Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
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.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree that no one should tell game publishers what they can or can't sell.
I agree that adults should not be prevented from buying it.
I agree that parents should have a right to restrict their children from material the parent finds objectionable, as much as possible.
I DON'T agree that Blockbuster should have to keep a list of individual minors and check it for parental permission before selling a game to a minor. That would never work because it's too much of a burden on the retailer and too easy to make a mistake. (What! You sold Johnny DOOM3? He's on your list! I'll sue!!!)
I DON'T agree that there should be legislation making it criminal to give an "M" rated game to a minor, or otherwise let them see it or play it, at least in a private home.
So, a law that doesn't allow "M" game sales to minors, but that doesn't criminalize "M" games use by minors, would be fine by me. Buy your kids DOOM3 if you think they're ready for it.
assert(birth_date<time-86400)
Even today, at 31, I'm nuts about games. I have two consoles, a gaming PC, and two laptops that play legacy games. I can't get enough. I've even written for Player2Player because I can't shut up about them.
I'm also a parent. Three children. 6/3/1 in age(s). My son (6) is nuts about games. I can't blame him. He's exposed to them daily. Loves playing Tony Hawk on the Xbox. Defeated Gauntlet for the PS1, all by himself. Is working on Jet Set Radio Future lately. Is going gonzo over Disney's ToonTown MMG. My daughter (3), is picking up on it. She can pilot a character in JSRF. Can't do much with it, but she'll spend 5 minutes making the avatar skate about.
I'm a gamer. I'm a parent. My kids are gamers. Games are art & entertainment on the same level as music, film, and television. They are not so passive, but they are there to fill idle time and give pleasure to the consumer. Not all games are for children. I screen what my kids see, and play adult games after they sleep. On the same level I don't let the kids listen to my Slayer CD's, or watch the latest Horror flick that my wife rented, or watch The Man Show with me.
As art, games should be protected. The government should not ban their creation and distribution, or sale. Like movies, games have ratings. Those should be enforced. Selling a minor GTA 3, Vice City should be no different than selling a minor the latest copy of Playboy. Or a beer. Or a pack of Camels.
There are games that are not meant for children. I have no problems with the government forcing retailers to enforce the ESRB ratings. When I buy a case of beer, I get carded. If I can't provide the card, I get denied the sale. If a kid brings GTA3 up to the register, he/she should be carded, and denied sale if not 18.
It's a good system. Extra laws are not needed to make things worse. Yeah, loopholes exist, but at least it is something, and it's rational. It's just like the movies, and there is no outcry that a few kids get by the ropes and into rated "R" films. It seems entirely logical to emulate that, even if I babble too much.
Grimwell - old, cranky, mean, obsessive
I'm a member of the EFF, and I get as rabid as the next /.er about censorship and such like, but I really do think that classification of certain commercial products as "not for minors without parental consent" is justified. That includes movies, books, pictures, alcohol, cigarettes. Children learn what is normal and acceptable through observing the world around them. Skewing this perception with graphic sexual violence, especially rewarding such behaviour in a game, should be restricted.
Getting back to the subject, investing millions of dollars in a commercial product that has tremendous psychological impact on an entire generation isn't "speech", and I'm surprised that the anti-coprorate mindset confuses the two.
The question is not whether certain industries have "free speech rights". They obviously do, but nobody is obliged to listen. The question is whether minors (for some definition of "minor") have "free consumption rights". Somebody who knows more about the constitution will have to reply on that. For instance, there are all sorts of activities and "consumptions" with minors in which we prohibit transactions. For instance, the sale of tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. Notice that this is NOT a restriction on the purchasing minor (the minor can still USE tobacco, alcohol, and pornography completely legally), it is a restriction on what can be SOLD, or in other words, regulation. I don't think "free speech" enters the discussion. Nobody's speech or expression is being abridged (although some would equate economic transactions with "speech"...i DO NOT).
This is still a legitimate question nonetheless. It still raises the issue of legitimate speech that minors would want to consume but be prohibited from consuming...matters relating to health of minors, politics regarding minors, etc. None of this I see being abridged, and none of this I expect to be present in video games or pornography. Then again, I played lots of video games and saw movies that probably would not be sold to me, and I don't think I'm any worse for it.
An interesting comparison would be Hollywood's intentional and flagrant marketing of sex and violence to minors. The video game industry thrives off a young audience, but I do not think they have done anything NEAR as repulsive as marketing and study groups with minors. The worst they have done is run commercials aimed towards minors (parents, you have control of the remote, and the wallet).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
They should have the same rights as movie publishers.
If the game, as a central feature to its plot, has a ton of realistic violence, especially in an environment the person is likely to be found in normally (a city), then the game should be rated "R" or "PG-13" and restricted to being sold to minors of the appropiate age or with their guardians.
This isn't rocket science. These are laws developed to help parents give children some freedom they couldn't have otherwise. I know that I can send my kid to the movies and he isn't going to see certian things. If I knew the theater might let him in to a rated R movie, I wouldn't let him go without me. He desires that little bit of freedom, and the movie theater, by setting up a basic agreement with me, is providing me with that assurance.
Secondly, I work in the video rental business. It would be easy for video rental places to sell or rent to minors only with a guardian's previously given permission since the kid would then have his/her own card. It's not so easy with retail outlets. If a game shop wants to set up such a system, though, it would be trivial to deal with.
The upshot is that this does not degrade your freedom, unless you're a minor. If you are a minor, you have very little real freedom anyway. If you think all minors should be able to access this material on their whim without parental consent then you have very different opinions about raising children than many people who actually have experience in doing so.
-Adam