family car over a group of children... just like in GTA5-Extra gory version.. (remember when Kiss and the other rock bands were sued for subliminal messages or telling kids to go kill kill kill?)
My opinion is to not regulate fantasy items but not allow morons to have children... but then that will cause a few people to whine and get outraged.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Call Maureen Groppe at 1-202-906-8118"
Now someone is going to slashdot that poor woman's phone service.
Killing? (I can't tell if you're being serious... I'm really hoping that this is an ad absurdium argument.... please...)
It doesn't matter if you think your actions are correct. You've given up a piece of your personal soverignty to live here, as we all have just to remain citizens. We are obligated by that to endure any punishments the leaders we have elected decide to bring down upon us. In other words, if you don't like it: move. (What a horrible sounding argument). My argument here is that it is not wrong to break the law, but it is wrong to try to avoid any punishments that you may receive as a consequence. In other words, the law has no moral compass.
hopefully this will send out the message that censorship is bad. I don't know why governments feel that it is their place to censor content instead of the parents.
Doh!
You could've hired me.
Being a foreigner here on a work visa, you shouldn't qualify for constitutional rights. Go home if you want rights. Only citizens of this great country of ours should be allowed constitutional rights. That's what makes it a god damn constitution. D
This boggles the mind. Of course I'm very happy that the banning of video games has been declared unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has very typically put sex in a different category, saying that communities can ban sexual displays and businesses based on 'community standards'.
In my mind, it's not permissable to ban either, but I think it's more appropriate to filter violence than sex. A lot of people don't agree with me, but you'd think that if you can't ban one, then you shouldn't be able to ban the other.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Good call, kimosabe.
I call first reply to first pre-post.
Hey speaking of Katz, whatever happened to his afghani gay love with the commodore 64 that plays movies?
A bunch of lazy parents who don't know how to raise their children bitch to the government. It's usually republicans who seem to want to keep the government at bay unless it's to further their own fundamentalist agenda.
I'm not debating the merits of the game itself or whether or not it should be allowed... God knows I've played (and enjoyed) my share of violent games and seen my share of violent movies. I'm just wondering why people feel that they just have to have these games or else our society will fall apart and Big Brother will come stomping in.
Sure, people should be allowed to make them.. on the other hand, if the community doesn't want the imagery, I don't understand why the maker of the videogame can't just go somewhere else to market and push the video game. Why do they have to penetrate that particular market? Money.
It's the same argument that if you don't like what you see on television, you can turn it off or throw out your television... well, if you don't like crappy, ultraviolent videogames, take 'em out of your community's public areas. You should have the freedom and the right to take it out without Big Brother intervention.
Suburbanites (namely the suburban white kid) don't see the value of this because their crime rates are zip. There *needs* to be some violence, quite honestly because suburban white kids have no clue what happens in the real world and how fucked up people are outside of their pretty, groomed neighborhoods... and I should know because I was one of them at one point. Today, as an adult, I choose live in the city because the suburbs are vanilla, socially incestuous, and have no culture... In the city, however, we certainly don't need any more violence or violent stuff. I think this is a potential value for community-based regulations concerning what is shown in public places... sure, I guess people could have it in their own homes.
People also don't see media violence as racism whereas I do because most of the offenders are typically minorities and typically poor and typically ignorant.
My honest feeling is a typical Slashdot paranoid chant -- could it be that the video game industry's profits are so high and so invested on the ultra-violent, ultra-controversial games that they've done a good job of spinning it for the weak-minded?
NO! If you don't like it, DON'T move. We are NOT "obligated by that to endure any punishments the leaders we have elected decide to bring down upon us". The parent is a foreigner here under visa, so he has rather less rights, but you don't change things by running from them. He has the right, some would even say the DUTY, to challenge unjust laws. Now, for the time being, the way to work is within the system, armed resistance is a last resort and, imo, not justified by the DMCA, but, in the end, it's your decision to make.
However, I ask the rhetorical question for two reasons:
1) Liberty needs to be defended, to the extreme, if necessary, otherwise it is meaningless.
2) One can imagine the law so corrupt that killing police saves lives. What if "the law" required the slaughtering of Jews (yes, I'm striking a nerve on purpose) -- would it be wrong to kill any police "officer" who tried to put that law into practice? I think not.
Clearly, the dilema is that the law stops working, and people take it into their own hands. Often, they soothe their conscious by convincing themselves that they answer a "higher law", but that argument is rather weak, and the defense of criminals everywhere.
Should such extreme action ever be justified in the name of as abstract a concept as liberty? I think so, the question is, "When?" Clearly, I think the answer to date, in this circumstance is, "Not now."
You could've hired me.
Ok, I was fine up to there, but this next part seriously weakens your argument:
, if it wasn't there, I wouldn't be writing this and you would not be reading it either.
I think both of those points are an argument against it...
Liberty uber alles.
that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard. Rosa Parks should have just sat at the back of the bus or not gotten on in the first place, then.
Actually, the law is vague on this. The INS does a pretty good job of scrutinizing our right to enter the U.S. at every entry, presumably because it is hard to get undesireables out once here.
You could've hired me.
I guess that's good news for the video game makers.
I think it's only a matter of time before the video game makers will have to pay out huge settlements for damages caused (directly or indirectly) for all the violent content they exhort.
Another battle has been fought over this age old discussion of the effects of violence in games and movies on young children and in my opinion it was a victory for reason and logic.
There is always some new study that comes out that tries to link violence in movies to violence in real life and immediately afterwords there is another study that debunks the first. In my opinion we only need look at history for a reasonable answer.
I think we will all agree that we are far from living in the most violent time in history. The Dark Ages weren't just dark because of lack of innovation but because of the death, violence, and disease that dominated society. And yet as far as I can tell they didn't have movies or arcade games. Someone else here has already used the Hitler example and there are countless others that I could make.
The point is - violence has NOT increased in our society since the advent of movies and games. Even with the recent acts of terrorism here and abroad and the violence in the Middle East we are still living in one of the mostly peaceful times in history. Even the violence that is occuring is based on age old wars. The Middle East has been a hotbed for war for thousands of years.
Some people might say - what about the kids killing other kids in schools. Surely that has increased. There is no doubt that that has increased but did games or movies make those kids kill? I don't think so. They may have given them ideas on HOW to kill their classmates but it didn't encourage them to kill. The problem is much more deeply seeded and blaming movies or games is an absolute cop-out by parents and teachers. In many of these cases parents, friends, teachers, or counselors had an inkling that there was something wrong with the killer children but either didn't know what to do or thought it was just a phase. This is why I believe that parents should be held criminally liable for the actions of their minor children.
I would like to close with my own life story to bore you all. I grew up like many kids playing AD&D in the early 80's. I remember so many news stories about kids killing each other with swords and how it was all AD&D's fault. And yet I never wanted to kill anybody. None of my friends did either. As a matter of fact - the vast majority of people who played AD&D NEVER had seriously contemplated killing somebody. To this day I play many games that might be considered violent by some and yet I can't watch the surgeries on the health channel.
I also remember viewing porn and having adult magazines as far back as 12-13 and yet I am not a sexual deviant. I don't have any less respect for women because of it.
In summary, don't worry about what your kids watch and play. Instead worry about teaching them right from wrong and reality from fiction. Listen to your kids. Find out what troubles them. Talk to their teachers and counselors. Meet their friends' parents. Help them with their homework. Watch their ballgames, recitals, concerts, etc. Be a part of your child's life and all the porn and violence in the world won't make them be deviant or violent.
For ONCE they do something right.
:/
I think there is inside interest though. I don't think the government thinks too highly of our constitutional rights, espectially the first amendment in light of the new legislation they have recently passed or are trying to push through
I think this move was motivated by two factors, the first being that they (the government) wants to protect it's image, especially in the face of the youth, who would be most outraged by an outright ban on violent games. The second motivator being the gaming industry itself. Violent games make violent people. Wrong. But people who play such games *may* develop strong hand-eye coordination and reflexes, and maybe even basic tactical strategy in the case of realistic FPS. The military would love to have a country full of soldiers just ready to tap.
I think this is a very good move, mainly because the gaming industry is responsible for the rapid technological advances we are seeing in systems today. Who needs 2.2GHz word processors? I can run vi on a 286.. It helps our economy.
Also many use violent games to release some of their tension and frustration that could potentially create statistics in the real world.
Just my $0.14. (Adjusted for inflation and tax)
-fc
.
. echo -e \\04 >
Excellent. The Supreme Court took their Metamucil this morning, and made a good call. Yay for personal freedom and responsibility. But the question still remains: is anything that two (or more) consenting adults come up with still a good idea? Just because schoolgirls-being-raped-by-71-tenticles-and-alien- headmasters doesn't explicitly hurt anyone, is it still a benefit to society to release it into the mainstream? As much as folks would like to ignore, there *is* a middle ground between Anything Goes and the Moral Majority. I'd like to call it Common Sense, but that's not right. And I'd be a hypocrit on this one: I love GTA3.
Not flamebait, just food for thought. Somewhere, you need to draw a line. The need for personal (and especially parental) responsibility exists, but many 'mature' adults can't handle complete creative and expressive freedoms.
Jesus, I'm getting old.
Of course, armed resistance is a last resort. The best answer I can give for when it is acceptable (based on my posting) is when many agree with it's use -- but then you are in a state of civil war. And no, I don't think it is acceptable yet. I hope it never becomes acceptable
You could've hired me.
That comment was absurd
Funny, but I believe the Constitution says all men are created equally - not all men born and raised in America, or converts to America.
I only need the Preview button when I haven't used the Preview button.
It mazes me that the US imposes very little censorship on violence (as a rule), yet gets horrifed at the thought of sex appering on TV/video games.
Murder is very rare but is shown happily on prime-time TV. Sex is perfectly normal but is hevily censored. (Even to the extent that a woman cannot breast feed in public in the US!)
I lothe censorship, but I know that I find violence more repulsive than sex!
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Other than voting and office holding, where in the Constitution does it say rights are limited to citizens?
Hint - it doesn't. Go read it.
Before commenting, please actually *read* the law. The "ban" prohibited kids from playing the games "without parental consent" *exactly* like the poster below thought they should try.
" 10-year old kids should not be able to play those games at the arcades without their parent's (or other adult's) consent, just like they cannot go to a rated-R movie by themselves."
Yup, this is exactly what they were pushing for. The games themselves were *NOT banned*, and even the restriction was intended for *Public Arcades* only.
Instead of the knee-jerk "it's censorship" and "won't somone please think of the First Admendment" reactions that pervade the comments on this story, look a bit deeper.
If you actually have children you understand a bit more about not wanting your 10 year old to glorify in ripping the heart out of a virtual opponent in some game that you'd damn sure not want them playing until they are actually old enough to "give peace a chance", and about the RESPONSIBILITY of raising *balanced* children, IMHO this involves a lot more of spending what little "free time" you have as a working parent with your kids trying to teach them how to think and why glorifying in taking the "Rambo" approach to situations is not an answer ANYTIME in life that prevades pretty much every show on network TV and video game in the U.S.
I'm perfectly in favor of having the NC17 type ratings on Video games enforced. This has *NOTHING* to do with "free speech" and everything to do with helping parents control the crap that American society tries to force on our Kids today.
To those that think that video games *don't* influance kids in any way, all I have to say is..."all your base belong to us"
--Tadghe
Bugs Bunny was right.
My favorite quote from the article:
Peterson was on vacation Thursday and unavailable for comment, according to his spokeswoman.
Why did I expect anything less. I can't believe they blew $400k on this. What a foolish, foolish man.
I'm a 2000 man.
It strikes me that forceful vigilanteeism gains legitimacy when it is in synergy with widespread civil disobedience: Vigilantees are the only army the disenfranchied have.
You could've hired me.
They also ban the sale of vibrators and other sex toys there, don't they?
Porn, therefore, is one of the largest contributers to violence behavior. Competition for scarece resources pales in compairision. Once basic needs of food and shelter are met, what's left to fight over? Why are precious metals and stones valuable? Because they sparkle in some people's eyes and are thought of as a means to buy sexual company. The whole economy is bassed on this. Porn represents this kind of thinking in it's rawest form.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
> I do have to give props to Indy for at least trying to do something
> about the situation, their heart was in the right place just not their minds.
No, it wasn't in the right place. The entire problem with this sort of thing is that what they tried to do cuts counter to the very principles on which the U.S. is founded, and since they're the city government they're more wrong than any private citizen initiative could ever have been. Despite the fact that these games are not appropriate for children, they are trying to force the decision for all kids, even those whose parents allow them to play. In a very real sense, they're trying to legislate morality. There are some cases where morality has external effect (legislating "thou shalt not kill" is legitimate because of the obvious repercussions outside of the individual), but since there's never been a credible study that proves that violent video games cause real-world crime, there's no external effect to legislate. This is the morality for which parents must be responsible, and for which the state must not be allowed to be responsible, because making laws to "protect people from themselves" is paramount to outlawing skydiving because it's dangerous.
Virg
As a Canadian, I stood idle while my countrymen permitted the government to amend the consitution to give them power over the highest court in the land. My political action ineffective (Canadians are like vishysoise: cold, half-French, and hard to stir), I found the best course of action was to leave and take my tax dollars with me. The U.S. seams to like them just fine.
You could've hired me.
Developers like rockstar are not taking any chances, thats why they have hidden the extra-gore mode in gta3 behind a cheat that doesn't even confirm its entry, and flying the plane around between sky-scrapers is undocumented :) If more developers did this, courts around the world might have more difficulty in banning them "but your honor the cheat to let you hack off g.w. bushes' limbs is just an overflow error!" lol
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Here in the subburbs of Hartford CT they go about it differently... the just zone out Arcades, bowling allys and the like.... Less the undesierables from other towns come to our town... repeate from town to town... then there is no problem! Our kids stay at home and drink where ever they can... and they are safe from the "bad kidds" from elcewhere!
Now, the average video-gamer is twenty-eight years old - people who grow up with a medium usually keep using it (with less frequency) throughout their lives. I'm an adult, and I play computer games. A lot of adults my age do - most of us started when we were kids - and somost of us don't problematize video games as a medium across the board. No one says now "what shall we do about cinema?" (During the early part of the twentieth century, the pre-cinema generation certainly asked this question a lot.) There may be criticism of violence in one media or another, but those media that have been completely integrated into cultural practice are not subject to this sort of scrutiny.
In some ways, it is interesting how the courts have realized that video games are a form of expression and as such require protection. This is easily paralled with the perception in the 30's that movies were just a way that children wasted time. This perception was had, of course, by the generation of people who grew up without movies. Now we have a generation of people who have never really experienced gaming, a generation of people of whom some have and some haven't, and a generation of people whose paradigms of life will revolve around it.
The following statement cuts quite deep, and should be written into the big book of good things that came out of the 7th circuit.
"attempting to shield children from exposure to violent images would be 'not only quixotic, but deforming.'"
It is estimated that US bombing in Afghanastan has killed 68 people per day (directly, not counting starvation / injury / illness / etc). The 7th Circuit has said that, basically, exposure to the uglyness of violence is a necessary part of becoming a complete human being. And as that exposure can come through the form of a harmless game, then gaming is therefore an expressive medium. Quite frankly, after having just completed MGS2, I can't think of a better medium to express the horrors of war (though Francis Ford Coppola comes very close). We're talking context here, of course. GTA hasn't done a good job showing the high points of what is possible in the medium any more than Lady Chatterly did for literature.
Of course I would support opposition to the sex portion too: I agree that it should be considered worse by this society to show someone's guts nonconsentually being sprayed out across a table (arguably the worst thing to happen in their life) than to take off their pants and pleasure them (arguably one of the better things). But I can understand why they wouldn't bother to oppose the sexuality portion when nobody has yet found a good way to use the new medium to express intimacy. I can't think of a single game this provision would apply to. AMOA is doing very badly these days (financially), and I can understand why they would choose their battles carefully. I'm just sad that I didn't see the ACLU on their side.
The ______ Agenda
The Old Testament has a lot of Pissed Off God moments, where mass murder, the killing of infants, and stoning people to death is all Good and Holy. Violence can be used to accomplish Good things, such as victory over Hitler in WWII. Sexual perversion has never accomplished anything good. Regardless, I say rate arcade games like movies, and check their ID at the door.
Offtopic: Censorship Christians, you must remember a few things about the Good book. In it, God specifically ordered his followers to "take" virgins from conquered nations after killing everyone else (Numbers 31). He laid down guidelines about owning slaves (Leviticus), when it's OK to beat them (Leviticus), killed the firstborn of an entire nation (duh), and advised parents to beat their children like slaves (Proverbs). Were censorship truly blind and even, the Bible would be the first book out of the library. So, uh, be careful what you legislate for.
I disagree ...
For example: A fight to the death between Bill Gates and Tux is a much healthier thing to see than them having sex (exactly how they would do it is beyond my imagination).
Everybody! Please think about the little children!
The US Constitution does not state that all men are created equal. That's the Declaration of
Independence, and the Declaration does not hold legal weight in US Law.
That's insane. Hey your not a citizen. We can take away everything you own, beat you as we please, maybe even kill you. Hey, he's not a citizen... Doesn't count.
Every person in the U.S. should be treated as if they were a citizen. They break the law, they are punished by the law. They follow the law, leave them alone. They disagree with law, let them stand against it.
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
Here in Seattle (not the far-off land of Redmond, where the dark lord lies across the bridge of death, plotting his evil schemes to regain Ring.0) we have a ban on violent video games at the Seattle Center Fun Forest and other city-owned arcades. None of this will be affected by this lawsuit, since we are not impinging on private enterprise, but a city-owned enterprise.
Of course, if the permits for non-city-owned enterprises are changed to reserve violent video games only to the city, there isn't much one could do about it, regardless of this court ruling.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I am under no obligation to accept that as right and good.
Try to mess with my liberty, you're my enemy.
I was recently on a trip to Indianapolis with a friend and one night we had some extra time... so we were spending some time at the arcade in the big mall right downtown. As it got later, the arcade began to fill with more and more city kids.
.sig. Censorship is something that I take very seriously. I'm bothered by what happened and I'm bothered that my convictions have been weakened.
While I was standing there playing at a (particularly violent) first person shoot-em-up, some kid (maybe 20 years old) pokes me in the back and says "You better watch where ya go when ya get outta here 'cuz I might just wanna shoot ya with my real piece." Great... I've just been threatened with death.
Yes, I know that the problem is the kid and NOT the game... but if that's the attitude of a human being on in this country... that he might just like to shoot me for the fun of it... then maybe games like this shouldn't be allowed to coexist in the same place with this person. There ARE clealy people in this world who have very little respect for human life. Who aren't intelligent enough to delineate between a video game and reality.
The experience of having a complete stranger threaten to shoot me did leave me a little shaken. It gave me pause to think about such laws and to make me reconsider my long-standing anti-censorship position. I'm honestly on the fense on this one. Just look at my
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I am all for non-censorship! but this could also be viewed as Corporate power triumphing over government..... just a thought
I have two points to make regarding this issue:
1) I liken games to movies. We do NOT censor movies, rather, we rate them to aid parents who decide to censor the movie from thier child. One step further, R (and "worse") rated movies require proof of age (theoretically). This also aids the parents because no parent wants to put thier 14yr old on a leash, but they also don't want them to see some of the very disturbing content found in some R movies. Why is it, then, that a very violent game can go unrestricted where kids under 18 are playing? Is a parent to say, "Don't look or play that one game" and expect the kid to obey? Why not just put porn games (which arguably have less of an affect) in the arcade as well?
2) Disclaimer: I've been playing violent video games since I can remember (Wolf3D,Doom, etc.). I have always resolved conflicts with words not violence. This being said, violent media is still proven to have a VERY SERIOUS affect on many children and young teens. My mother is a behaviour specialist in the local school district and through her personal experiences has found most of these studies to be accurate. If I want to express violent and pornographic speech, I have every right to do so, just not in a public place with children around.
Personally, I wouldn't mind the arcade having an "18 and older section" (as silly as it may sound).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I don't get it. Where is the ruling? I can understand how a national law would get struck down (10th Ammendment), but what in the constitution bans the state or local government from making this law? The 1st and 14th? Considering that the plaintiffs were the game manufacturers, not the minors, I don't see how the 1st ammendment applys. Manufacturers are allowed to make the speech. They're just not allowed to sell it to minors.
I disagree with the law, but I can't agree with the ruling at this point. States and local governments should have the ability to regulate commerce within the jurisdication without interference of the national government.
If I had an account, you would immediately be placed in the "foe" section. I can't believe any creature with a minimum of two functional brain cells would believe anything that woman says.
Obviously you have no concept of rights or the thought that lead to the creation of the constitution. Read on on the philosophical works of Locke and Keyes, as this is what our forefathers did. The idea behind rights is that EVERYONE has them...some were just put on paper to emphisis thier importance.
So Bin laden is created equally to you. Maybe we shoudl all his al qaeda murderers walk around freely. You friggin liberal morons.
I don't believe in god, but I don't think it should be on the FCC's bad-word list...
Good for you. Canada sucks and the women are fat. In unrelated news, work visa foreigners should have the same rights as lawbreakers on probation. And report monthly to an officer. And illegal aliens should be shot on site. After they make me a taco.
What takes place in GTA would have been unthinkable even to market to adults 20 years ago.
I'll have to disagree with this, to a point.
There was always a subculture of violent or sexy material marketed to adult/teens. Some of it is just as vile and unacceptable as GTA, some is even more so.
Really, the only new concept is mass marketing - marketing this material to a general audience (ads on TV, available in department store).
But slave ownership at the time was socially accepted. I wouldn't go so far as to judge an 18th century man in that environment against 21st century standards.
Actually, slave ownership was not socially acceptable in all quarters of society. And I think in Jefferson's case you can criticize him to some extent, as he truly did believe slavery was evil, and worked to have it abolished, but kept slaves himself. I think hypocrisy was looked down upon in the 18th century as well (I do believe Jefferson was a great, but deeply flawed man)
I hope some more saudis here on legal visas kill your family next.
...is banned in many citys by city ordinance. In restaurants, bars, etc. Isn't this sort of the same thing?
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
--Ambrose Bierce
there's a point at which freedom of speech ends, being where it starts to limit the liberties of other people. for example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and claim 'freedom of speech' in your defense. the reason? doing so brings more harm than good.
likewise, you cannot say certain things to instigate others into a fight of sorts...doing so also brings about more harm and is considered "fighting words", or something like that.
so yeah, we got freedom of speech...but it IS limited at some points. we have a right to be outrageously offense, to a point. remember that.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=00&num=3643 &Submit1=Request+Opinion
The bottom line, regardless of how tasteless you may find RtCW or Day of Defeat, is that they are video games created in the USA, a country which grants its citizens freedom of expression. Therefore, no one has a right to ban them.
If you don't like the content, don't buy it, or don't play it. I fail to see why we should allow groups of people to determine what we should or should not be allowed to do, since we (assuming we're all 18 or older) are legal adults.
Now, in the case of letting kids play it, that's up to the kid's parents, and the issue of parenting is one that is strictly up to the parents. I am not a parent (I'm 18), however, common sense dictates that a 13 year old kid should not be allowed to buy games with a "Mature 17+" rating.
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
only make people more desperate to get hold of the thing.
In the case of computer games, which would you rather:
A kid walks into a shop, hands over his pocket money and walks away
with the game.
-or-
A kid logs into a Warez site and downloads the game, along with a few
virii and an assortment of nasty porn that pops up along the way.
(This also applies to age ratings too, of course - if a child is desperate
to see that 18 rated movie or play that 18 rated game, a way will be found)
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
The women are fat, yes, but that is a good thing when it's -40 outside.
You could've hired me.
We haven't bothered covering the recurring news of declining real-world violence (while video games just get more gruesome and explicit), mostly because it's the same story over and over.
But I, for one, applaud you for at least mentioning it where it is relevant.
just don't get caught doing it....or find someone in the US to send you gamez. I'm sure it can be done....afterall, it's only a crime if you get caught! ;)
"Ooooh! Look at the nice shiny hook with the worm on it!" (OK, I'll bite ;-)
IANAL, but I believe you can be held for 7 days for any reason.
Military tribunals require that you be charged with terrorist activity.
As the stated intent of your use of DeCSS was not to change government policy by intimidation and/or the endangerment of the lives of American citizens, it's not a terrorist action. A DMCA violation, perhaps (though you can bring up the interoperability defence in court), but not a terrorist action. You are therefore not subject to a military tribunal.
(Which is a pity, because I have a hunch that since the DMCA isn't exactly part of the UCMJ, you'd get off scot-free at a military tribunal. "JAG, there is nothing Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits the playback of DVDs on Linux. Now get these computer freaks the hell offa my aircraft carrier!";-)
> First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary?
AIANAL (Again, I Am Not A Lawyer), but "No."
Resisting arrest - even unawlful arrest - is unlawful. The reason for this is that Officer Friendly is just doing his job, and his job is hard enough as it is. Cooperate fully with Officer Friendly. (He's not the guy who's at fault, he's just the guy tasked with the dirty work of hauling j00r 4zz into court. He has nothing to do with your innocence or guilt at trial - hence the phrase "tell it to the judge".)
> The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity? After all, if I truely believe my actions to be correct, I should have nothing to hide, even as the short-term consequences (i.e. arrest, incarcertation) might be unpleasant
That's between you and your conscience. Can't help you there.
> I have told plenty of individuals what I am doing, and would have no hesitation in identifying them to the authorities if I am arrested -- after all they disobeyed the law as well, by not turning me in.
Although some jurisdictions have passed special laws requiring third parties to inform law enforcement of suspected or actual criminal activity - for instance, the obligation of teachers to report child abuse), DMCA violations aren't on that list in any jurisdiction I know of.
IANAEE (I Am Not An Ethicist, Either), and this is a matter for your conscience, but I'd suggest that turning in your friends for DMCA violations, without asking them in advance if they wish to join your campaign of civil disobedience, is an unethical thing to do. (Although you are free to engage in civil disobedience and face the consequences, I don't believe you have an ethical right to impose those sanctions on your associates without their prior informed consent.)
We haven't bothered covering the recurring news of declining real-world violence (while video games just get more gruesome and explicit), mostly because it's the same story over and over.
The same story over and over? On Slashdot?
Surely you must be joking.
I see the liberals won't mod up a dissenting opinion, but they're all over the fairyland posts of "freedom and peace for everyone". Stupid peacenik hippies.
Judging from the fact that $BIGPERCENTAGE of the Bad Asses of 9/11 were here on expired student visas, if I had mod points, I'd give you (+1, Funny) for the assertion that INS is doing a good job as gatekeepers.
Despite this minor setback, hopefully Indianapolis will be able in the future to regulate what games children may play. The world of the child is stuffed with a plethora of unhealthy, evil entertainments that need to be purged so that we may produce moral, upright children ready to perform God's will.
Take for example the realm of board games, those mental cannibals of cardboard that swallow our children's time. There's Monopoly, teaching children to ruthlessly crush the dreams of prosperity possessed by others. And what of Battleship? Have we learned nothing from Pearl Harbor? Do we really need a generation of children trained in the dive-bombing arts? I can't even begin to approach Candyland, that pernicious purveyor of tooth-rottening sweets to our youngest and most pure.
Vigilance must also be a priority on the playground. For far too long have our most defenseless been savaged in the hour-long assualt & battery of a dodgeball tournament. Today the ball, tomorrow the bombs. Heed my words. And "tag", that cruelest of isolationist evils masquerading as a recess diversion. Stop the madness now, lest your child be the next to become IT.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Do you really think it is possible for parents to protect their children from this kind of nonsense? Everyone always says it is the parents job to police their children, but in today's day and age there are too many obstacles for them to do so. A kid is going to say; "Hey mom I want to play videogames!", does mom know that some pervert has designed a game (DOA3 being the worst) that has bouncing tits and nakes asses in it!?!?!
Face it, kids are playing these games, and they are the majority of people playing them, we need to realize that free speech can be a cop out for people who choose to be irresponsible, parents cannot be sitting over Jimmmy's shoulder while he is playing DOA3 covering his eyes when he sees a boob or an ass crack. We need stuff like this to protect kids.
My wife works about a block from the one downtown. She and some co-workers got to see that "naked cowboy" guy playing his guitar out front last year (at least I think that was last year).
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
For me the best part of the Indy Star article was the attempt by the city attorney defending the case and other supporters of the ordinance in justifying blowing tax revenue to the tune of 3/4 of a million dollars to "bring awareness of the issue" to people. They weren't trying to bring awareness to jack shit. They were trying to enforce an unjust law.
That new mayor of theirs, Bart Peterson, hasn't done the city any favors by blowing over $700K on a case any college law professor could've told them they'd lose. Any assertion that they've "made their point" belies the fact that the other side has made theirs BETTER because they WON. Morons.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Games are an outlet. They let us be some one we are not. From the almighty God to Counter Terrorist. What would the world be with out such outlets.
Killing some one is wrong, but human's have a deep built in aggression that is nicely satisfied by such games. People who help kids form there view of the world are what make us understand right from wrong, good from evil.
Those around us are what make us who we are, the things we do are based on them and what we have learned from them. Don't blame something that is meant for entertainment.
Is porn the reason for domestic abuse or rape. No, it's the way some one saw others do things. If a kid is around a parent that treats women in a poor manner what do thing that kid is going to learn.
Fundamental values have to be ingrained in a person for them to know how to understand the things around them. People have to take responsibility for actions of other people along with the person in the action. A person has to know the moral right and wrong to be able to use such things as games, movies, etc. in a meaningful manner.
Raise a kid on the Bible, with love from the parents and Disney what will you get? The same kid on horror and war movies where mommy is an alcoholic and daddy spends is nights cruising the corners for whores will be a far different individual.
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
You are not legally or morally justified in using force aginast a police officer attempting to make a legal arrest. In the case of an unjust law the time to make your stand is not when you are being arrested, but when you are tried in court. This is both your legal and moral obligation.
If the law required killing jews, assasinating police officers would not change the law. Killing police officers *might* save a few lives (and could only be justified if you were only killing officers attempting to enforce this law), but would not get the law changed. So most of the jews would eventually be dead anyway.
Agreed that liberty must be defended, but we currently live with a system that is designed to protect our liberties, and provide redress for wrongs. As long as the system is intact and functioning violence is neither necesary nor justified. Violence is only justified when there is not a non-violent solution.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
The update to the story implies that as video games get more violent, societal violence decreases.
I'm not saying that's not true, but that's a damned big assumption. Most sociologists say that violence in North America and Europe is on the decline due to demographics - a larger percentage of the population is older, due to the post war baby boom. Older people do not commit violet crime.
As to violent video games, I have no real opinion on the matter.
A reasoned bite at that, thank you!
IANAL, but I believe you can be held for 7 days for any reason.
Yes. Whether that is constitutional is questionable, but I accept it as given. IANAL, either.
Military tribunals require that you be charged with terrorist activity.
Didn't the Patriot Act, or one of the copy-cat Acts, make hacking a computer system to break security an act of treason? I certainly did do that. Of course, the computer was mine, the security was on something I was allowed to retrieve to view, and dammit yes, the law is way too blunt.
As the stated intent of your use of DeCSS was not to change government policy by intimidation and/or the endangerment of the lives of American citizens, it's not a terrorist action. A DMCA violation, perhaps (though you can bring up the interoperability defence in court), but not a terrorist action. You are therefore not subject to a military tribunal.
I do wonder, though, if the DMCA/Patriot Act combination make it one. Oh, and I did not use DeCSS, per se, but rather a derivative: libdvdcss.so.
(Which is a pity, because I have a hunch that since the DMCA isn't exactly part of the UCMJ, you'd get off scot-free at a military tribunal. "JAG, there is nothing Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits the playback of DVDs on Linux. Now get these computer freaks the hell offa my aircraft carrier!";-)
yes, :->
First, if attempts are made to arrest me over this, should I resist -- forcefully, if necessary?
AIANAL (Again, I Am Not A Lawyer), but "No."
Resisting arrest - even unawlful arrest - is unlawful. The reason for this is that Officer Friendly is just doing his job, and his job is hard enough as it is. Cooperate fully with Officer Friendly. (He's not the guy who's at fault, he's just the guy tasked with the dirty work of hauling j00r 4zz into court. He has nothing to do with your innocence or guilt at trial - hence the phrase "tell it to the judge".)
One would think so, but does that apply in extremis? Again, IANAL, but doesn't the Constitution permit defense against unconstitutional restraint of exercise of constitutional rights, even if the law has not yet been struk down? IOW, you can't be found guilty of breaking a law that is subsequently found to be unconstitutional -- the law never had force to begin with. Certainly, I could be tried in abstentia. Of course, under normal circumstances, cooperation with police is usually a good idea, yes.
The second point is should I discard this thin shield of public slashdot anonymity.
That's between you and your conscience. Can't help you there.
Well, fate, or rather my haste intervened -- I did not post anon.
IANAEE (I Am Not An Ethicist, Either), and this is a matter for your conscience, but I'd suggest that turning in your friends for DMCA violations, without asking them in advance if they wish to join your campaign of civil disobedience, is an unethical thing to do.
Noted. Not all the people I told were my friends :-).
You could've hired me.
If video games influenced behaviour then all the kids brought up on PacMan would these days be running around to repetitive computer-generated music and popping strange power-pills.... Ummm....
Osama, if he were in the U.S., would be treated no more different than a mass murdering citizen.... But then there is always the public opinion and media.
If you turley feel that some one on U.S. soil should not be treated as an equal under the law, I feel that makes you the moron.
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
Bwahahahah, $318,000 out of the taxpayers pockets. Hell of a price to pay to impose your morality on everyone else, isnt it? Next election year, I hope whatever local politicians that run against the morons who supported this censorship make sure the public is well-aware of this.
Liberty in your lifetime
Lucky for us, he is not in the U.S. and has to face the military, not the U.S. court system.
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
How about a video arcade game where characters are completely naked?
Play NuDefender in your home! In your club! In your shopping mall!
Now wouldn't that be a good test case?
Sexuality is a biological part of normal, everyday life ...
This is true, but I think there are very real side effects of over exposure to sexuality. When sex isn't put in the proper context, children don't associate sex with the sense of intimacy and respect that it deserves. This leads to many problems among teenagers who are sexually mature but not psychologically mature enough to decide what's appropriate and safe.
However this doesn't necessarily mean nudity is bad. Showing nudity without evoking a sexual context is difficult, but the reverse is incredibly easy. Britney Spears, who has never shown as much as a nipple in public, is a larger and more important sexual figure than any porn star. We kid ourselves when we try to make a division between Maxim and Playboy. Yes, there's a little bit more fabric on the bodies in one, but we all see past that little eyepatch and we know it.
We wouldn't just love to - we have. Remember Dimitry? He broke an American law in Russia, and still somehow got a free trip to Club Fed.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
In Seattle, we have had several high speed car chases in the last couple weeks, two ending with people dead. Last night on the news, they blamed GTA3 for this crime wave. Of course, they didn't know if any of the people involved in any of the chases have ever played the game.
The media can be quick to sensationalize violent video games because it gets good ratings, but it also gives the public the false impression that there must be some evidence linking violence and violent entertainment.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
What I have never understood, is how can unlawful laws be created? I think that things like this ban and the DMCA for example should be reviewed before they are passed into law. It just seems to be a bigger pain in the butt to have to challenge the laws afterward.
Why should your beliefs as a parent dictate to the rest of us what we watch, hear and see, or what our children watch, hear and see? Who are you that your beliefs should take precedence over mine or someone else's? What if the theory of evolution offends you too? Does that mean the state can't teach it to my kid?
You and your kind seem to want a bland homogenous conformist society of plastic people who adhere to the Lowest Common Denominator of Offensiveness while those who won't conform or can't conform are put behind a spite fence. You stand for enforced mediocrity and enslavement of the creators by the censors.
If you don't like the culture that's out there do the creative, alternative thing. Make your own and ally yourself with other creators who believe as you do. Don't expect to make people create what YOU want them to create for you. Quit being so lazy and do your own work.
You are correct, Australia has banned the sale of GTA 3.
What do you expect from a country with what appear to be some leftist leanings?
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
If the kids are united they will never be devided..
censorship and bad spelling still suck
If you voted for someone other than Gore, then disregard this.
However, if you voted for Gore, you are such a big hypocrite that I hope you get run over by a truck.
Al Gore and his wife gave us the PMRC, and was the one responsible for blaming D & D for everything wrong with the world today. They said D & D was a pathway to Satanism. Hmm...did Bush ever say this? No.
It doesn't stop there. Tipper Gore made Dan Quayle look like a Gay Right's Activist in the 80s with some serious inflammatory remarks about homosexuals.
And it's the Democrats (mostly Goose-steppin' Dianne Feinstein) who wanted computer chips implanted in kids' arms, for their own good of course.
For more information, check out Jello Biafra's writings about Tipper. They are all available for free on the net.
until they reach the age of 18, children are the wards of their parents, not the state. if you don't want your kid playing a certain game, grab their hand and walk out of the arcade. if your young ipressionable child is in there by themselves, you've already failed as a parent, no law will help you.
Thomas Jefferson owning slaves is an interesting way to see how our society has evolved toward a goal, The American Dream of Life, Liberty, and Justice for all. He help, was he the complete American? Are we? We may not own slaves, but the good in every individual ands to the moral fiber of America. We may not always get it right, but this nation has the ability over many in the world, to try.
You've come a long way baby.
You've got a long way to go.
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
Wouldn't echo -e \\04 >/dev/hand1 make more sense? Because it's not exactly clear what's in the file with filename "0x04".
While I was standing there playing at a (particularly violent) first person shoot-em-up, some kid (maybe 20 years old) pokes me in the back and says "You better watch where ya go when ya get outta here 'cuz I might just wanna shoot ya with my real piece." Great... I've just been threatened with death.
That reminds me of what happened to somebody from my high school. A few years into adulthood, he was driving down a street behind a car that turned into a parking lot without signaling. God only knows why, but he followed the car and got out and started cussing out the driver for doing it. The driver came out of his car, and they argued for a bit until the guy from my high school said, "You'd better leave, or I'll get my gun out of my car and take care of you". He didn't have a gun in his car. He was just trying to scare the guy.
At this point, the other guy took a gun out of his pocket and blew him away.
That kid in Indianapolis may meet a similar end.
Obviously, the /. community agree's that violent games do not cause kids to kill people. However, I don't think that enough emphasis has been placed on the parents. So far, I think that a lot of the parents are to blame (as well as the kids) in the shootings in the schools. These parents subject these kids to meaningless activities in order to live thru them, or they don't pay enough attention to them, or they don't teach them from right and wrong. Parents in society today are getting worse and worse. Just look at all of the recent new cartoons on Fox. They are all there to mock horrible parents and satire on how the world runs.
Nowadays, parents use drugs and medicine rather than real parenting to get their kids to do things. Parents have relied so heavily on drugs like Ritalin and Prozac (for example) rather than to teach their kids good values and whats real and what is not.
The kids who do activites like this (kill people) also need to get a grip (along with a shot in the arm, if you get my drift) about what society is really like. A kid needs real help if a plasma rifle in a game wants to make him kill someone.
I am glad to see that a decision like this was made by the courts. Its finally time that they wake up and smell the coffee.
-Vic
You said it better than I could!
Thank-you. Hopefully it will reach some of the folks who really need to hear it.
We were all sucking a naked breast as children... at what age is it "not ok" to see a naked breast let alone suckle one. (I myself enjoy suckling breasts at age 26)
00101010
I don't want people playing 'parent' for me. I am not a parent yet, but I'm worried that the day I become one I'll have choices already made for me. "Well, this content is offensive to my oversly sensitive nature, we better prevent kids from seeing it."
I'd like to use Harry Potter as an example. When I first heard about Harry Potter, some group was trying to prevent children from being exposed to it for unsubstantiated reasons. One quote that comes to mind is "Harry Potter desensitizes children for the coming of the anti-christ", or some baloney. The reason I use the term 'unsubstantiated' is that I've read the first book and have seen the movie, and I've yet to find any religious implications at all, certainly nothing that has offended my sensibilites. Perhaps it is the later books that supposedly contain this offensive content, but frankly I don't really care. The parents groups were so overreactive that I just don't trust their judgement after I looked into it. Gathering a mob to burn books is not the sensibility I want to instill in my children.
My 8 year old sister really enjoyed the movie, and I bet it is not too long before she is picking up the novels and reading them. They are pretty advanced reading for a kid her age, but I think the interest the movie sparked may cause her to really enjoy reading. Given that I see no conflict in the novel or in the movie and our beliefs, I think it's perfectly okay for her to go off and enjoy Harry Potter in it's various forms.
If the over-reactive parents groups had their way, Harry Potter would never have been available to me or my sister to enjoy. I don't appreciate this at all. I do appreciate being informed. Something as simple as "be careful of Harry Potter because we believe some values expressed in it may be impressionable on your child." is perfectly acceptable to me. But to deny me the right to say "I think it is okay for my children to be exposed to this" is to deny me fundamental rights granted to me by the constitution.
Just because you don't want YOUR child to play a particular video game, doesn't mean that you are righteous when you deny MY child that priveledge.
"Derp de derp."
Games like GTA are way too violent. Ratings don't work. Some parents don't care. Do you want the kid of a parent who doesn't care to shoot you or yours because the game just wasn't satisfying enough?
but we currently live with a system that is designed to protect our liberties.
That statement is fallacious. We live in a system that is designed to limit liberty.
Do some research. Start at http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
Shutup, you fucked up arrogant American bastard.
Agreed. If it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will ultimately say so.
Also, IIRC, it was 48 hours' detention before the PATRIOT Act, so the change to "7 days" is merely an extension of a time limit that was already in law. This is IMHO sensible, given the fact that what aliens were detained for prior to 9/11 was pretty simple stuff - 2 days was enough to see if their paperwork was in order. The extra 5 days appears to have been added with the intent of allowing additional background checks (i.e. outside of INS) to be performed.
> Didn't the Patriot Act, or one of the copy-cat Acts, make hacking a computer system to break security an act of treason?
I believe it was h4x0r1ng someone else's box that was the problem. The language was about "unauthorized" access to a "federal interest computer", and while "federal interest computer" could be read to extend to any computer involved in interstate commerce, it's still pretty hard for you to crack stuff on your own box without your authorization.
(Maybe you could get plastered one night and wake up the next morning, hung over, and the string "cat /dev/zero > /dev/hd0" on your terminal, and charge yourself? ;-)
> [does the law against resisting unlawful arrest] apply in extremis?
Ultimately, it'd have to be decided, on a case-by-case basis, in court. It probably comes down to whatever standards the cop in question was trained with. If he's trained to beat the living hell outa everyone he meets for parking violations, well, the citizens of his county will likely vote in a new Sheriff next time around. (Or not, as is their right if they're feeling masochistic, in which case, perhaps you should move to another county when you get out of hospital ;-)
More seriously, if you really believe the arresting officer was breaking the law (e.g. started firing on your grandmother for a parking ticket), you (or your next-of-kin) turn around and either sue in civil court or press charges.
Sometimes that doesn't work. (Rodney King I). Sometimes it does. (Rodney King II). Ultimately, the judicial system comes down to "You pays your lawyer and you takes your chances".
Thanks for a reasoned response to a reasoned nibble on the troll ;)
You people are so full of yourselves. Real-world crime is down? Why? Because kids are playing violent video games? I think not.
You know for a fact that no kid has ever been influenced by a video game/movie/music? Puhleeeez.
Think about the world for a change and not just your little cubicle.
Well if that's how you feel, being an American should make any one feel arrogant, since it's the best God Damn Nation on this Planet to live and breath!
"Anonymous Coward," Is that not how you say... Ashamed?
God Moving Over the Face of Waters
According to Godwin's Law, you just lost.
Godwin's Law (prov.)
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
When you can prove to me that a video game actually directly caused someone injury, then you can use that line of reasoning.
Liberty in your lifetime
Since I live in Texas, this is good to know (and about what I figured and with which I agree).
You are not legally or morally justified in using force aginast a police officer attempting to make a legal arrest. In the case of an unjust law the time to make your stand is not when you are being arrested, but when you are tried in court. This is both your legal and moral obligation.If the law required killing jews, assasinating police officers would not change the law. Killing police officers *might* save a few lives (and could only be justified if you were only killing officers attempting to enforce this law), but would not get the law changed. So most of the jews would eventually be dead anyway.
Dunno, though that would certainly be a state of civil war, if it came to such a hypothetical scenario. You can't change or fight the law within a corrupt legal framework -- force is the only option, but, of course, a last resort. The catch-22 is knowing when, objectively, the law is corrupt. Massive civil unrest is probably a good indicator of this, and no, we are not there yet, but I suspect we are closer than we'd like to admit.
Agreed that liberty must be defended, but we currently live with a system that is designed to protect our liberties, and provide redress for wrongs. As long as the system is intact and functioning violence is neither necesary nor justified. Violence is only justified when there is not a non-violent solution.
No argument from me there.
Still, the thought of being arrested, jailed, and abused, in response to a relatively peaceful act of civil disobedience (watching a movie I paid to watch, albeit using a tool that could be perverted for crime), does make one wonder if the law is corrupt already -- clearly such a punishment can not reasonably fit the "crime" -- and the slippery slope of forceful defense justified.
That's part of the problem here: if it were a question of "break the law, pay the fine" no act of violence could be justified -- you break the law in protest, you pay the fine, and demonstrate your reasoned opposition to the law. But here, you watch a movie, and with only a little stretched interpretation of the law, you might find yourself facing a firing squad for treason. DMCA violation -> hacking -> cyber-terrorism -> terrorism -> treason -> death sentence. Suddenly the thought of dying while resisting arrest under protest because of fear of the possible punishment doesn't seam so unreasonable (the "I can't take it anymore syndrome") Once you reach that point, why not take others along for the ride that would have been instruments of your demise?
Under present circumstances, such reasoning is born of paranoia, and rational reexamination rejects making such a stand. Still, the present legal climate encourages rather than discourages such paranoia in the first place. And that can't be a good thing.
You could've hired me.
I currenly live and have lived in Texas for quite some time. Texas doesn't edit Shakespeare and it is NOT illegal to sell/read/purvey/buy/ or write Shakespeare. Learn your facts before you post. Yes, you can buy vibrators and whatever else you want. In fact, most of Okla comes to our state to get them since "showing penetration" is still illegal there. Pr0n is not only legal here, but readily available from numerous stores. The Texas constituation is chock full of weird and arcane laws. Many states are similar. For example, it IS illegal in Texas to carry wire cutters in your saddle bags. I don't think pointing out a few arcane laws (and ones that don't exist, mind you) makes you an authority on Texas and how the people of Texas govern themselves. For the most part, this is a conservative state -- but it is a LONG LONG way from being as crazy as you imply. I can think of MANY states that are much more backwards than Texas -- Kansas for starters (evolution). Oklahoma is up there, for sure.
OK, I went to that site. It's just an ad for some guys book. I also couldn't find anything about limiting liberty. It seems his thesis is that the entire public school system in this country was started by robber barons to sell stuff. He also looses credibility for the fact that none of the outrageous statements on the site are backed up by links or sources; I guess I'd have to buy the book for that. Oh, the irony.
One other thing: I don't live in school. Maybe you do, but the school system is not the system I was refering to in my previous post.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
True enough, but is the CSS "computer" in the DVDROM drive mine to hack? The DMCA suggests that it might not be. Furthermore, even if I can hack for my own use, my disclosure, even briefly, of how I did it, with libdvdcss.so, constitutes "trafficing in a circumvention device" (since, in this networked world, identifying the tool is tantamount to providing it).
About the only defense I can think of relates to (a) interoperability issues and (b) the fact that libdvdcss.so is designed as a player plugin (though it wouldn't take much to use it in a ripper).
You could've hired me.
And the framers of the constituion knew this too. Thus the seperation of powers. The Legislative branch makes the laws, and the Judical is charged with enforcing them or striking them down. These are two systems that were desgined to operate independatly of each other. There is no reason in the world why Congress could not pass an unconstitutional law (they do it all the time) but that is why we have courts and judges.
The extreme case that you pose has happend many times in history, and it has never been stopped by civil disobediance, or even killing those carrying out the laws. In those extrodinary circumstances where the law is so perverted and unjust it takes outright civil (if not world) war to stop such things.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Being a foreigner here on a work visa, you shouldn't qualify for constitutional rights. Go home if you want rights. Only citizens of this great country of ours should be allowed constitutional rights.
Where does US constitution even mention "citizens" except in relation to elections? Nor for that matter does the US constitution grant rights. It says what government can and cannot do. Specifically it says that laws of a certain type cannot be passed by the federal government (1st ammendment), in another place it states that laws of a different type cannot be passed by any level of goverment and if even if this should happen they must be ignored (14th ammendment).
First we got fucked when they introduced this
into law, and now we are getting fucked again with the penalty.
It's nice to know why my property taxes are going up at least.
Fucking politics
I think you misread the article. Indianapolis required that children would only be able to play those games if they have their parents written concent. I.e., the idea was exactly that parents should have full control. At home, the parents can excercise direct control, but they have less control of what they kids do in public arcades. Given this, it seems that the law was in perfect agreement with your sentiments.
However, civil disobedience has turned the tide against less extreme abuses, witness the whole Civil Rights movement. It appears an appropriate course of action here. In this case, it means using DeCSS and it's derivatives freely, and publicly, but not to circumvent legitimate copyright interests (i.e. to rip movies from DVDs to give to others who do not have them already).
You could've hired me.
There's two things going on. Thing 1 - the DMCA violation, to which you may be able to use interoperability as a defence (and that defence is indeed strengthened by your use of libdvdcss.so, as opposed to the Windows executables used in DVD-rippers), and Thing 2 - the "terrorism" of "unauthorized access to a federal interest computer", which ain't happening, because: (a) you own the "computer" in question, so even if your use thereof violates the DMCA, it's authorized tampering. (b) nothing is crossing state lines when you h4x0r the firmware, nor is any interstate commerce being performed on the DVD-ROM drive, which means that the drive isn't a "federal interest computer" even under the most generous reading of the law.
So, should someone piss in Jack Valenti's Metamucil tomorrow morning, you could be charged with a DMCA violation like Sklyarov, but there's nothing you've done that could be construed as violating the new antiterrorism measures. In short, you probably have pretty much the same rights as any citizen when it comes to being a DMCA test case.
But, at the same time, I know damn well that such comforts exist because of the liberty I and other have (to engage in trade, associatation, and other peaceful activities). Such liberties have to be defended, and in this case, damnit, I (a) run [GNU/]Linux (not really trusting Windows, and prefering the stability and order of a Unix-like O/S), (b) bought the family a few DVDs (despite my general boycott) for Christmas, and (c) got stuck with a broken DVD player, and don't want to be inconvenienced by a stupid law that makes non-harmful actions illegal. In short, it isn't a hypothetical debate for me any more -- I've got movies and want to watch them!
If I've lost the trivial liberty to watch a movie that I've paid to watch, what other liberties will follow? This one, at least, can be defended with peaceful civil disobedience, without resorting to violence at the outset. It strikes me as a good pragmatic example of defending an abstract principle.
But I'm sure if I am arrested, it won't be for my pragmatic actions, it will likely be because of my principles. But the bottom line is that I can no longer silently live in a world where peaceful activities are made illegal at an alarming rate. I am compelled to resist. It is unnatural to deny a desire for freedom for one's self that is not at the expense of another.
You could've hired me.
I tend to agree but I don't know if that's a reason to be joyful or depressed.
You could've hired me.
You know... that was funny when Lewis Black first said it... from you it sounds cheap and ripped off without credit...
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
Danz said. "We're blowing taxpayer money at a time when we need to be looking at things like sewers."
:)
;-)
:)
But seriously, why didnt they just make a simple little age-restriction deal like at the movies? Simple enough, age-check. But noooo, they had to have a note from mommy!
Sheesh.
And aint it funny that the "industry" challenged the legislation that prevented minors from playing violent games, and not the part about sexual content?
Is there such a thing as a sexual game?
Instead of FPS we could be playing FPF! Man, I wouldnt leave the arcade EVER!
You can't take the sky from me...
First of all, let me preface my comment by saying that I am a strong defender of the First Amendment and individual liberties, and that it bothers me incredibly when I see the way our rights are being taken away and that people are eager to give it up.
But is this really unconstitutional? Under the assumption that sexually explicit material should hidden from children, and not displayed publicly (which is a big assumption), what makes this any different? Why should anyone of any age be allowed to view and participate in violent carnage, but not see a peep show?
I am very familiar with the arguments saying that parents should take responsibility for their children. But I think those arguments only apply to videogames that can be played in the home. If they said videogames with graphic violence cannot be sold in the US I would have a big problem with that. But the law they were fighting for only made violent videogames a problem if they were played in public.
The real question, summed up, is this: How can there be people who don't have a problem (that is, that they believe it to be inconsistent and illogical, not just that they don't like how it affects them) with the restrictions on pornography and sexually explicit material, but do have a problem with this restriction? How is this any more a violation of the First Amendment than the restrictions on pornography?
http://www.dvdgame.jp/product/photo.html
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
This has been nothing but headaches for arcade goers. I'm a college student and I can't tell how irritating it was to get carded at an arcade. The way most arcades were doing it (the ones who use cards not tokens) they'd put out two sets of cards, one programmed to play any game, and one that won't play the over-16 games. Alot of the time I'd just end up trading with some poor under-16 smchuck, take his card and go back up to the counter and complain that I was given a under-16 card. I liked to think of it as "freedom-fighting". :)
Yes, killing. It does sound crazy at first glance, but what it boils down to is the human principles of inaliable human rights. There is a reason that they are called principles (because they superseed all other things), and inaliable (because no one has a right to prevent you from exercising them). At the end of the day, if it came down to maintaining your human rights or letting your oppressors live, then killing them isn't necessarily wrong. Personally, I prefer Ghandhi's approach, but I'm not prepared to say that killing isn't an option under those circumstances. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be surprised if you wake up one day to find you're being filmed and triangulated for every moment of your life, having conversations logged, your books confiscated, and subject to all the other nightmarish things that can happen when people don't defend their rights early enough.
You say we should judge him by the standards of his day. Does that apply to Hitler?
-- SIGFPE
All I gotta say
We haven't bothered covering the recurring news of declining real-world violence (while video games just get more gruesome and explicit), mostly because it's the same story over and over.
:)
If thats the case, then why do you let JonKatz continue submit his drivel over and over?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Wrongo!
In California, at least, it is explicitly legal to breastfeed in public.
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/cabreast.html
The page states that California is the "13th state to make such an affirmation".
So, breastfeeding is legal in at least 13 states in the US.
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
"You can push them
out of a plane, you can march them off a cliff, you can send them to die
on some god-forsaken rock. But for some reason, you can't slap 'em."
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The Legislative branch makes the laws, and the Judical is charged with enforcing them or striking them down.
You are wrong about the legal system. The _executive_ branch enforces the laws. The purpose and status of the legal branch was not very significant until John Marshall gave power to the Supreme Court by declaring that it, not the states, could declare a law unconstitutional.
Before that, some states used the theory of nullification to shoot down the Alien and Sedition Acts [1], which were blatantly unconstitutional. These were in the form of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Nullification was later an issue when South Carolina said that it could nullify a law related to slavery.
[1] These acts basically prevented any anti-Federalist speech. The Federalist party was a political party led by Hamilton and Adams that supported nationalism, while the Democratic-Republicans were created by Jefforson and Madison, who supported states' rights. The D-R party was a party for the masses, later called the Democratic party. The Federalists were in favor of control by the elite, putting their ideals into the Constitution.
you bitch. you post off topic and you get what 5 karma. this proves just how fucked up the rating system is. i mean i post some dumbass thing that everyone knows is fucking true and i get negitive karma. just b/c i cuss everyone automaticly assumes that i am not smart. excatly the opposite i am not the smartest but i am smart enough to figure out that size does matter. look at almost all the 5 karma posts are long. i could probly post somthing about some girls tits and as long as it was about a page long nobody would read it and just assume it was wort upgrading for karma. i read enough to realise that most of the actual smart ones are just a few sentances. so you fuckers remember that next time you are rating peoples comments. ok. peace out. players stay up!
haha, well said!
holy crap, i actually remember that from history class....
the interesting thing is how a supreme court justice decides that he has the power to make laws unconstitutional, taking away this "implied" power from the states...
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
The parent post was cut and pasted from here.
If I had a hammer, I'd treat you like a nail. No, that's the wrong way to deal with a human object.
Precious metal and stones are valuable cause they're hard to get. Take a basic economics course. Actually, this is too basic for Economics 101. Head back to grade school.
There are plenty of things that are hard to get that are not worth a cent. You won't find rhubidium earings at a pawn shop anytime soon. I can let you think of cruder examples. Think!
Porn represents sex. You can add some other stuff in there, but someone looking at two sweaty naked people going at it and say "Obviously the extension of a male dominated society blah blah blah" is looking for things that just aren't there.
Porn is about people reduced to their genitals. Much of it is misogynist, but that's not from any love of the men abused by the industry. Sometimes it's about force, more often than that it's about people being overwhelmed by urges. That's because the primary market is loosers who have to pay for sex. They have a snoball's chance of ever having a normal reciprical relationship as they have been trained to be incapable of one themsleves. The thing perpetuates itself in an endless cycle of failure, hoplessnes and hatred. If there were no loosers, there would be no porn. If there were fewer people trying to profit from such discrouagement, there would be fewer loosers. Shame on those who know better but continue to harm others. The money you spend on porn does not make it back to the "artists".
Your strawman is presumptuious and lacks originality.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You know the funny thing about the ruling is that the arcade industry is close to kaput anyway. The only players left that I know of are Namco, Sega, and I think Capcom, all of whom are multimillion-dollar companies (zaibatsus?) in Japan. Seems people would rather get masochistic in the privacy of their own home.;)
This will probably be marked down as a troll, but the question has always bothered me: Why is sex a bad thing? In any instance, actually. Why is is violence on television a bad thing? Okay, that one I can see, though as noted multiple times there is no evidence that media violence translates to real violence. "Bad" words? What's the point?
So my question comes in two parts: First, why do we say that certain arrangements of phonemes are bad? It can't be meaning, because we can reword it and get past the censors, so it's just the sound we're concerned about. Second, why does the government get to regulate this?
And, as a third point, what makes you think children are any different from adults in this sense? What is the difference between someone 17 and 18, that one can handle GTA3 or Postal, while the other can't?
These decisions can only be made by parents, and later by individuals. I'm not sure these decisions need to be made at all, but if so, then definitely not by government.
If I had a hammer, I'd treat you like a nail. No, that's the wrong way to deal with a human object.
/Kg
Correct. I'm glad you agree with me.
There are plenty of things that are hard to get that are not worth a cent. You won't find rhubidium earings at a pawn shop anytime soon. I can let you think of cruder examples. Think!
Ok. Looked up the price of, and here is the correct spelling, rubidium.
FOR SALE - RUBIDIUM (RB-85 72.26%, RB-87 27.74%)
Nikola Stepashin rubidium@writeme.com
We offer Rubidium Isotopes Rb-85 : 72.26 ± 0.2 %, Rb-87 : 27.74± 0.2 % Purity > 99.9 % Quantity 125 Kg, 12.5 Kg per unit Price$22000
Looks valuable to me. Logic only goes so far. You'll have to head out into the real world to back up your statements.
They have a snoball's chance of ever having a normal reciprical relationship as they have been trained to be incapable of one themsleves.
Wow, I guess all those couples who rent porn are just kidding themselves.
Your spelling is atrocious and seeing how you drug in some silly comment about the RIAA makes me believe you're a troll. Strawman? Sheesh.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
The parent post is a plagiarized copy of http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~wolfe/e309/spring99/pr ojects/markm/page3.htm
Apparently no article is deemed important. I submit plently of good articles to Slashdot, some of them of high-importance for the Linux or tech-law crowd, but they never get published, and I don't even see it from anybody else, either. (I could understand if the article has already been submitted by other people.)
Zodiac Survey