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.
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?
Is this a great country or what? :-)
John
John
don't put your quarter in the machine.
but don't take the right to choose away from everyone else.
ender-iii
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!!
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.
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.
When they did the movie, no more bed scene, but rather a gory scene where the baron drinks the kid's blood straight from his aorta.
Looks like the yankees have a sick, perverted mentality where it's okay so suck blood, but not to suck dick.
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.
I, for one, am a broad constructionist and I abhor censorship laws of this nature because of the fact that it takes the responsibility away from the parent allowing them to rely on the government for babysitting.
I'm thinking your touting of Dubya hasn't been thought out completely, considering the fact that he hails from Texas, a state that still, to this day, censors the works of Shakespeare sold in the state. Not just the works read in school or sold to children, but the works sold in the entire state to everybody.
I just saw LOTR, rated PG-13, (here on imdb) last week, and lots of parents brought their kids. We were sitting next to a woman and her 6 yr old daughter. I think that movie was a seriously traumatic experience for that kid. And yet sirens (here on imdb) was rated R for people running around naked, and barely even any sex. I'd take my 3 yr old to that any day.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
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.
Yes, there are some things that need to be separated from children. Paedophiles, pederasts and censors spring to mind. Other than that it's my job to instill my values into my children (which will have a greater or lesser degree of success depending on their personality). I don't want my children drinking in bars, but that doesn't mean I want to close down all the bars in my neighbourhood.
--
E_NOSIG
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?
By the way...nude beaches have nothing to do with sex. At least according to nudists that spend time there:) They just like to walk around nude without any sexual meaning whatsoever. People that immediately link nakedness to sex are a bit sick, I think. And those are the people making laws to prohibit things that are only wrong in their own weird way of thinking. That's like banning telephones because someone may get sexually aroused when they see them because they start to think of all the holes you can put them in:)
0x or or snor perron?!
There was an interesting article by Tad Friend in the Nov 19 2001 issue of The New Yorker (alas, no link as they don't seem to have a real online archive) about the conflict between the major TV networks' Standards and Practices departments and their creative departments. Lots of amusing anecdotes about past tussles.
i.e.
- the story of how after a year of negotiation after NYPD Blue's debut in 1993, Steven Bochco was able to persuade ABC to use exactly 37 vulgarities per episode, as long as he did not stray from an agreed on glossary of words. He could show breasts from the side (no nipples), and dorsal but not frontal nudity. He could suggest, but never show intercourse. 57 affiliates refused to air the first episode, and ABC couldn't charge its full ad rate on the show for years.
- In 1959 on CBS's "Playhouse 90", when 'Judgment at Nuremberg' was presented by the American Gas Association, they cut the word 'gas' from the script. So millions of Jews died in "...chambers."
- Aaron Sorkin (resp. for 'The West Wing') relates how "Standards and Practices made it very clear that I will be able to say 'motherfucker' on the air before I can take the Lord's name in vain. They fear that religious groups will aggressively boycott our show." The article goes on to detail how "in one episode last year, President Bartlet exploded about being bested by a 'damn street gang.' "It didn't ring true," Sorkin said. "I originally wrote 'goddamn street gang.' In the movies, it would have been 'fucking street gang.'""
A funny article. The issue also has a decent historical overview of the roots of Islamic conflict with the West. Your local library should have a copy...
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
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". :)