Slashdot Mirror
Video Games Not Protected Form of Speech
E-Rock writes "Video Games are lumped with child porn as unprotected forms of speech. "A federal judge said local governments can limit children's access to violent or sexually explicit video games, saying games are not constitutionally protected forms of speech." Story with limited details at Nando."
So, now that virtual child porn IS legal, what about virtual video games?
In other news, MegaGameCorp announced today that their planned Christmas 2002 release of "Child Porn: The First Person Shooter" will be delayed indefinitely...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I know at my local stores, if you want to buy a 'M'ature game, you have to show ID if you appear under 17. There are games which, quite frankly, aren't appropriate for that crowd. It's just the same as buying adult magazines and stuff--they won't let you in/let you buy if you're not of age. What's the big deal here?
sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
I hate seeing when a judge feels he has to play daddy for the civilians..... Guess what? The children under 17 already HAVE parents, and its THEIR jobs to see to the monitoring of their video games and television and reading habits. If the child *didn't* have parents to watch over them, i can assure you that most likely the child is seeing far worse things in their life than GTA3.
Yes, our government is supposed to protect us, its citizens.. But everyone i talk to agrees with me that micromanagement in a corporate environment sucks, isnt this just micromanagement from the government into a family unit?
Is not life a hundred times too short for us to bore ourselves? -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
The original law that was to be simply limited underage children:
"The ordinance, passed in 2000, would require children under 17 to have parental consent before they can buy violent or sexually explicit video games or play similar arcade games. "
(from the article)
I don't see anything wrong with this; it's the same way with movies in many places.
The problem is, of course, that once video games aren't protected as free speech, that they can start cracking down on whatever they feel like cracking down on.
Better protect your copies of GTA3!
We as Americans must demand unrestricted access to virtual crack hos getting blown up. Our Fore Fathers would be proud if they knew that little Jane and Jimmy American had the constitutionally protected right to mass gibs.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
If (at least in some states) source code is free speech, and games are just the result of that code, I don't see how this is going to hold up under appeal. IANAL (obviously).
This is just another example of how the US government is taking away basic freedoms from their citizens. At this point in our history, the average US citizen (naturalized or otherwise) have fewer freedoms and rights then under the British government prior to the Revolutionary War. We have more taxes, no real representation in Congress since the Senators and Representatives are bought and paid for by big bussiness. We can't bear arms in most cites, stories in the press are censored, our homes can be searched without a warrent under very weak excuses from the police, the state takes over federal control on a number of issues including gun control. It's only a matter of time before we can't cross the street without breaking the law.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
So, by that logic, if I tell a joke, it's entertainment and not speech?
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
In most places in the U.S., if you are under 17, you can't get into R-rated movies without an adult. If you are under 18, you can't buy a porn mag.
Why is that *any* different from restricting minors' access to certain video games? If society is going to allow freedom of expression in the content of games, it also has the responsibility of protecting vulnerable children from potentially harmful content. With freedom comes responsibility.
Parents, at home, they can let their kids play whatever games they want, or watch whatever movies, or look at whatever magazines. But in public space, there is a certain generally accepted level of protection for children that applies to all of these.
dinner: it's what's for beer
Why can't parents, and not the government, keep their children from violent and explicit games? And why can't we have a few more judges that have some common sense?
Every day you see more and more proof that the left is gaining more and more ground in this country. Things like this where government protection seems to be the only solution, so we slowly learn to accept more and more governmental control.
Yeah, I know, T(H)GSB, but oh well. This is important to me.
--- witty signature
Wow! Four games and he's got the whole thing figured out? Imagine if someone claimed they had read four books and understood the complete posibility of literary expression. How did this guy graduate from high school, much less law school?
-BlackFoliage
What about games that are porn? Am I the only person who actually enjoyed playing this series? It was risque, witty and very entertaining. Amazing that something so forward thinking hasn't been bothered to be duplicated with current game technology.
Hammer of Truth
They'll pry this joystick out of my cold, dead hands!
modern choral music...
We have a LOCAL LAW (important part) that states that children We have a judge that says that the law is OK.
These must be the same people that say that certain movie titles are not appropriate for children So again ... I fail to see what the problem is here.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
HEMOS: A federal judge said local governments can limit children's access to violent or sexually explicit video games
I'm not American so forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't children's access to violent or sexually explicit videos/books/sex shows/whore houses already limited over there as in the rest of the world and further more isn't this regarded as a good thing?
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
What those who might protest are forgetting is that until someone reaches the age of majority in the US, his/her rights - particularly "Constitutional" rights - are severely limited. Most rights that children have are those given to them by their parents.
They're *entertainment*, not speech...
So, I guess movies, music, and a good deal of literature are not speech, either.
Limbaugh said the county has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and emotional health of its children and assisting parents as guardians of their children's well-being.
If the county has the time and manpower to help parents "protect the physical and emotional health" of their children by worrying about what video games they play then the county needs to have it's budget cut. Most counties can't keep the potholes in their streets filled or balance their budgets and yet these guys want to help folks raise their kids... nope, sorry guys, I don't think so!
- The auditors said to secure the server... hand me that duct-tape -
How is this any different than restricting access to other forms of entertainment based on age?
Movies, music, magazines, etc. have been suffering the same way for years. This is not a troll: I am all for age-restriction of content. If I want my kids to see something, they'll see it, because I'll buy it and give it to them. Otherwise, I prefer that inappropriate speech be a little harder for them to access.
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
Limiting access to minors is one thing, while protecting free speach is other. It is very diferent, if you say that videogames are not protected by the freedom of speach, then one could censor a videogame, base in the fact that it has porn or violence. Censorship means that you can get the game even thougth you an adult.
If you limit the access of some videogames to children, would be just like a playboy magazine or alcoholic drinks, that can only be sold to an adult. One could argue that this is also bad, but it is certainly better then the above option. And if you are a father that don't agree with this, you can aways buy the game for your kid.
The article seem to indicate that this is case for this law.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
I guess I don't understand the reason why this was in front of a US judge to begin with; we are talking about restricting access of questionable material to children, not adults. If this is the case, then I really don't understand. These are children; they are supposed to have restricted access to violence and nudity. The video game group that filed this suit should be ashamed of themselves. The ordinance didn't ban the questionable video games, just limited access to them. I have to agree that it is a shame that we expect the law/government to pick where parents are failing, but this is the corner we have painted ourselves into....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Since the Supreme Court refused to hear Indianapolis's appeal on their video game law, where a lower court said that video games did fall under the First Amendment, how does Judge Limbaugh think he has a leg to stand on?
Since the origins of this country, Free Speech has been one of our most treasured amendments. Over the course of the years, we have seen these non-alienable rights slowly eroded by the politics of the times. Sadly, what is lost cannot always be regained. The Prohibition was the exception that proved the rule.
But are we now crossing the final line? Who is to say what the difference is between a console game and a web-based game? From there, a short leap from web game to web news site (anything come to mind?), and from that point it isn't hard to imagine the end of what was once the only Free Press in the civilized world.
In the past we have learned to treasure even that speech which is most offensive, including pornography, slander, Nazism, lynchings, and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
I wonder if this ruling will be remembered in times to come as the beginning of the proverbial end.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The ordinance, passed in 2000, would require children under 17 to have parental consent before they can buy violent or sexually explicit video games or play similar arcade games. The council has suspended implementation of the ordinance until July 1.
Hmmm... doesn't say anything about limiting what you can depict, nor about limiting sales, nor about what you can do with it... It just says minors can't purchase it without concent. Now where have we seen that before?
Cigarettes?
Alcohol?
Firearms?
Porn videos?
Ok, so Little Johnny has to get his big brother to buy a copy of GTA4 (now with force-feedback hookers!)... annoying, but not any kind of threat to freedom that hasn't already been accepted for years.
Make up your minds people. Either children are NOT treated differently, in which case they can do all the bad things adults can do, but also have to pay all the penalties we do... or they ARE, in which case they get "protected" from things "we" think are "bad".
---Begin Quote
l Edition aand racing games then yeah, I can see his point. But even shoot em up games like Time Crisis or Slient Scope have anti-terrorist agendas. Just like many (crappy) HollyWood movies.
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
---End quote
This guy didn't try and play and of the final fantasy games. All those games push a fairly similar agenda of machine == bad and protect the earth. Or MGS, if you don't think that killing is wrong after playing MGS, then you didn't watch the cut scenes ( that games lives in contridiction, because it preaches that violence and killing are wrong, but the only way to beat it is to be involved with killing people ).
If he was only playing MK4, SFXXXSuperCapcomMarvelFighterTurboMegaAlphaSpecia
I feel that most games released today resemble the HollyWood schlock rather then the artistic projects that get produced. More like Scorpion King rather then say Pi. For every artistic game like MYST, there are a hundred shoot-em-up death game 2000 knock offs.
The guy only saw 4 games, I bet that if you showed certain movies to a judge who had never seen movies before you could get the same verdict, that movies have no artistic merit as well.
Movies and fictional novels are protected forms of speech. I have played computer games that have affected me deeply.
Deus Ex is an example of what I consider a game with a message.
I hope there will be more games like Deus Ex in the future. This is a new medium, and our legal system must recognize it. I'm not so worried about the speech that will be lost today, but I am worried about what video games will be like a decade from now.
A decade from now we could have real art being created with video games. Think of the messages that creators could use video games to send. People would have the choice of playing state of the art, edgy games. And of course they would have the choice of playing crap -- just like in any medium.
Or a decade from now we could have a giant conglomorate like Disney pushing out mediocracy on a traquilized public. Vanilla mediocracy without any ideas that hadn't been approved by a dozen focus groups and six lawyers.
Paintings are protected speech. Sculpture is protected speech. Books are protected speech. Movies are protected speech. Games deserve the same. We will regret it later if the protection is not extended.
Again, movies are not prohibited to minors by law, only theaters have that policy.
"... local governments can limit children's access... "
Keywords: Limit, Children
Because, you know, adults can buy child porn.
Video games aren't leaving the realm of protected speech. They aren't banning them. They're saying children shouldn't have access to it, like porn, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and many other things 95%+ of America says children shouldn't have access to. And to be honest, I've played some games that I don't think children should play.
I think, at least from reading the majority of the posts here, that we may be missing the point. The point isn't that the judge didn't rule that games are a form of free speech, but that he did this in the case of children, and he made the statement to that effect. Granted, I am going to jump up and down, wail, and gnash my teeth at the thought of someone threatening my 1st amendment rights, but this is not what is going on here. RTFA, guys!!
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I'm not saying that children should be allowed to buy what ever they want. I think that there should be restrictions on what they can buy and that ultimately that decision lies with the parents. But to lump video games in with child porn is a travesty to those laws. IMHO this judges ruling lessens the laws regarding child porn. The immediate effect of this ruling doesn't bother me, but the specifics of why it was ruled the way it was, does.
The first generation schooled by the government is taught a full curriculum.
The second is taught a watered-down curriculum to make things easier for more kids to pass, since by now the graduation is meaningful to employers, and we want everyone to be employable.
The third is taught by the undereducated second, and so begins to think in terms of self-esteem and participation and such, rather than actual knowledge or ability. It's a downward spiral from there.
The best defense against idiocy: home school your children.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
As I understand it, the restriction on 17 and under going into an R-rated film is not a "law" passed by government but rather an agreement within the entertainment industry to self-police itself.
Specifically, the MPAA rates the film (their methodology is as controversial as the ratings system in general) and the exhibitors (that is, the movie theaters) agree to restrict ticket sales in accordance with the MPAA ratings.
The MPAA ratings are also used to determine when advertisements for movies are permitted-- that's why you don't see ads for R-rated movies during hours when kids are watching TV. Or at least that's the idea-- there was a scandal about a year ago where a lot of R-rated films was being advertised to children on TV.
Apparently, the film company's defense was that ad-purchasing time packages did not match the resolution of the MPAA ratings system-- so there was no way to buy advertising time in slots that exactly matched the demographics of the ratings. (And I'm sure the fact that most theaters weren't checking IDs made the spillover ok too)
I think (but I'm not sure) that blockbuster and other video rental places also check IDs just as theaters do. But I wonder if they care about video games... anyone know?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Huh, so art doesn't fall under free speech either. You have a hard time swallowing it because you have a limited understanding of the concept of freedom of expression.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
A lot of people seem to have forgotten, or perhaps never learned, that at least half the stuff posted on /. as "stories" are just post-bait.
Remember, kiddies, /. has no content without the posts you make.
So quite often you'll see "news for nerds" that's nothing more than a cheap attempt to up the daily post count -- remember, it's the volume of posts that make /. valuable to the advertisers...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
You can get the Judge's opinion here (96k pdf).
but it still has regulations on it. how is this judge coming to the conclusion the video games with sexual content are not speech?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
What really annoys me though, is that high court judges are supposed to avoid making rulings that can change the interpretation of the constitution. This ruling could have been made by simply saying that local community standards can be set on video games. But he decided to say they didn't get first amendment protection, and that they equate to child porn. This judges discision will probably get thrown out on a showing of bias.
"Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found 'no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech.'"
Well, then, that's settled. I agree with the "four items, one judge" standard. Next up: books! Find four books, and a judge who thinks those four are devoid of substance, and I think we can all agree we can rightfully declare that at that point, books would become "non-speech".
After books, of course, the next thing to lose its speech status should be speeches!
Forget what it accomplishes, think of it like this. A movie is a form of speech. It allows someone to creatively express themselves in a medium which happens to be interactive. Would you call movies on DVD's not protected, because you can move the cursor around? It is not the content that they are battling with, it is the media.
From a user's perspective, there isn't a difference between DVD's and video games. In both cases, a user interacts with the medium to cause change.
[Flame blocker] I am not from the states, so I am not 100% sure if movies are 1st amendment protected or not[/Flame blocker]
Bye!
So dont be surprised that steve is issuing fascist rulings.
This space for rent.
Man, I thought it was a 50 hour movie that just stopped every 10 seconds in case I needed to run to the bathroom. Pressed (x) a few times and it would return to the movie. Huh, a game you say?
Heh heh... maybe the judge just couldn't beat the final boss and missed out on the closing fmv and thus didn't get the entire story?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
The constitution limits government, not people. Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I have an infinite number of rights. The only rights the government has are those set forth in the Constitution.
How much interaction can a movie have before it becomes a game? (dvd)
Aren't movies free speech?
What about screenplays?
What about books?
What about oral stories?
How about verbal instructions on how to polish my jackboots?
I had better polish them now while I still can!
It's getting awfully slippery.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
They just changed access to games from an opt-out to an opt-in policy. That way, if the parents do nothing, their children will NOT have access to porn and violence, whence before they did.
Parents can still consume porn and violence, and give it to their children. I don't see the big problem.
And I thought we all agreed that opt-ins were a good thing.
I just saw this:
Why can't parents, and not the government, keep their children from violent and explicit games?
I agree. I'm a parent, but it's not always that easy. Let me explain why parents can't always keep children from violent and explicit games.
About a year ago, I took my 5-year-old daughter to the local movie theater. In the lobby there was a row of games, including House of the Dead 2. The games in the theater lobby are situated so they face you as you stand in the lobby/concessions area. My daughter took notice of the game, ran over to it, grabbed the gun controller and stood there looking at the running demo of rotting zombies being shot and exploding gorily before her eyes. I rushed over to her and pulled her away, but obviously, I would have preferred she not have seen it.
Now, before anyone assumes I'm some religious goody-two-shoes, I will assure you I love these kinds of games. I'm totally addicted and Quake and Quake 2 will always have a home on my hard drive. I own quite a few violent games but I keep them locked up and my daughter never sees them. I maintain that control. I see it as my duty as a responsible parent.
These kinds of games, on clear public view in places where the public, including children, gather are a serious problem as it removed some measure of that control from me as a parent. I resent that. It pisses me off.
I later called the corporate offices of Regal Cinemas and complained about this and got back a completely defiant attitude about how they had the right to put those games there and how much money those games brought in, and how nobody else compains about it, etc. etc. I pointed out that if a film contained those kinds of gory and violent images, they would be required by law to ensure than a minor has a parent or guardian with them before viewing the movie. This point went right over the guy's head.
I even mentioned that perhaps they could situate the games so they aren't on clear view of the public, but I was told that it would make the games less appealing and make them less profitable. I then asked if they could turn off the demo mode and was given the same excuse.
IMO, some legal control over video games is not going to hurt anyone, exactly the same way legal control over objectionable material in films is not going to hurt anyone. Quite the contrary. As long as we're controlling where it can be displayed and who can play it, not distating what the games makers can or cannot do.
Let's not have some knee-jerk reaction to this. When corporate America can't see beyond its profits, then I have no problem with allowing the government to step in and teach them better.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Start with a book. Turn it into a choose your own adventure. Protected?
Now make it a little more sophisticated; Something like "Grail Quest". It has the player keep track of things like inventory and health and armor, but is still a choose-your-own adventure. Protected?
Okay, now lets take the SAME exact thing, but have a computer do the book keeping for the player. Protected?
Now lets make it a little more sophisticated, but still wordy, like Zork. Protected?
Replace wordy imagery with the occasional ASCII graphic. Protected?
Give the user a map, like in Zork Zero (if I recall correctly). Protected?
Use the map primarily, and the text secondarily, like in NetHack. Protected?
Apply better graphics, like the graphic ports of NetHack. Protected?
Give the user a first person perspective in the maze, Ultima Underworld or something like that. Protected?
It is a SMOOTH continuum from books to games. I can take any game, and gradually transform it into a book, and any book and gradually transform it into a game.
Give me any two expressions, one slightly more interactive than the other, and I can construct an expression in between.
"Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures.""
So let me get this straight; if a movie tells a story, or expresses and idea, it is protected speech, but if I make a video game based ON that movie, with the same plot, the same characters, the same locations, and the same themes, the only real difference being the additon interactivity, suddenly all premise of expression is lost?
If I take a choose-your-own adventure book, convert it to a simple program, and the only thing lost is the paper and ink, I would essentially have any of the early video games. How is this not speech?
And how is a board game not speech? Many board games are obviously designed entirely to express various ideas; ranging from promoting a drug-free lifestyle to acting out a war to teaching the traditions of judaism.
This judge is obviously incompetent. His judgement has no chance of holding up in the supreme court. I only hope that the people of Saint Louis have the sense to get rid of him.
Video games are a medium. Most medium contains speech. That speech may not be explicity, but can be implicit. I've read interpretations of Pac-Man as a critique of consumerism, of Donkey Kong as cultural conflict and sexual anxiety. This decision must be reversed by a reasonable appeals court - video games, or what they will evolve into, are likely to become as central a medium in the 21st century as film was to the 20th.
Sayeth the article:
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
Four games. Four fucking games. Out of a entire fucking INDUSTRY, this asshole reviews four games. This is like reveiwing 'Ishtar', 'Waterworld', 'Howard the Duck', and 'Glitter' and then saying that all American movies suck.
I can list four games off the top of my *head* that have more speech and artistic values than all four of those movies I just mentioned put together.
'Black and White' - Morality play, pure and simple. What's the difference between right and wrong?
'Max Payne' - Dark Psychological Thriller with some gritty 3PS thrown in for taste.
'Starcraft' - Betrayal, Greed, and Cosmic justice carried out against a RTS background.
'Diablo II' - Relgion versus damnation. Hell, most RPG's have storylines. Some are better some are worse. What if the plotline of a RPG was that I was a judge trying to stamp out virtual kiddie porn?
Four fucking games. Gimme a break.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
We can't carry around sniper rifles no matter how safe we'd be with them, because some people can't be trusted with them. Similarly for public good, some restrictions need to be realized in other areas where some of a demographic will abuse even though others of the same demographic won't.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
You guys have some of the most evil people and you have some of the nicest people on earth. Too bad to see your country being ruined by those, how shall I call them, Taliban clones?
First of all, there are ratings on all games like movies have. They did that back in the 90s in response to the backlash from games like Mortal Kombat. www.esrb.org has the details on their rating system.
Secondly, the only movies that children cannot buy are adult (porno) movies. Blockbuster will let children rent rated R movies if the parent doesn't say no. And no they are not restricted by law either.
Arcades are really the only place that possiably should be regulated, but then they should also regulate the machines that are in movie theaters and bars... etc.
Personally I hate this type of big brother regulation. I think that people should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then again, the lack of decision making seems to be popular.
Of course now all US citizens get 12 years of free education. We also get protection from pirates and bandits. There are no slaves or indentured servants. You don't need to be rich to speak your mind on the Internet. And most people live past the age of 50.
:)
While the government has taken some freedom from us it has also given us freedom that we didn't have before. I value freedom from disease, freedom from armed thugs and freedom from ignorance. I appreciate the ultimate freedom, not being a slave. And I value the freedom to speak my mind in a very public forum.
If the government didn't allow stores to prevent minors from playing mature video games then some crackpot special-interest group would try to keep us all from exercising that freedom. It's not like minors have that much trouble sneaking into R-rated movies.
And actually crossing the street is often illegal (jaywalking), but you usually won't get a ticket for it
Not exactly. It's Rush's uncle....
He's about the only male in the family to not be an attorney or judge. He instead became a DJ and sports announcer.
This is not entriely a freedom of speech issue -- it's actually more of an Individual Rights/Freedom of Access issue -- and when you put it like that, it makes sense.
The issue at hand is not "are we going to make video games illegal", it's "Who are we going to let see certain games". This is the same issue as movies -- whether or not you believe in movie ratings is up to you.
The reason why this is legal to do is that "children" are not "complete" citizens, as per US Judicial Code Title 42, Chapter 21 -- this is why the government can also disallow children to vote, serve in the military and enter into legal contracts.
Again, whether or not this is the correct way for a government to behave is left as an excercise to the reader.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
I think what a lot of people are missing (and is causing much contention) is that there are two issues here:
1) Should computer games be considered a protected form of speech
2) Should there be restrictions on what type of computer games (movies, music, books, etc.) children can buy?
There's a big difference here.
Movies are a protected form of speech while they are still restricted to minors; i.e. I can make a really nasty porn movie (thanks to freedom of speech) and advertise it and sell it to adults, but not to children (thanks to 'decency' laws).
Whereas here, not only can I not sell Nudie Raider to little kids, but the government can potentially stop me from selling it at all if I have any, say, interracial girl-on-girl action, or if I call the MPAA a bunch of nincompoops, or whatever they want, because it's not protected speech.
I've heard it said that most major disagreements come from a difference in the assumptions of the people disagreeing. That seems to be the issue in this thread. I just wanted to bring to light one possible cause.
Ahem. You have a very creative way of writing books. Most of us uses pens/keyboards with out fingers.
This says nothing about fucking video games.
It also says nothing about fucking swearing on fucking internet message boards, my dear Professor Shitfuck.
Despite what other replies are saying this ruling is not a step to out law these games. In your post you refered to a law that requires parental consent before buying Mature video games. The video game industry was trying to get this law thrown out as being unconstitutional. The only judgement made was to maintain the law that already exists.
1. Oregon Trail
2. Marble Madness
3. Bejeweled
4. Chessmaster 4000
I think the judge was on acid.
BTW, this is US District Court Justice Stephen Limbaugh, SR. not Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Stephen Limbaugh, JR. as someone responding to the previous story confused the two.
for an explanation of why "child porn" was invoked...
It's a buzz-phrase, designed as post-bait.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
So Infocom's Zork is not speech, but a printed transcript of someone playing it is? Wonderful.
> I can list four games off the top of my *head* that have more speech and artistic values than all four of those movies I just mentioned put together.
;-)
Not a bad list, but I can do one (or four) better.
The Longest Journey - Adventure games are really the closest thing you can get to a movie in a game. TLJ is one of the best to come out recently, though it was a toss-up between this and Grim Fandango.
Zork - It's almost like reading! Surely even he can get that through his thick skull.
Deus Ex - One of the more literate FPSes. You've got to throw an action one in there.
Tetris - Hey, if we can get him hooked maybe he'll see things in a different light.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that he has NO PLACE JUDGING WHAT IS SPEECH AND WHAT ISN'T . But if he was a good judge I guess he'd know that already.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
At a very basic level, every act of expression can be considered to be interactive. (The reader response theory of modern lit crit deals with this to some extent.) That is, there's a constant give and take between the reader/observer and a creative work, static or otherwise. A person comes to "art" with a given set of experiences and beliefs through which the creative elements are filtered and to some extent reconstructed. (If you really want to force the issue, we can drop the "re" and say a work is "constructed" for the very first time when a reader/observer experiences it.) Heck, even the same reader/observer coming to the same work at two different points in time may result in two different readings.
In short, a static work offers a nearly limitless set of ways in which it can be experienced. It is, in a nutshell, interactive.
Video games simply take that basic idea and codify it. Specifically, a game designer does not present the player with a singular experience, but rather the potential for a given set of experiences. Not limitless, since there are constraints to what I can do in game; for example, if the game lacks guns, I can't choose to shoot someone.
I choose Hamlet. I proceed to kill my father's murderer right away, because I'm awesome. Shakespeare obviously didn't intend that...
That doesn't diminish the standing of the original as speech or art. For instance, I can grab a Dostoevsky book off my shelf, tear out every other page, and try reading the thing that way. Did he intend this? No. Does it alter my reading experience? Yup. Does this mean "Demons" is not speech or art? Of course not.
Rent a Metal Gear game some time. The amount of preaching on nuclear disarmament, technology's future role in society, and science benefiting from military funding manages to exhaust many of its players, mostly because they weren't expecting the sort of storylines that are typical of RPGs and their hybrids. The same goes for Final Fantasy Tactics, which is practically a slap on the face to Catholicism. Or Final Fantasy VII, whose entire plot is revolved around corporate destruction of the environment.
I'm not going to write anything to the judge, because he's already made his decision. And I also don't know any details of the case, so I don't know who supplied him with those four games, or what the criteria were (did they have to be from that particular arcade?).
I will, however, list a few games here. Perhaps I'll send something on the appeal, but I really think I'd get summarily ignored since I have no idea what one does to write to the court (friend of the court brief? How do I actually get it read by the judge? What are the requirements, what's the scope?).
Planescape: Torment
Jet Set Radio/Future
Ultima (simplistic, yet still speech)
WWF Smackdown! (just kidding)
isn't because the speach isn't protected, it is because a crime against, and involving the *participation* of an actual child is required to produce it!
( And as an aside this is *exactly* why it has not yet been possible to ban porn staring "actresses" who are actually of age but merely LOOK like they could be younger, or animations of "apparent" minors)
The judge has a couple of other problems with this ruling, which if upheld could have unintended consequences. Video games are protected by *copyright,* a right of distribution accorded to orginal works of * art and literature.*
Think about it.
The copyright protection extends to *board games* which ARE, indeed, protected by constitutional free speach rights.
So are sports for that matter, although this connection is a bit more abstract, being analogous to the right to burn a flag as speach, as well as having the additional constitutional protection of freedom to assemble, which would also apply to LAN parties.
The truely ironic thing is that if the judge had ruled video games WERE more analogous to movies he could have simply pointed to the existing restrictions minors endure with regards to gaining access to movies, and his decision would probably stand.
You see, minors inherently *don't have* full constitutional rights. That is part of the very *definition* of minor.
So is this ruling bad? As an individual ruling it sucks monkey balls. It's so bad as to approach bizarre, BUT. . . it will end up with a formal declaration by the Supreme Court that games are a protected form of speach. ( Or the SC could bounce it back to the lower court for further consideration, which would then support the ban using actual legal means).
This, in the end, is a good thing, and the way our mucked up legal system works.
KFG
Cigarettes and Porn and Alcohol are all legally set to be 18 years of age in the US. However, alcohol is really 21 because the government (due to pressure from MADD years ago) says you don't get federal highway money if your drinking age is under 21. Movies, however, police themselves, and every kid can usually find a theater where they know they don't card, or they know people that work there, since that's not a legal responsibility to keep them out.
Child Porn - illegal to make, illegal to own, illegal to sell, illegal to send over U.S. Mail, etc., etc.
Video Games - In a few cities minors can't buy/rent some games (violent and/or sexual) - but their parents probably could buy/rent it for them (just like a parent can get a kid into a rated R movie).
Minors have very few rights, and their "freedoms" get trampled on every day. The video game issue seems so very low on the list, especially when some issues (like random drug tests, random searches, etc.) seem like much more important battles to me.
I have little problem telling a 16-year-old that he will have to wait two years to buy GTA. Now, if they start telling 25-year-olds that they can't buy GTA3, then that may be a problem - but stick to the actual case at hand.
The judges statement,
is obviously pure nonsense. Heck, need I point out the Salon article about State of emergency. Not that I think a judge (or anyone else in government) would like the message in State of Emergency. In fact, I am absolutely sure that if this judge gets a book in front of him where he doesn't like the message, he'll find some excuse to suppress it. However, that's beside the point, I can point out numerous games with political messages. I got so mad about a pro-gun control message in A Mind Forever Voyaging that I quit playing, I prefer the paranoid Libertarian message of Half Life.But these things don't bother me as much as they used to. One reason is that the video game industry is obviously all grown up and can take care of themselves as part of the larger content industry. The other reason is that I think that these conservative, midwestern cities are just deliberately trying to stir up controversies. Maybe they want to show, "Hey, we big government conservatives can be just as intrusive and divisive as the most left wing commie fanatics out there."
I mean, how else would this judge get a chance to make a whole moral value judgement on a technology he happens to despise, and get carried everywhere in papers. (I've noticed that conservatives like to be in your face every bit as much as your left wing protest groups, they just have different ways of going about it.)
I mean, I hate hearing about it as much as I hate hearing about government oppression in any place.
Of course, it is not nearly as big as Falun Gong protesters paying the price for taking over the cable service in Changchun province in the People's Republic of China. (Which I'm surprised wasn't covered here on Slashdot as it was a clever hack in the service of free speech, peaceful protest, and justice for people who are being tortured and murdered for their belief systems.)
I do think we will get there (in the United States) soon though, probably within my lifetime. But we aren't there yet.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
That the judge found no protected speech content in video games is neither particularly surprising nor disturbing. Why? They are, in effect, a form of commercial speech -- that is, speech whose primary purpose/objective is generating revenue for its creator. Commercial "speech" is held to a much lower protection standard than, say, political speech or intellectual discourse.
His finding here actually helps as a precedent, for example, in court cases hoping to uphold Washington's spam law, or local size/height restrictions on billboards, or state laws restricting telemarketing practices. On the other hand, it still doesn't preclude specific challenges to these sorts of laws being applied to specific games which may, in fact, contain protected speech content; contrast Half-Life with SimEarth in terms of potentially protected content, for example.
Ironically, this may also help the open source gaming community in another way: if you have a body of rulings indicating that source code is speech, and a second body of rulings indicating that video games distributed commercially as object code are not speech, then that is quite a competetive advantage for the openly-distributed-as-source product. If only we could be similarly lucky with operating systems!
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
The ruling is useless. Here is why.
If the parents involved actually PARENT their children, and do their job of monitoring and controlling what their children see and do, then this is completely unnecessary.
Of course, government seems to be under the impression that parents can't do thier job and must therefore restrict the children from purchasing these violent sexually explicit video games. Of course, if the parents aren't watching their children anyways, how are they going to prevent them from pirating it? Same goes with movies these days. Blockbuster might not rent the movie to a 12 yr old, but he can download it for free off the internet anyways, so what difference does it make.
All the government is doing is putting a huge target on the games. The kids will now know exactly WHICH games to go after first.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
This seems to cut out most "R" or "NC-17" rated movies, dunnit? Well, at least all excepting the very few that feature no nudity or sex.
Several states still have movie classification boards that review films to determine whether they are harmful to minors - one may safely assume that these boards by and large are rubber-stamp bodies that follow the MPAA ratings. Some states have a film classification board and still use codify the MPAA's ratings explicitly into law. Check out this Tennessee statute:
Finally, lots of states require videos to display an MPAA rating (or "not rated" if they are, well, not rated), and then have statutes that explicitly claim not to adopt the MPAA rating system, but which in effect bar the rental of R, X, or NC-17 movies to minors.
Finally, there are plenty of local ordinances around the country that bar the showing of R or NC-17 flicks to minors explicitly. These may not be constitutional, but any statute is presumed constitutional until it is challenged. Do you have the time and money to challenge such a law in your town? I don't.
Bottom line, MPAA ratings might as well be law. Don't even get me started on zoning ordinances that automatically classify any theater that shows an NC-17 or unrated film as a porno house, to be zoned out of existence.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
If they can't be covered under First Amendment protections, then how can they be protected by copyright law? Obviously, we can infer from this decision that we have every right to freely copy and distribute video games.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Playing Starcraft or C&C is very similar reading Dune (as well they should be, both having come from it), with a strong emphasis on racial differences, war, peace, and the concepts of equality. I can't find anything like that in the dictionary...
A dictionary isn't, AFAIK, free speech. It's just a book that collects and defines words as accurately as possible--if anything, it should (I have no idea if it is or not) be treated as the furthest thing from free speech.
Starcraft and C&C--as I recall, most of the "worth" of these games (and similar ones) comes from the small movies that are shown at parts in the game, not from the game itself. The movies, as motion pictures, are allready speech.
As for the interactive part of the game--what part, exactly, has merit? A few quotes here and there *might* have enough merit to be speech, but they also might not--and even if they do, the game sans-them still isn't good enough.
Of course, I also think that code shouldn't be assumed to be speech, either. Just in the same way that an action or construction shouldn't be assumed to be speech, but sometimes can be.
I knew I had seen this judges name recently.
So video games are not a protected form of speech, but junk faxes and spam are?
Specifically this post where the poster found nothing out in the public realm about which judge had ruled in favor of the faxers/spammers, but did find it on LEXIS/NEXIS.
I don't know if this person is related to Rush Limbaugh or not, but considering his rulings (in these two cases anyway - favoring big business over individual rights and to 'protect the children' by stomping on the first amendment) he could at least be a dittohead.
This judge bears watching, god knows how many other wacko rulings he may emit.
The saving grace may be in the last sentence of the article; "St. Louis County modeled its ordinance after one in Indianapolis. That ordinance has been invalidated by a federal appeals court in Chicago."
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Having named some games in this genre, I think anyone else can recall several more advernture games that are essentially an interactive novel.
Edith Keeler Must Die
By 'merit' I guess you mean that they just aren't good enough?
Not at all. What's good in a literary sense and what's good in a game sense are almost always two different things.
There a plenty of games with writing far better than half of the novels out there (maybe not better than the half you read, but you didn't mention what you read).
That's a matter of opinion, and I disagree with you totally. (change "novels" to "tv shows", and you'll get me.)
Try Planescape: Torment, The Longest Journey, Grim Fandango, etc. etc. So maybe a lot of games are more like Hollywood action movies -- they crank them out and make some quick dough. Most MOVIES are frequently just as vacuos. Doesn't mean they aren't protected just like the good ones though.
I'm not familiar with The Longest Joureny, but I am with the first two--and they're not action games AFAIK.
Still, I stand by what I said in an differnet post in this thread. Video Games, like computer code, physical actions, lighting a fire, making food, or a whole slew of other things, should not be considered speech save for in "exceptional circumstances", like "on stage."
After hearing about this new Britney Spears video game, I have become consumed with the idea of Video Game Satires. If one were to make a video game where, say, the objective is to traverse through America as Britney Spears, selling addictive pink bubble gum to urban teens, could I use her likeness without her permission?
-- PK
I'll see your four and raise you four more.
The Legend Of Zelda - The Triforce should be a controlled substance.
Mega Man - Rehabitilitation of mad scientists doesn't work.
Donkey Kong Country - On the other hand, rehabilitation does work for gorillas.
Super Mario Brothers - Trust the fungus.
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
Obviously Limbaugh never heard of The Sims, or read any of the stories in The Sims Exchange, where players have uploaded more than 50,000 families with their stories, each of which certainly qualify as free speech.
The Sims has much in common with web publishing tools, word processors, graphics editors, 3D CAD tools, storyboarding and movie production tools, all of which essentially support free speech, storytelling and public expression.
The Sims supports the expression of free speech in several ways. You can take pictures of the scenes in the game, collect them into your family album, and write stories about them. You can create your own characters, props and scenery, construct sets with the built-in architectural tools, and direct the plot of your own story as it unfolds on the screen. You can take snapshots and write text to record your stories, and share them with other people.
The Sims lets people of all ages produce illustrated web pages about their house, family, and an album telling their story. It lets you upload your web pages and games to The Sims web site, were many other people can read the stories, and even download and play with the families.
The Sims is an example of a video game that essentially supports free speech, which should clearly be protected by the Constitution.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
That's just the point though -- the Scorpion King receives the same protection as any other movie right? Being considered an action/popcorn movie/game or whatever is of no relevance.
Actually, The Scorpion King gets more protection than some movies. Think of porn, or child porn, or movies of people dying, or movies of people doing sick and unhealhty things.
A movie of a man graphically and explicitly killing a mouse is illegal. The same governmental power to regulate these things for the common good should be able to be applied to video games, as well.
Once this power is a given, then when the government USES it, we can object. If a law banning "violent video games" is ambiguous, unapproriate, or the like, then it needs to be fought on the same grounds that laws against drinking, pot use, or non-missionary sex are/were fought. Not "the government can't do that," but rather "the government *shouldn't* do that, and here's why..."
"Four games. Four fucking games. Out of a entire fucking INDUSTRY, this asshole reviews four games."
This isn't about games in general, it's about games with a "Mature Audiences" rating being sold to minors.
I dare anybody to name four games rated "MA" that have any redeeming qualities.
I could find 4 games but instead I'll concentrate on one series of games. Since one example is enough to prove that not all games are devoid of content that should be protected as free speech. In Ultima IV, Richard Garriot (aka. Lord British) invented a system of beliefs for his imaginary world. I won't go into the details but this elaborate system promotes the following of eight virtues (such as compassion, justice, and so on). Now Lord British has received mail from people who told him how their life had changed because of that insight, that they had become better persons. This game influenced those people on a moral level, religious even. How can such a game not be protected by free-speech?
True warriors use the Klingon Google
The IDSA cannot let this ruling stand, it is a threat to their business, so it won't stand. But Judge Limbaugh will get a lot of good press among the conservative wacko crowd.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
The Resident of Evil Creek
as his fourth game, plus Doom, Mortal Combat(that's how he spelled it), and Fear Effect.
So, the fourth game of the ruling was made up as well ;-)
It's obvious that he had decided without even looking at the games.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from these pronouncements that the Court, having decided in the late 1960s and the 1970s that children are "persons," determined that children should have the same set of constitutional rights that we ascribe to adults. If the Court did see children as persons, then it surely saw them as peculiar sorts of persons for purposes of constitutional analysis. For example, during the 1970s the Court also decided that juveniles did not have three of the procedural rights that adults take for granted: the right to a trial by jury, the right to bail prior to adjudication, and the right to be protected from corporal punishment.
The usual justification for this confusing set of adjudications was that children must be "safeguarded from abuses," and that the state may continue to create laws that will help parents and teachers discharge their joint responsibility for their children's well-being. Moreover, the Court said, since children do not have the "full capacity for individual choice," they may be deprived of certain adult rights (e.g., to marry, to vote), and their activities can be regulated if it can be shown that this will "safeguard the family unit and parental authority." In sum, the catch-phrase of the 1970s Court that "children are persons" is precisely that: a phrase that lacks the precision of a normative principle.
Damn, you're talented. I tried using my keyboard without fingers and had a helluva time. YOU try typing with your nose, if you don't believe me! :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Are you saying that your youthful beer and porn consumption damaged you in a fundamental way, and it was the law that prevented you from harming yourself further? Are you referring to Hell, or psychological problems?
You seem to say later that people will commit "hedonistic actions" and doom their society regardless of the customs and laws of that society. What is the purpose of the laws, then? Are you arguing for or against the laws?
There is indeed a difference between a legal act and a crime that someone gets away with - in the mind of the perpetrator. Depending on their personality, they may feel guilty, exhilerated, rebellious, or 'adult', which may affect whether they break that law again. If they commit the crime again, they will then suffer the "basic consequences" you mention.
What did you mean about weighing legal consequences against 6 billion people? I'm not sure where you were going with that.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Read the ruling as linked to below. He never even played anything, he watched a videotape supplied to him by the defendants of the four games mentioned, and ruled based on that. I question the legality of this.
-------------------------------------------------
Touche! I guess I'm in a bad habit, diarrhea of the keyboard. My excuse is that my char limit is set to 32768. I'm also flirting with promotion of offtopic mods. I suppose playing Slashdot is cheaper then hanging in a bar.
Maybe I can afford a posting style that is a bit less "thorough", but then I might suffer some kind of Identity crisis. Thanks for the tip.
Okay; How about instead of having the computer do the book keeping for the player, the player still does the book keeping, but the player uses a calculator to do the addition and subtraction?
Now lets say that the calculator has a memory key...