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
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.
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.
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
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
Simple, my trolling friend.
Learn to raise your children to understand what's real from what's not.
Back in pioneer days, the father of the family kept a loaded musket by the doors, and somehow none of the kids picked it up and shot their siblings/friends. Even when the parents were away.
How?
They taught their kids wrong from right, good from bad, imaginary from reality.
I played doom since the day it came out on my 286-12MHZ box. And somehow I still became a rational engineer with a family and no history of violence....
Parenting isn't done by just letting your kids watch TV and play videogames. You gotta make sure they understand that its for fun.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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.
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
Maybe you could suck it up and actually spend time with your kids, so that they aren't emotionally bankrupt and are able to play pseudo-violent games and see boobs without becoming scarred, twisted depraved killers. Parents need to take some damn responsibilty.
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!
Its not the govenments job to monitor your kids, its your job to monitor your kids, and teach them the difference between right and wrong, and whats good and bad. I am joking, and if your comment was a joke, I didn't at all take it as such. It really isn't the job of govenment to do these things its your job as a parent. My parents "Always" knew where I was when I was kid. I had to tell them, and if I wasn't where i was supposed to be, doing what i was supposed to be doing, there was hell to pay. It was the fear of hell to pay that kept me generally on the stight and narrow. If I got sent to my room it was a punishment. No TV, no Video games, no stereo, or any of that just isolation and time to think about what I did.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
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.
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.
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.
True. And let me be the first reply that doesn't instruct you that keeping your kids away from violent materials is solely your job. It really does take a village to raise a child. As a fellow parent, I have to try pretty hard to counteract the media's seeming desire to get my kids to watch (and play with) sex and violence all day. Although parents obviously are the primary moral resource for their children, it makes it harder for us when the rest of the country seems pretty comfortable with the availibility of sex and violence in the media. Do I have to be with my kids every second in order to help them make decisions that they can't possibly be equipped to make on their own? It's impossible, so society has to step in at some point and help.
To those that support violent content in public places: would you rather there be a bouncer at the door checking IDs? That way, a 17-year-old kid couldn't play Donkey Kong in order to keep minors from playing GTA.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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
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.
Back in pioneer days, the father of the family kept a loaded musket by the doors, and somehow none of the kids picked it up and shot their siblings/friends. Even when the parents were away.
How?
They taught their kids wrong from right, good from bad, imaginary from reality
I'm afraid that's BS, the difference was there was no mass-media a la CNN et al informing the pioneer's of times when the kids went postal...
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
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.
Best Way To Keep You Kids Away From Sex and Violence(tm):
Throw away your television. In fact, throw it away before they are born. Raise your kids without it. It may take a village (thank you, Hillary), but it STARTS at home. If your HOME is a safe environment, the big bad world of violence outside won't hurt them.
Re: Violent content in public places:
Arbitrary age restictions on ANYTHING are stupid. As I said in a previous post, tell your kids they aren't allowed to play violent games. Can't trust them if you aren't watching? Why not? If you can't trust them, why are they at the arcade alone? I hate kids. _I_ am NOT responsible for YOUR children.
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
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...
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.
It really does take a village to raise a child.
You know what happens when you let a village raise a child?
You get the village idiot.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
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
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 beautiful irony of this is that its apparently ok for kids to pick up whores on the roadside of the red light district and bang em, but killing a pimp for money's not okay....
Well, yes - that is sort of the way it works in the real world too. Prostitution is not as bad as killing. So I'm not too sure why you think it is a beautiful irony. Perhaps you've played too many video games....
Simple, my trolling friend.
Why is this guy a troll? Because he didn't follow the majority, and actually decided to post as such?
Back in pioneer days, the father of the family kept a loaded musket by the doors, and somehow none of the kids picked it up and shot their siblings/friends.
Look around you. It's not the pioneer days anymore. It's not even the 1950s. Those children lucky enough to even have two parents are still waiting for them both to get home from work. Kids watch a lot more TV today than they did even 10 years ago. Media is becoming pervasive faster than parents can be expected to react. Games, movies, and telivision are much more realistic, special-effects-wise than they ever were.
They taught their kids wrong from right, good from bad, imaginary from reality.
All of which they learned from their own parents, who grew up believing that many of the things we take for granted in media were sick and depraved. Our parents saw a little more adult material growing up than their parents, and we more than our own. What takes place in GTA would have been unthinkable even to market to adults 20 years ago.
I played doom since the day it came out on my 286-12MHZ box. And somehow I still became a rational engineer with a family and no history of violence....
So did I, and I seem to be OK too. Will my kids be alright growing up with Quake III Arena or GTA4? Who knows? Not a gamble I'm looking foward to taking. I know for some kids, it didn't work out as well, given the rash of school shootings a year or so ago. Can that be bleamed on video games? Maybe not, but it's hard to believe that constant violence in the media didn't have something to do with something.
Parenting isn't done by just letting your kids watch TV and play videogames.
Of course not, but rare is the household without at least one TV and one computer. Now the family arcade has to be off-limits because of violent games.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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.
I get it, even though I was very young at the time of Pac-Man.
/. before. The guy who posted it then commented on how he was going to turn out the lights, put on some techno and play Quake III Arena while munching on Altoids.
I've seen it here on
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
And why is that "constitutional literalist" trying to divert taxpayers dollars to religious groups? I could have sworn there was something in the first amendment to stop that from happening...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.
Doh!
You could've hired me.
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!
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.
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.
This isnt the gov't saying what a private owner can or cant have this is the fed gov't telling local gov't that they cant tell the private owner what they can or cant have...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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.
Because the parents don't censor content. They're too busy working and behaving immorally with each other, all the time assuming that the government will do their parental jobs for them. The same government provides free inferior-education babysitting most of the year, so why wouldn't it be expected do other parenting jobs as well?
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
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.
and has pretty much ripped up the Bill of Rights from No 3. on
Please cite evidence proving Ashcroft has sought to allow forcible quartering of soldiers in private households.
You do know what what Amendment Three says, don't you?
So please back up your poorly-punctuated assertion about "No. 3 on." Otherwise, I will simply dimiss you as yet another immature, Constitutionally misinformed, knee-jerk slashdot wannabe geek.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
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.
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.
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.
"It really does take a village to raise a child."
Oh really?
That's one of the most idiotic things to come out of the Clinton years. I am NOT responsible for YOUR kid. He/she is YOURS. YOU chose to accept the responsibility. I don't recall you asking me if our little "village" could handle another kid.
And if I am somehow responsible for the care and upbringing (aside from the taxes I already pay for school, etc) of your little rugrat, then what say we talk child support?
Here's what you can expect from me with respect to your kid. If some other kid starts a fight, I'll break it up, someone tries to snatch your kid, he/she is gonna have hell to pay, your kid is lost/scared/needs help, they'll get it cuz its simply the right and proper thing to do. But its still solely your job to raise your kid.
If I run an arcade, I may choose to have an "adult content" section for older teens or adults with stuff I think is a little much for younger kids (or maybe so those people can simply avoid the hassle of dealing with little kids). But it should be my choice, just like its the parent's choice to let their kid into the place, escorted or not.
I'm sure all you parents have checked with the parents of your child's friends to see if there's a gun in the house, did you bother asking about copies of GTA, etc. I don't know about you but I believe there are far more game systems in home than there are arcades, it hard to even find an arcade these days actually, at least around my home.
You chose to raise a kid, now you have to accept the job, keep track of them and what they are doing. While your at it, keep them off my lawn.
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.
"You should have the freedom and the right to take it out without Big Brother intervention."
But that's just it. The whole point of your constitution is that, no matter how much people whine and complain, you CANNOT make laws to prevent stuff like this.
Without big brother intervention? You don't NEED big brother intervention. By getting together and passing a bylaw, YOU become big brother, don't you see that?
The arcade owner is fully free to not carry games he does not approve of morally, as are all the shop owners free to not carry games they don't like, etcetera.
ANd if the mall owner doesn't like the shop owner, he's free not to rent to him again when is lease is up, etcetera.
WHat? Not everyone hates these games? Then why should a vocal minority be able to ban it?
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.
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.
Ok, it's a troll, but I'll bite. First of all, I couldn't help but notice your sig, which is a bastardized version of a very popular quote these days: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither" or something to that effect. So how do you go from whining that we're not censoring enough to saying that we shouldn't give up any liberties in the same breath? Second, I think video games are the least of your worries. Have you seen what's on TV lately? Do you listen to the radio? Read any magazines? Are you planning to tie up your kids in the closet? You've already said you can't watch them 24/7. If you haven't instilled in your children the proper morals to know what's right and what's wrong, regardless of what tv/video games/radio/the internet says, then no ammount of censorship will help - the blame will be squarely on you.
do not read this line twice.
I wonder how many will read that, shrug, and go to a rave. ;-)
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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!
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
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 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
Arcade owner: What happen?
Arcade operator: Somebody set up us the ban.
Arcade operator: We get phone call.
Arcade owner: What?
Arcade operator: Main line pick up.
Arcade owner: It's you!!!
Mayor: How are you gentlemen???
Mayor: All your game are belong to us!!!
Mayor: You are on the way to bankruptcy.
Arcade owner: What you say???
Mayor: You have no chance to profit, make your time.
Mayor: Ha ha ha
Arcade owner: Take off every lawyer.
Arcade operator: You know what you doing.
Arcade owner: Move lawyer.
Arcade owner: For great constitutional reference.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I don't believe in god, but I don't think it should be on the FCC's bad-word list...
And yet countless studies have shown that the benefit of having two incomes is offset by the additional costs incured for most families of avergae income. Children are only forced to live in parentless households by their parents. We have created some kind of false standard to measure people by, if you don't have a career you aren't making a contribution. Even as recently as the 1970's society recognized that a mother made a great contribution by staying home and raising the children.
Our parents saw a little more adult material growing up than their parents, and we more than our own. What takes place in GTA would have been unthinkable even to market to adults 20 years ago.
"Adult" material isn't being forced on anybody. It is certainly more accessable than it was 20 years ago, but it is still up to the parent to keep it away from their kids _if_they_so_choose_ If people are choosing to expose themselves to more adult material that is more a reflection on idivudual attitudes than society. That the material is more available today is a reflection on the shift in societal values.
I know for some kids, it didn't work out as well, given the rash of school shootings a year or so ago. Can that be bleamed on video games?
Unfortunately for your argument and contrary to what CNN would have you believe, schools are actually safer than ever. A child is more likely to be beaten to death by abusive parents than killed in a school shooting.
The First Ammendment is the first ammendment for a reason. Once you take away people's right to say *anything* complete corruption of the system is not far behind. The unaltered right to speak one's mind and be exposed to others doing the same -- no matter how grotesque their thoughts, or art, or protest may be to you -- is _required_ for a democracy to survive.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
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)
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.
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.
"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.)
So what you're saying is that you believe in free speech and stuff, except when you don't, right?
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.
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.
The law is still on the books, though rarely enforced in Dallas or other big cities. Go looking through used bookstores in your area and you'll find some Houghton Mifflin editions specific to Texas and Texas only up into the 1980s...
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
You're assuming that the kids that participated in the shooting were the root cause (they are not blameless of course) but it's more likely that the kids that constantly picked on them and made their lives a lving hell were the cause. The ones that DIDN'T play games and had nothing better to do than torture other children.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
Heck, if you want StileProject off the net, all you have to do is get a Slashdot writeup on it.
Actually this reminds me of a local news broadcast (we're hard hitting!) on "the terror of filth on the web" where they had screenshots of the StileProject up and said "We aren't going to give out the URL because it might increase his hits". It reminded me of the old Simpson's line:
Cheif Wiggum (to Ralph): What IS your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?
I read the internet for the articles.
I know for some kids, it didn't work out as well, given the rash of school shootings a year or so ago. Can that be bleamed on video games? Maybe not, but it's hard to believe that constant violence in the media didn't have something to do with something.
Please read the very relevant links in the Slashdot post before commenting. Thank you.
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....
Well, yes - that is sort of the way it works in the real world too. Prostitution is not as bad as killing. So I'm not too sure why you think it is a beautiful irony. Perhaps you've played too many video games....
Just to clarify, I think he meant REAL whores, but DIGITAL pimps, because prostitution is legal in Australia, but GTA3 is not.
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
And, to be fair, it isn't just Shakespeare. Publishers will still do "Texas Only" editions of books. In fact, check out this portion of your state's penal code and scroll down about a third of the way and see what Texas officially defines as "obscene."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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 ;)
Why should childeren be "lucky" to have 2 parents?
Is that some kind of a joke? How many studies have to show that children of two-parent households are better adjusted and overall more sucessful before you believe me? Are you saying that maybe kids are better off without fathers? Yikes.
The simple solution to the "too much TV" problem is to encourage your kids to interact with other children instead of a picture tube, but then again, who wants that, the TV is such an easy thing.
Actually, television has a lot of power to educate, PBS being a prime example. You're right, it is easier to plop the brat in front of a TV set, especially if you just got home from a 10-hour-day at work, and still have to clean and get dinner ready. TV doesn't have to be as bad an idea for a childhood activity, if it wasn't mostly mindless garbage protected as if it was political speech. And what for your suggestion that children should go out and interact with other children? Have you ever met some of these kids? My kids are probably better off with Mr. Krueger than most of their neighbors these days.
There is no excuse for bad parents.
Of course not. Not everyone can be as great a parent as you are. What's that? You don't actually have any kids? Suprise, suprise.
If you let media teach your kids, then you deserve what they become.
As if it's actually possible to keep a nine-year-old away from media. The point is that there's no "let". Media is everywhere, all the time, and it keeps getting worse and worse. As a parent, I can work to counteract this, but why should I have to? So that you can put a quarter in a videogame you like? C'mon, try to think outside your own world once in a while.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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.
Uh, yeah, from now on, I'll never disagree with blessed Slashdot or statistics ever, ever again. Sheesh.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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
In my memory, the hardest game I could get ahold of was Leisure Suit Larry. Maybe I wasn't running with the right circles, but I don't remember a single utterance of the F-word, or a game that rewarded the player for picking up whores. I do remember some pretty bad bitmapped animated porn "movies" for the AppleIIe, but they were few and far between.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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).
Not only that, but Japanese entertainment (TV/Movies/OAV Video/Video Games) has the most violence of any in the world. Japan not only has the most violent entertainment in the world, but a pretty violent past. And yet, folks...Japan still has one of the lowest crime rates in the Known World.
Odd, isn't it?
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Now, why would a publisher make a specific edition for only one state unless there was legality involved? Why the expense? That's a lot of work, and money, to make a special edition for one state unless the legal ramifications are more expensive.
The point to all of this was that Dubya isn't some paragon of personal and private thought. He came from a state with a backwards penal code, with updates to said penal code that he himself signed off on. He isn't some anti-government, pro-privacy zealot as some would like to point him out to be considering that, since 9/11 we've seen the largest expansion in Federal power since the 1960s. He isn't necessarily going to appoint judges to court that will shoot down laws such as the one that was shot down...
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.
What is the point of your arguments? All you've basically stated is that it's harder to be a parent now than it was before. Boo hoo.
Nobody forced you to have a kid. That was a choice you made on your own. Take some god damn responsibility for the choice you made. If you and your spouse don't have time for your kid, then why did you have him in the first place? The problem is not the entertainment, it's the fact that too many people who give up on parenting and let the government and tv raise their kids because, "it's too hard", and "they don't have enough time." Make the time, you lazy, selfish people.
Adults say that kids have no respect for their parents anymore. Why should they when their parents don't care about them?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
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.
But please don't pretend Bush is innocent in all of this. Remember who brought us John Ashcroft. His record on racism, homophobia, anti-secularism and anti-freedom is also pasted all over the internet.
Yes, the poster certainly needs to go back and review the amendments. Ashcroft respects #2 (the right to bear arms) and it's been a very long time since anyone threatened #3. But he's certainly trying to rip up #1 (freedom of speech), #4-6 (search and seizure, self-incrimination, fair trials, etc.), and #9 IIRC (powers not specifically given to the federal gov't are reserved to the states and the people --prosecuting medical marijuana in the states that allow it, or for that matter, prosecuting non-interstate drug use and trading at all). I can't remember what # 7 and 8 were, so I can't definitely say that he's working on violating them, but I think we've already established a pattern...
Um, that leaves #10, which is the extremely vague catch-all about "unenumerated rights", from which the Supreme Court occasionally and inconsistently pulls a "right to privacy". How can I accuse anyone of attempting to break that one?
No, that is the consensus as to what the city has to do now. Go re-read the article.
I tend to agree but I don't know if that's a reason to be joyful or depressed.
You could've hired me.
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". :)
You say we should judge him by the standards of his day. Does that apply to Hitler?
-- SIGFPE
#8 is a *very* important one - it prohibits excessive bail and cruel/unusual punishment. So, would trucking Dmitri Skylarov (and many others, I suspect) around the country for two weeks before bringing him up before a judge for a bail hearing count as violating #8? Personally, I'd rate that as kidnapping across state lines...
Define art.
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.
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.
Throw away your television. In fact, throw it away before they are born. Raise your kids without it.
That's certainly a start, but isn't that kind of sad? That a device with such huge potential to educate has to be completely ignored by parents because 95% of even daytime content is unsuitable for childern?
Arbitrary age restictions on ANYTHING are stupid.
The use of the word "age" negates the term "arbitrary". An arbitrary restriction would be based on shirt color or position of the minute hand. When you are defining content as inappropriate for a given age group, age is the only thing you have to base restrictions on said content.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Two problems with that:
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
The use of the word "age" negates the term "arbitrary".
I'm not sure where you get this idea. Lets take the drinking age - you can't legally drink until you're 21. Completely aside from the issue of whether or not someone who's a full citizen of the US, who pays taxes, can be called up on to shed blood in defense of the state, and can be legally held responsible for thier own actions should be restricted from drinking alcohol, it's a totally arbitrary age with no basis whatsoever in anything concrete. It's basically an age picked out of a hat. I can't think of any age-limited activities that aren't similiary arbitrary, perhaps you can.
Well, in order to have a law using age restrictions as a guideline, an age at which to lift (or to begin imposing) those restrictions has to be established. Since it's impossible to allow children into an X-rated movie on a case-by-case basis, the age of majority is used. That age (18 in the 'states) is used for a lot of age-restricted legislation, like cigarette smoking. It may seem arbitrary, but it's time-tested, and working OK.
I'm wth you on the old-enough-to-die-not-old-enough-to-drink point, but any age limit is not an arbitrary restriction. The age itself may seem arbitrary, but the idea of using age as a limiting factor is not.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy