Game Industry Fights Violent Game Ban

sietekk writes "The video game industry told a federal appeals court on Wednesday that it has the same rights to free speech as moviemakers and publishers and urged the court to overturn a local government ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. Appearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for the Interactive Digital Software Association, which represents the video game industry, argued that a lower court ruling upholding St. Louis County's restrictions on game sales should be overturned as unconstitutional."

Comments

You stupid fucking soccer moms!

[gmhowell]

Why the fuck can't you keep an eye on your brat? Why the fuck do they have $70 to go to Funcoland to get a game? Why the fuck don't you tell the morons at Blockbuster not to rent 'M' games to your kid? Why do you have to fuck it up for everyone? You stupid damn whores! Just because you can't parent your kid is no reason to take it out on me.

Take some responsibility for a change.

they should adopt the MPAA approach...

[jeffy124]

by having stores not be permitted to sell M-rated games to under 17'ers, Y-14 to under 13ers, etc. (iirc - WalMart does this)

The MPAA already does (voluntarily, not by law) this with movies rated NC17, R, PG-13, etc.

Flaws exist in both (just ask the many 12 year olds who have slipped into R movies), and not all video stores honor those ratings when kids check out movies (and for that matter, games, should such be implemented). But it's a lot better than having the feds regulate it.

Translation

[wind]

From the county prosecutor:
"The government shouldn't have to wait to develop a record of harm," he said. "While the First Amendment is important, the county can't wait for scientists to provide evidence."

Translation: Of course video games cause an increase in violent behavior. We don't need evidence of that, and can ignore any scientific evidence that might cast doubt on our beliefs. We've found one guy in Iowa who'll support our claims, and that's all science is for anyway.

Bleh. It drives me crazy that there are people in our culture who doubt the value of funding research and then don't even use the research results available.

Harm/Good . . .

[Dausha]

In the interest of progress, there are those who say 'what is the harm?' They do things preemptory and then watch to see the results. Then, when results are unfavorable, they say, 'well, our position is already rooted in society, so we cannot go back now'--a hollow argument. However, this is not to say that all progressive things are harmful.

There are still others who say, 'what is the good?' They are more cautious, less innovative. Yet, they seek to ensure the 'common good' is maintained in ther progressiveness.

Sometimes, in order to progress in the right direction, a few backward steps need be taken. This is especially true when over-progressive zeal takes society down the wrong (i.e, not truly progressive) path.

In the case here, I say that regulation--self or societal (via government); is the better option. While the opposing sides argue the cons of the issue, our children hang in the balance. As our children are our future, then our future is in the balance.

I, for one, like the little logo that helps me as a parent weed out the wheat from the chaff. I like that self-imposed regulatory efforts help me by urging shops not to sell something to my minor that I may deem inappropriate. If, as a parent, I want my son to see that (PG-13|R)-rated film, or listen to Eminem, or play Unreal, that is my perogative. The regulations help me be that gatekeeper. I like being that gatekeeper, because myself and his mother are the ones with a vested interest in how our child turns out.

Ask this, what harm do the labels create? More PG-13 films are made because of the restrictiveness of R (although PG-13 is the same as R ratings of fifteen years ago, it seems). If the gaming software industry feels encumbered by the restrictions because of sales, perhaps they should tone down what causes the more restrictive rating.

Finally, I think what many refer to as free speech is not what free speech was intended. Just as it is not free speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. Vandalism is not free speech. If I thought a musician plays terribly, I cannot urinate on him (History of the World, Pt 1) to express my free speech of his poor performance.

I see Free speech as the right to speak out against the injustices of our government. Sometimes, to have freedom in society, individuals have to restrict their freedoms.

Re:Harm/Good . . .

[Twylite]

This is a rating system for games, to which many publishers subscribe voluntarily, and it is referred to by the IDSA lawyer. Few people have a problem with labelling of in this manner.

So I, like many people, support labelling, responsible parenting, and having the State keep its nose out of the issue of morality. These are not mutually exclusive viewpoints.

I would support a system (voluntary or otherwise) that sees all entertainment material (movies, books, music, games) accompanied by a rating (that is reviewed for every item by some independant body), and places an onus on vendors to not sell such material to a minor under the recommended age. However, a parent or guardian should have the right to purchase any good or service on behalf of that minor, irrespective of the recommendations given on the label.

Havok! cry the mommies. Daddy will be taking junior to the next SLVN movie that comes out. And that is the way it should be. If the parent is being responsible they will not take such an action until they are happy that the child / young adult is mature enough; if the parent is not responsible there are many other applicable laws that can be invoked (in this case, child abuse).

But an outright ban on access to certain material by minors, as is effective in many countries, especially a preemptive one, is damaging to society.

To begin with, you are imposing artificial limitations on human activity and development. Children are naturally curious; an aspect that adults seem to forget. Banning access to material creates or inflames a curiousity about that material. While the material itself could be harmful, the behaviour that may result (including deceit, theft, etc) in an effort to satisfy that curiousity is often more harmful. Worse still many parents sympathise with this activity and do not sufficiently punish it, leaving the message that its okay to break the rules.

Then we have the question that we started with: is this material actually harmful? There is evidence to suggest that graphic pornography and violence is bad for young children, but most of that evidence suggests that the response is trauma, not mimicry. Psychology is a field notorious for claims that appear to be supported by evidence, but are merely one way of reading the statistics (and yes, I have a major in Psychology).

In times gone by children had far more direct access to REAL violence and pornography. Parents weren't so careful not to be "caught in the act". We have lives through many wars and revolutions, much bloodshed, in the past centuaries. And now we believe our children can't handle it?

Maybe we should also be asking ourselves: how much do we damage children by "protecting" them against this material? Growing up is a process of learning, not only knowledge, but coping skills and emotional control. If you have never been subjected to a crisis before you were an adult (legally), how can you be expected to behave responsibly when you are an adult? Experience is a vital component of development, and something we are increasingly removing from our childrens' lives in the quest to "protect" them.

Re:Commercial products aren't speech

[david duncan scott]

I'd say the "anti-corporate mindeset" is on your side of the screen. Me, I notice that publishers of books and newspapers are commercial enterprises, but I'm glad that I can read dangerous and provocative books and the daily news without undue hinderance.

Re:Commercial products aren't speech

[david duncan scott]

I see NO difference between rating and restricting movie and doing the same with video games.

Fine then. Tell me, who in your state sets those ratings, and who enforces them? AFAIK, the MPAA ratings are just that -- industry ratings, not law. Your local theatre chooses to bar minors, because if they did otherwise the distributors might not agree to rent films to them.

Now if your local XXX theatre admits a minor, then the police can get involved under whatever local laws you have regarding pornography, not the MPAA ratings (does the MPAA even have a "XXX"?)

I guess my point is this -- showing obscene materials to minors is generally illegal now, and I doubt that the laws on the books make much reference to medium. If the image on the screen is defined as "obscene", then it's already covered, and if it's not, then we're talking here about expanding the definition of obscenity, which is not, to my mind, a trivial or simply procedural matter. Does your state have laws classifying violent images as obscene, and if they do, why aren't they being enforced now?

(I'm reminded of a point made by George Will one time, with regard to dirty movies. All kinds of laws were being proposed to stop distribution, and he suggested instead that a perfectly good body of law already existed: the prostitution laws. It's illegal to pay somebody to have sex, and it's illegal to be paid to have sex, and porn producers and porn performers do those things. Why, he asked, are we looking to write laws that could have a spill-over effect into other areas, like political speech, when a direct and obvious approach already exists? It was and is a good question.)