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.
Is this a great country or what? :-)
John
John
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
Simple: The Bush administration and its robed lackeys are getting nostalgic for the Taliban (the reigning masters of the pro-violence, anti-sex agenda). Re-elect Bush and we might catch up!
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
When they did the movie, no more bed scene, but rather a gory scene where the baron drinks the kid's blood straight from his aorta.
Looks like the yankees have a sick, perverted mentality where it's okay so suck blood, but not to suck dick.
Killing? (I can't tell if you're being serious... I'm really hoping that this is an ad absurdium argument.... please...)
It doesn't matter if you think your actions are correct. You've given up a piece of your personal soverignty to live here, as we all have just to remain citizens. We are obligated by that to endure any punishments the leaders we have elected decide to bring down upon us. In other words, if you don't like it: move. (What a horrible sounding argument). My argument here is that it is not wrong to break the law, but it is wrong to try to avoid any punishments that you may receive as a consequence. In other words, the law has no moral compass.
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!
And I'll have to respectfully disagree with that statement.
1. We're a free society. we have certain freedoms, guaranteed by the constitution. This means we have freedom of expression. A video game is someone's expression.
2. Most of the violence today has nothing to do with video games. It's mostly because of the soft parenting that politicians have promoted in recent years. People don't dicipline their children anymore. They let their children get away with murder (figuratively speaking, but, then again
The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout
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.
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 ====
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.
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.
Yes, there are some things that need to be separated from children. Paedophiles, pederasts and censors spring to mind. Other than that it's my job to instill my values into my children (which will have a greater or lesser degree of success depending on their personality). I don't want my children drinking in bars, but that doesn't mean I want to close down all the bars in my neighbourhood.
--
E_NOSIG
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.
> 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
Risk :)
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?
1. We're a free society. we have certain freedoms, guaranteed by the constitution. This means we have freedom of expression. A video game is someone's expression.
...)
This law didn't interfere with the creator's write to make a video game, it prevented minors (who are not, and shouldn't be, granted full Constitutional protections) from using that game. There is a difference. While I personally disagree with the ordinance, you have to recognize that this issue, like most, is not so cut-and-dried as most people here like to think.
2. Most of the violence today has nothing to do with video games. It's mostly because of the soft parenting that politicians have promoted in recent years. People don't dicipline their children anymore. They let their children get away with murder (figuratively speaking, but, then again
How is this politicians' faults? I mean, we blame them for everything under the sun, but what "soft parenting" laws have they created? I feel that people don't discipline their children as much anymore because they're not around to do so. We've created a society where in most families both the parents have to work simply to make ends meet. Children are not monitored suffiently not because of moral failure on someone's part (except maybe the corporations that have created this situation), but because of economic necessity.
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
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.
If you pay 45% of your income in taxes, you make enough money so that this doesn't apply to you, and can easily support your child with no need for a second income; the highest federal tax rate is 39.6%, which applies only if you make more than $288,350. If state taxes push that to 45%, you can always move to a state without income tax.
If the politicians would READ the constitution, they would find that gov't ONLY has the power to tax imported / exported goods. The unconstitutional income tax (the amendment was never ratified) is the direct cause of the situation you're concerned with.
The Constitution DOES allow for taxation beyond imported/exported goods, and always has. Section 8 states: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the income tax levied during the Civil War was legal. Any reasonable person reading it can see that it allows the government to levy taxes. There is some uncertainty as to whether it can apply to directly taxing individuals, which is why the 16th amendment was created. The only people who claim that it wasn't ratified are people who are so incensed at having to turn over money that they construct elaborate fictions to justify not doing so. Point me to one reputable legal scholar who claims the 16th amendment wasn't ratified.
I guess we're moving offtopic though.
Furthermore, children are not "monitored" sufficiently by their parents because at some point in time, responsibility became a foreign concept in this society.
I hear this a lot, but haven't seen any proof. From time immemorial people have complained about decreasing moral standards, and if this were true by this point we'd be living in sewers. Was there suddenly spontaneous moral decay? What caused it?
If we had never tried to legislate away stupidity, outlaw recreation or mandate education, parents would necessarily be more involved in their children's lives.
These laws didn't just spring spontaneously into existence. They were created in response to specific problems. You really want to improve things? Force the television networks to cut their programming schedule down to a few educational and news shows a day. Cut the workday down to a sane amount. Offer more vacation time to parents. Stop treating education as a robot factory, and cut down class size to a fraction of what it is. Make it illegal to advertise any product to children. Create a society that isn't a constant assault on a child's psyche. I know that we can't legislate all this, but let's at least try, and if that means we have a few municipalities trying to cut down on the virtual gore little Johnny sees, well at least they're trying, and I'm not going to demonize them for doing it like everyone else on this forum.
As it is, the consequences of "failure" have been diminishing with time due to paternalistic laws and increases in welfare / bankruptcy / whatever.
So what do you propose? We resurrect the idea of debtor's prison?
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."
That figures... The news media (TV in particular) is largely liberal, and believes in govt. as our protector.
Well, I would sorta agree with you. I think that news media are largely liberal. But I think that there is a large conservative element out there that champions this exact same issue. The concept of "Family Values" is a conservative one, and government censorship, be it a ban on flag burning, keeping evolution from being taught in schools, or what have you, is not an unknown idea among conservatives.
I think the violent video games issue is neither exclusively liberal or conservative. This is probably an issue that has crossover appeal.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
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". :)