Slashdot Mirror
Violent Video Game Restriction Struck Down
Nutsquasher was the first to submit news that a ban on selling violent video games to minors has been struck down, reversing an earlier decision in this case that held that video games were not a constitutionally protected form of speech. The decision (pdf) is available. Since the Federal government has been considering a national law along these lines, these decisions on local laws may be important soon.
The corporations have all of the money and weild recently gained legistlation, so you have to expect that the momentum will favor them. Consumer backlash won't hit a politician's radar until the outspoken make up a large number of their own constituents (or consist of a few of their wealthiest constituents). The courts will continue to side with the corporations more often then not, because again, it's still their home turf. Until the ripple effects of the DMCA start to annoy more people (not just the "technically inclined" or the random college student), the bulk of the rulings will go towards the corporate masters.
FATALITY!
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
She keeps playing minesweeper on my computer. Thats pretty violent, i mean with all the dead happy faces and all.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Because I swear, I was gonna kill someone if it didn't.
"Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
Now 13 year old kids can buy pornographic video games and video games about serial murder. Just lovely.
If I take 'Debbie Does Dallas 24' from a DVD, add some interactive components, like some sort of with-your-mallet-hit-the-boobs thing, can I suddenly go out and sell it to minors?
poor parenting does. You can play video games and not go on a rampage at your local high school. Instead of ignoring children for your favorite TV show or leaving them home alone in the afternoons with a video game, try talking to them.
Professor Jane Healy discusses this in her book, Endangered Minds.
--------
Free your mind.
we are in the midst of a consumer backlash now regarding the recording industry, and to a small degree the electronics industry in general. As well as the fact that the average person now AUTOMATICALLY assumes that anything out of a corporate spokeperson's mouth is a lie...
There is NO trust anymore, and if IBM turns out dirty things will get MUCH worse before they get better....
In April 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh rejected a request by a video game industry group to invalidate the ordinance.
Judge Stephen Limbaugh first cousin to, none-other than everyone's favorite Rush Limbaugh....
Mike
Training on violent video games was one of the key contributing factors to the United States' success in invading Iraq.
It'll be interesting to see what impact this has on a similar law that was just recently signed into law by Washington state's governor.
Help fight continental drift.
I live in Crestwood, MO, which is in Saint Louis County. I go to Best Buy to buy games rather often. Never once have I been questioned about my age when trying to buy a game, whether it be violent or not. And I'm 16 years old. It's possible to enforce this law (they've managed to enforce checking IDs when buying alcoholic beverages) but nobody really tries to do so.
If this thng had passed, I woulda had to don the BFG, and go frag some politicians!
so register on /. and do it yourself. or meta-moderate. moron.
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
The problem is when you try to actually start defining what constitutes "violent games" or speach, etc... you wind up with thought police. Fortunately, courts have had the wisdom in this case to throw out all of the "you'll know it when you see it" arguments. I mean you could argue that Mario encourages violence against animals and drug use and get some yokul to picket Toys R Us.
Help me become a Porn Star Guru
But remember kids, killing nazi's is limited to castle wolfenstein. The same free speech rights that protect your authortity figure slauter protect neo-nazies too.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Before Yet Another Moron gets on here and starts ranting about how it works for the movies, why not for the games, won't someone PLEASE think of the children:
The MPAA ratings are voluntary and are not enforced under penalty of law. There is nothing about them at all that is legally binding. The only pressure theater operators face to enforce them is economic, not criminal. This is arguably what makes them constitutional, where this law is not. IANAL etc.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Restrictions on violent video games would be a deterrent to making them. There should be a maximum rating, however, before regulation begins. (some violence should be allowed) However, when the violence is unreasonable (for example, killing people) then these restrictions should start. Some possible restrictions would be taxes, restrictions on sale to minors, banning in certain states, etc.
This was going to happen. It happened because, it's a video game.
It's about time it happened to.
You may have noticed I didn't explain in much detail this time. That's because if you don't already know and understand my point, you'll never get it and I'm not going to preach to the choir.
DUHSee the Pictures of the Flood of '08
While I agree with the court's decision to turn down this ban, after playing the game vice city on the computer, it is obvious that kids should not play this. There is sex, lots of violence, drugs, etc, depicted in a very graphical way. Whether the parents do it or not, this game is much too explicit for the younger generations.
Appears to be Rush Limbaugh's Uncle or Cousin! (looks like this Stephen is the cousin)
Funny, I thought it was a "Friendship."
I'm amused by the fact that the person most closely following court rulings on violence in video games calls himself/herself "nutsquasher." I mean, maybe the other side has a point here...
You can read more about this court decision here.
"Since the Federal government has been considering a national law along these lines, these decisions on local laws may be important soon."
/ 93-1260.ZO .html
In the USA, the only law which effects the entire nation is the constitution. There are federal laws which govern items like commerce between states.
I doubt there would be jurisdiction enough to bring such a law to court.
See this opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist on the subject.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html
-- James Dornan
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
GOOD parenting encourages violence. We must kill all the terrorists! Counterstrike!
I didn't get to play Operation (the Wacky Doctor Game) or Clue until I was 18. I can see why, now that I am older and wiser.
I could at any moment tried to extract the funny bone from a schoolmate, or hit my sister with a candlestick in the study.
Thank goodness for calming coloring books and play-dough. Well, time for lockdown, night...
What percentage of games are actually non-violent?
Is a game considered non-violent as long as the characters are represented in a cartoonish, non-human, guise...and cute child-like music is playing in the background? Or is there some other arbitrary designation? Who defines the line?
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
Submitted: March 12, 2003
Filed: June 3, 2003
___________
Before BOWMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
___________
MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit to enjoin the enforcement of St. Louis County Ordinance No.
20,193 (Oct. 26, 2000), which amends Chapter 602 of the St. Louis County Revised
Ordinances by adding new sections 602.425 through 602.460. The ordinance, in
relevant part, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, rent, or make
available graphically violent video games to minors, or to "permit the free play of"
1The ordinance also restricts minors' access to video games with strong sexual
content, but plaintiffs do not challenge those provisions of the ordinance.
-3-
graphically violent video games by minors, without a parent or guardian's consent.1
The plaintiffs (companies or associations of companies that create, publish, distribute,
sell, rent, and make available to the public video games and related software) assert
that the ordinance violates the right of free speech guaranteed by the first amendment.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, seeking to have the ordinance
declared unconstitutional; the district court denied that motion. Interactive Digital
Software Ass'n v. St. Louis County, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (E.D. Mo. 2002). Because
the district court had considered and upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance in
the course of ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the district court
sua sponte dismissed the case. This appeal ensued. We reverse and remand with
directions to the district court to enter an injunction that is not inconsistent with this
opinion.
I.
In rejecting the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the ordinance, the district
court first concluded that video games were not a protected form of speech under the
first amendment. Id. at 1135. The district court believed that, because video games
are a new medium, they must "be designed to express or inform, and there has to be
a likelihood that others will understand that there has been some type of expression"
before they are entitled to constitutional protection. Id. at 1132-33, 1134. But the
Supreme Court has long emphasized that the first amendment protects
"[e]ntertainment, as well as political and ideological speech," see Schad v. Borough
of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65 (1981), and that a "particularized message" is not
required for speech to be constitutionally protected, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay,
Lesbian & Bisexual Group, 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995) (internal quotation omitted).
See also Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948).
-4-
The record in this case includes scripts and story boards showing the storyline,
character development, and dialogue of representative video games, as well as
excerpts from four video games submitted by the County. If the first amendment is
versatile enough to "shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold
Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll," Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569, we see
no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and
narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection. The mere
fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence. Our review of the
record convinces us that these "violent" video games contain stories, imagery, "ageold
themes of literature," and messages, "even an 'ideology,' just as books and
movies do." See American Amusement Mach. Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572, 577-
78 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 994 (2001). Indeed, we find it telling that
the County seeks to restrict access to these video games precisely because their
content purportedly affects the thought or behavior of those who play them. See
Preamble to St. Louis County Ordinance No. 20,193 (Oc
Why is the court even bothering to worry about 1st amendment? That seems besides the point in this case. An NC-17 film is protected free speech. But a minor can't walk in and see that. That's because a minor doesn't share the basic rights of an adult in the US, but instead needs parental consent to obtain these rights. After reading the decision, it seems like the court didn't really see violence as a big deal, and therefore, weren't worried about restricting minor access based on violence. I think if a video games start depicting nudity or uses what is considered obscene language on a large scale, the rating systems will start being legally enforced.
Vote for Pedro
Movies have ratings. It's good form to restrict minor access to a rated R film without being accompanied by an adult. Games have ratings on them now, based on roughly the same criteria. Why is it bad to prevent minor access to rated-M games without permission from a parent/guardian/adult?
Please, somebody explain this to me. If it's ok for one, why is it not ok for the other?
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
Damn, I used to play a lot of Unreal Tournament while working tech support. If violent video games made for violent people, it wouldn't be called "going postal" it'd be called "going technical".
One battle won, another to go.
Are you sure that wasn't a link to the ordinance-dismissal advocate's case? The thing read like a rampaging Slashdot reply, except it actually stuck to the points of the case. Amazing.
Ryan Fenton
First Minors, what's next? Pensioners?
... according to a story in todays Sydney Morning Herald they are violent enough already
Am I the only one who had the Final Fantasy battle victory music pop into their heads after seeing this headline?
bumbumbumbum baaabaaa BUM BUM BUMmmm!
no
My mom pays for all my video games and still insists on seeing them before I get them so even if they ban me from buying it my mom is buying it any way ...
Reason I'm asking is that from the press article, it appears that Judge Limbaugh doesn't know what he is talking out. The article says that Limbaugh stated that the ordinance does not hold up to constitutional scrutiny for first amendment reasons, while he does say that obscenity is one exception to first amendment freedoms. This is all true, but nowhere in the article does it discuss the legal definition of indecent, and how indecent material, while it still falls within the rubrick of first amendment freedoms, can be specifically regulated when dealing with minors. This is why minors are not allowed in Topless Bars, regardless of whether alcohol is served, and why the FCC can regulate when indecent materials can be shown on television (from 10:00pm to 6:00am). Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying I'm not happy that the kids can buy their video games now, I just don't understand the rationale, legally.
"BadTimes will make you fall in love with a penguin" - Laika
that's too funny, mod this up!
"Our review of the record convinces us that these "violent" video games contain stories, imagery, "age-old themes of literature," and messages, "even an 'ideology,' just as books and movies do." ... Indeed, we find it telling that
the County seeks to restrict access to these video games precisely because their
content purportedly affects the thought or behavior of those who play them."
Yes. Yes you are.
when I accidentially step on a snail, I get bummed out.
Of course you do! You just wasted a prefectly delicious entrée!
Hmmm...snail
You can't take the sky from me...
Like, you know, that's just asking too much *smacks bubble gum*
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Yes. but then you didn't threaten to squash Taco's nuts...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I'm 17, I've been playing violent video games for longer than I can remember without parental supervision or limitations. I'm the polar opposite of "aggressive", to the point that I can't drive in heavy traffic because I'm not aggressive enough to switch lanes. When a recruiter for the Marines called me, I told him, "I'm sorry, I don't kill people" and hung up the phone.
On the other hand, I played a Ferrari racing game in an arcade yesterday, and 10 minutes later I was in my car peeling out at red lights and red-lining in every gear.
I guess that means that I "suffer a deleterious effect on [my] psychological health" when I play racing games. Those evil devices should be illegal!
Or maybe it means that I'm a bad driver. That game didn't hypnotize me and make me drive like an asshole. I was fully aware of what I was doing, and chose to do it anyway. Sure, the game triggered that behavior, but something else could have triggered it just as easily. Being passed by a 350Z on the highway does the same thing. Vroom vroom.
I'm willing to bet a good sum of money that that's how violent video games work too. They don't make people violent, they make violent people active. The question is, would their violence be triggered by something else if not by a video game?
Scratched Emulsion
I don't understand how restricting the sale of violent videogames to minors has to be jumped on as a 'freedom of speech' issue. It seems to me that taking this tack plays into the hands of the industry's representative (read: lobbying) bodies, who do not necessarily have the best interests of the development community (let alone society at large) at heart (read: they'd sell their grandmothers for a quick buck).
Aiming violent games at kids (even in an indirect way) may be profitable but it's a guaranteed way to ensure that video games (the medium as a whole- as casual observers do not make distinctions between good and bad) continue to be viewed as cynically exploitative and not worthy of the same standard of intellectual appraisal as other media. This perception is more of a handicap to the medium's evolution than any number of vague retail laws.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
First off, minors shouldn't play games where the objective is to realistically murder people. I think adults still have the right to play these games, not minors. Secondly, this will give the gaming industry the much needed impetus to actually come up with good games. I'm tired or FPU's and other lame games.
.smell my feet.
christ, you wouldn't say that if you knew my kids. They are demons....I work late just to _avoid_ seeing them, let alone speaking with them for prolonged periods. Frankly, if they went on a killing spree it would be a relief...the authorities would finally remove the mad little fuckers from our house...
disclaimer: if the parent AC was speaking in jest, the following rant may not be fully applicable.
<rant> And that lack of parental care would be why they are such "demons" in the first place. Why should a child respect a parent who would rather work long hours than interact with them? Why should a child love a parent who takes active steps " to avoid seeing them" and wants to get them out of his home?! I'm not saying they don't have problems. I'm just saying they're not the only ones with problems. </rant>
Neither can you say with 100% certainty that violent games do not cause violent behavior - it depends on too many different factors - but violent games by themselves cannot be proven to definitely cause violent behavior.
I think I can say that, and this might sound like a nitpick, but I believe that this is a very important difference.
Freewill causes violence, no matter what anyone has watched they are still the ones that choose to commit an act of violence. Now, they might be more likely to be violent after having played a violent game, but the game does not cause the violence
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Considering he'll run any ad and masquerade it as a story for money instead of standing up for his supposed principles.
Just as with sexual content, it seems that the arguments about violence tend to fall towards one of two camps: those professing the "Desensitization Theory" (exposure in media leads to increased tendency IRL), and those who believe in a "Safety Valve Theory" (providing a socially harmless outlet). Perhaps both arguments are, in fact, true. It seems perfectly reasonable to believe that in x% of the populatuion, the [violence sex whatever] provides a release, making antisocial real-life outbursts less likely, but some other y% of the population, it has the opposite effect. In this instance, people on both sides of the argument would be able to truthfully provide real life examples of why their position is correct. While a simple "(x>y) ? allow() : disallow();" solution seems reasonable, in the USA at least, our Constitution seems to imply that the y% who do act on sociopathic impulse should not be a reason to infringe the rights of the x% who don't, no matter what the ratio, so long as that x% exists. [Compare US gun laws, contrast DMCA.]
...you must have one crappy car.
Get a real car, like a Firebird or a Corvette.
I agree. I think it is a combination of bad parenting along with video games/TV et al. I have a friend who is an obsessive gamer and is the king of CS on campus. But in "real" life, the guy wouldn't hurt a fly. I think that has a lot to do with the fact that his parents instilled a very strong sense of discipline in him.
OTOH, how many ppl who mug/murder etc play video games? How many of them had parents who never cared? Fathers never around?
I think the same can be said about porn. How many promiscuous people watch that stuff a lot?
Then of course, it may have a lot to do with genes. That stuff is still unconfirmed, but the more I read about it, the more I believe that the genetic makeup may be a major factor
But the Supreme Court has long emphasized that the first amendment protects "[e]ntertainment, as well as political and ideological speech,"
The quote shows their understanding of where where and why free speech exists: for democracy.
It is true that obscenity is one of the few categories of speech historically unprotected by the first amendment.
There are times when free speech can be blocked.
We believe that the County "must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way."
In this case, as we have already explained, the County has failed to present the "substantial supporting evidence" of harm that is required before an ordinance that threatens protected speech can be upheld.
good point, saying it is better to side with free speech if there is no proof of harm.
Personally, I disagree with the decision, because I beleive that it does do harm to kids AND it does not block political speech.
the last video game developer who went on a killing spree. If I were to expect someone interacting with video games to go insane and blow someone'e head off, I would expect the person who came up with all of the ideas: the ragdoll effect after you kill someone, the way blood splatters on walls, different animations of how bodies explode, etc.
Will those retailers that enforced the ESRB ratings stop now because they may have a First Amendment case on their hands? I think the free speech issues are a little more important than the fact a violent game ban was lifted.
Here's a round-up of the coverage so far (yes it's a rejected post which i'm too lazy to retype):
The federal 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that games are protected by the First Amendment as free speech, striking down a judgement last year that ruled games do not qualify as protected speech. This also means that banning minors from buying or renting mature-themed games is unconstitutional. Part of the judgement read that games 'are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.'
There are 2 escapes from 1st A. protection considered here. If it is obscene it is not speech (per the SC, not me); if it is not obscene, then it can be restricted only for the most compelling reasons and necessity. Obscene is legally defined as material lacking literary, artistic, political or social value. Here the 8th Circuit apparently has an earlier ruling saying across the board is NEVER obscene, so the obscenity argument is out the window; then they ruled that the paternalistic argument is not enough.
:) I wouldn't ban any of this stuff, but would consider limiting access to minors in a way that at least allow parents to parent as they see fit.
As for Debbie, well she may be obscene (for depicting erect penis, insertionn, or other random criteria) but tolerated in many communities, and enforcement on porno is spotty. Adding an interactive component certainly will not make it less obscene. Indeed what carried the day here was that it was violence and not sex, which if you at the movies is far more tolerated in our culture, and i'll be the first to concede *that* is the real sickness. I vote for more sex, less violence.
Firebird? How's life down there in the trailer park, Elmo? Hyuck, hyuck! Is Ma out sloppin' the hogs? Tell your little brother Jethro that we're having squirrel soup for supper! Whoo doggies!
I have an xbox, and a relative bought me a game last xmas for it, but I haven't played the game once.
It's one of those kung-fu fighting games, but the packaging shows all sorts of knives and violence.
I thought -- what the fu**?? this is a GAME? I
don't want to see people getting cut up with swords
for fun. what a stupid idea for a game!
fifty bucks wasted
'Nuff said.
In a way you are correct, but the initial ruling here is the thing that makes me 'indignant' about the whole thing. The judge effectively saying that video games were not even worthy of protection as free speech is totally ridiculous. It reinforces my opinion that people who probably have never touched a game control in their lives have no business regulating them. It's just the opinion of someone who just assumes game must be utterly worthless, with no facts or experience to base it on. That kind of thing just cannot be the law of the land, at least not in anyplace in which I would care to live.
I would not outright object to limiting sales of particularly graphic games (though even that is questionable because you get companies like EA that will not publish 'M-rated' titles anymore), though I think doing it voluntarily ala the movie industry is better than having it regulated by law. But having it set as legal precedent that games are worthless, as opposed to the art form I see them (okay well some of them) as definitely justifies indignation.
--
ExInferus
MAVAV.org Let's stop videogame addiction and violence today!
So what about cartoons or 'made for children' television which depict violence? From Popeye to Bugs Bunny - from Popeye to the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. And now with the P Puff Girls and whatever else is popular nowadays, why isn't there any complaints about that?
There should be an MPAA equiv. for video games to keep games like GTA or the game formerly known as BMXXX out of kids' hands. But outright banning them is ridiculous. It's a short quick-fix aimed at shirking parental responsibilities.
reflects my behavior in real life, for your sake, let's just hope I don't become a god with a giant animal friend.
*SMACK* Did I tell you to feed the hungry? Now go fetch the ball I threw at the creche.
"Though police"? How do you figure that?
I think it is pretty obvious to any reasonable person what constitutes a "violent game". Then there is the guy picketing Toys-R-Us. Then there is the guy worried about him.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
In this case, there is also an Industry ratings program, but not enough video sales establishments are complying with it, so the Government feels that it needs to get envolved.
How anyone can disagree that minors should be protected from extremely violent or sexual content is beyond me. If the industry won't (can't) effectively do it, the Government should and will.
Also, how anyone other than a pimple faced whiney uber-geek can say that a computer game is a form of free speech is also beyond me. Get a life people...
Keep passing the open windows...
How can we all agree that "violent video games" don't make kids into hell-bent killers, and then turn around and say "bad parenting" does? If I go out and kill someone, I'm the murder. Not my parents, and not my Gamecube.
Just because we're "minors" doesn't mean we can't be held accountable for our own behavior. You don't have to find someone else to blame. It's hard to determine exactly when a child has transitioned from ignorant to insane, but it's definitely earlier than 18. It may be that a 15-year-old kid kills his teacher because he's violent and his parents/teachers/video games/movies didn't teach him how to deal with anger properly, but he's still the violent one. If you don't think a 15-year-old realizes what the result of killing is, then perhaps it's been too long since you last spoke with one.
One problem lies in our whole system of treating "minors" completely differently. If a 15-year-old kills his family, it's blamed on his parents and his hobbies, it makes news headlines around the world, and inspires weeks and months and years of angry discussion about what causes violence in youths. If an 18-year-old kills his family, everyone just says, "he's one sick bastard" and he goes to prison. The minor is rewarded with fame and attention, the rest are rewarded with hatred.
Scratched Emulsion
Scarily(sp?), I would have to say that as this is his first post, you're probably right.
/me * Contemplates the meaning of Life(Slashdot) *
Cynically exploitative? A commercial product!? Those dastards!!
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
Violence has always been a problem, but it is currently on the decline. No?
Meanwhile, the perception of violence is skyrocketing. Thus we have to waste our time fighting laws that purport to fight a non-contributor to a non-problem.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
When I was in the Marine Corps (mid-eighties) we were shown "motivational" videos. These videos were the entire Faces of Death series. If you aren't familiar with these videos, you can find them on the P2P networks, but be warned, they are extremely graphic. They are newsreels, and home movies that the news networks won't show, because they show actual murders, plane crashes, suicides, etc., you know, all the "Faces of Death." They are actually stomach turning, because they are the real deal, no editing at all. In my case, it actually made me more sensitive to violence. That doesn't take away my wanting at least one of every weapon known to man, or my enjoyment of FPS, especially the more realistic ones such as Soldier of Fortune, or Delta Force. Even though I am fascinated by weapons and war and tactics, etc., I still don't see any reason short of self-defense to actually use those weapons on someone. I do go big game hunting, but never for trophies. I go for food, and I never have looked at a downed animal without sadness and pity. That doesn't stop me from greatly enjoying eating their roasted flesh, but I do not get any enjoyment from the actual act of killing.
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
i am proponent of free speech. i believe all speech, including video games should be made available to adults. however, i also believe that as a society, we have a responsibility to protect all young people. i have nothing against r rated movies, or cd's with a parental advisory, and i also have nothing against telling a 13 year s/he has to wait five years before being able to purchase vice city. OR if mom and dad want little jonny to play m rated games, let them buy them for him, but in the world we live in, when jonny's mom and dad both work, maybe two jobs, why can't we tell him to wait till his folks decide? this isn't about taking the games off the market, its about who can EASILY get their hands on them, just like movies, cd's, guns, porn, etc
The parents are, arguably, the primary source of psycho-social imprinting for the child. Typically, children learn their behavior, morals, values, and identity from their parents. The more involved the parents are in the child's life life the stronger that influence. The less involved the parents are in their children's life, the less the influence; and the stronger the influence that outside sources (neighbors, peers, television, etc...)have on the child's identity.
That is why in most cases the minor is sentenced and the parents aren't convicted as accomplice to the crime. The fact that the 15 year old may or may not understand/realize the effect of murder (although that could be the case in rare circumstances) is not relevant. It is accepted that a fifteen year old understands the concept of "dead". What is relevant is the degree to which video games, television, movies, music, etc... desensitize the youth to the effects of killing, and thereby contribute to the condition (mental) which causes the youth to kill. There is compelling evidence to correlate violent video games and aggressive behavior, though not conclusive.
I am not familiar with that case, although most social scientists would examinate a killer's background for study. I would blame the media for sensationalizing a criminal act, not necessarily the social scientist.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Right now, about $102.50, USD.
Visit eBay and submit your bid for the Constitution of the United States of America, before the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment era, modern democracy, disappears.......forever......
why doesn't playing Tiger Woods make me a better golfer?
do us all a favor, do not vote for Senator Lieberman.
Hi
Check out Postal 2... www.gopostal.com or www.postal2.com. If you enjoy pointless violence, this is for you! Show your support by purchasing this game. Don't be a pirating ass-tard! This game is nice. Real nice. Heh.
After getting all the way through and "beating" the game, you can play an "Enhanced Game" where you have special powers and some of the weapons behave differently. Think urine=flame-thrower!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I'm writing a violent video game that will be one of the most complex video games ever invented. I'm spending over 6000 hours of my own time developing it. I graduated CMU for CS, and no one will hire me, so I'm forced to make my own game. If you ban this too, after I spend every waking hour for three years working on it fueled by pure hate in the system, I don't even know what I'd do but I bet it wouldn't be pretty.
x 2. html
I'll have my first demo at:
http://delvedesigns.com/websites/clancrazy/inde
Only has attack moves in it.
God spoke to me
I didn't notice that the original poster stated that the idiot in question was in idiot because of his politics.
Furthermore, disagreement about philisophical or political ideology can ideed indicate that someone is an idiot. After all, there are idiots out there, and presumably they have philosophies and political ideologies.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
does anybody else find it interesting that a person with a nick of "Nutsquasher" submited a story about violent video games?
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
Hopefully they will try again to pass this and little kids will not be able to buy/play violent video games. Little children and immature adults should not be allowed to play certain things because they aren't capable of controlling themselves and resisting the urges to do likewise in public.
When I was in high school, I went to Safeway to buy a bunch of eggs for the Honor Society breakfast, and Safeway wouldn't sell me the eggs, cause they thought I was going to egg somebody's house or something...
:)
Guess it was my own bad, for trying to buy the eggs the night before, cause I forgot about it, and waltzed into the Safeway with a buddy of mine at midnight
all those "violent/explicit" video games probably do little more, then teach you how to click the mouse really well :) Probably safe to say, it won't teach you how to really knock someone off.
Which do you advocate?
Me, I feel that adults should follow restrictions, when they make sense. Those that don't make sense, should be publicly disagreed with.
Should violent video games be banned? Hell, no!
Should little Bobbie be allowed to purchase it? Again, Hell NO!
But if Bobbie's *parental figures* feel that he is adult enough to distinguish between reality and fiction while he still wants to play/own it, there shouldn't be a law that bans him from playing it.
Parents should be responsible enough to be a part of their kids lives. Shop owners should be responsible enough to do their best to follow those restrictions too.
Too bad it's a "should" not "does."
Simply enough, some kids grow up faster than others and are more mature. And hence, just like some parents feel that they can take their thirteen year olds to an R rated movie that they want to go to.
Me? I'm a adult at 30, but I'm really kind of coasting at the 20'ish range of "adult behavior" (from choice, mostly.) Don't have any kids, don't see any in the near future either. But that's my choice as an adult.
Arthur Hansen
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
How many times did Yosemite Sam shoot Bugs, and yet he never died? How many times did Porky/Daffy/Wile E Coyote, fall off a cliff, and live? How many times had jerry hit tom in the head with a hammer with nothing bad happening?
How many times did gargamel try to boil the smurfs in a pot of hot water? How many times was daffy roasted in an oven? I remember nobody ever died in the A-Team despite all the violence.
By today's standards I should've assumed that violence doesn't hurt anybody, yet I seemed to have turned out ok. I think we aren't giving kids enough credit, we seem to think they are too stupid to figure anything out...
Their children to drink in the privacy of their own homes while under their supervision. And I believe there is no laws against a parent allowing their children to smoke in their home, either. (Most people would admit, the parents would have to be damn stupid to allow the second example.)
There are several religions that have glasses of wine as part of their religious observance (Judiasm, for one.)
Pretty much, the US law seems to think that children are not able to make adult decisions.
Kids that grow up on farms (in some states) I believe can get a learners to drive on certain roads, so they can help around the farm better.
Arthur Hansen
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
When I was growing up I played old NES games constantly, and you don't see me jumping onto fat kids heads, making alien life forms extinct, (which is more than corporate america can say) or shooting ducks. well, there was that time at the skatepark... then at summer camp... But, regardless, I've never shot a duck!
Banaaaana!
You had a sister? When I was a kid, we had to use a sheep.
So apparently no one was supposed to be asking you about your age anyway. :)
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
It's hard to say whether censorship is or is not the answer. I'm not the biggest advocate for censorship by far, but who's to say how violent video games will or will not affect minors.
This truly is a great day! This could become the precedent for all computer programs becoming protected speech (and thus quashing the DMCA and bunch of other awful laws).
Granted that Doom II looks a lot different to a judge and jury than DeCSS, but hey it's a start, right?
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
Microsoft depends on Halo to sell XBox. Halo is considered Violent. And XBox, though not as popular as PS2, definitely needs the release of Halo2 to boost sales. Bill Gates pulls out the trusty lawsuit death ray, and all is well again in the land of Redmond.
Think about it, you (you hapless son-of-a...) have been tasked with clearing a MINEFIELD, an arm-blowing, leg-blasting, face-melting minefield.
gotta luv it!
I budget for all of my porn....
I do not budget for violence, thank you.
----
http://www.hellection.com
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
You USians should start thinking up more unique names for yourselves. Sheesh, even Bill Gates is number 3 in a line of samenamers.
You know, we've seen countless books, studies, articles, posts etc... trying to explain what breeds violence. Depending on the author's agenda, the main reason for violence is Hollywood, video games (or AD&D a couple decades ago), porn, puritanism, poor parenting, a deep flaw in human nature, a genetic predisposition, the government, the corporations, poverty, advertising, space aliens... you name it.
What srikes me is that when a kid (or an adult actually) goes on a shooting spree, everybody tries to explain it by one or more of the above-mentioned reasons. But noone seems to state the obvious: (s)he killed because (s)he decided so. I'm not saying that no exogenous condition can ever have any influence on your behavior. But come on, is it so unthinkable that the main reason why one behaves badly is that (s)he decided to act selfishly? We all have felt strong surges of anger at some time without punching or killing anyone. We all know brothers and sisters with essentially the same genetic material and the same parenting, living in the same society who end up behaving very differently. Some kids grew up in Nazi extermination camps and ended up being decent people.
Why do we always need to find an external, causal relation to explain each and any of our decisions? Are we so afraid of facing the fact that we enjoy free will? That we should take responsibility in our own actions?
Everybody finds it easier to take responsibility for good actions than bad ones. I wonder if the general view that someone, somewhere, somehow is the cause of bad actions does not strengthen this natural trend. I don't think a human being ever does evil for the sake of it. Even the worst criminals have their own elaborate set of ethics that morally justifies their crimes in their own eyes. It always relies on a shift of responsibility over other people: "eveybody does it", "they started", "it's me or them", "I deserve more"... I can't remember any tiny (or not so tiny) evil thing I've done in my life without having such an excuse for myself.
In essence, all violence is caused by people who have a "good" excuse for doing so. And the excuse always relies on putting the blame on others. If you want to end violence, drop the excuse.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
You can't tell me that the exposure our children have had to more and more extreme violence in all forms of media from the late 60's till now have not grown a generation of mindless ,soulless, regretless,conscience-less young people who don't care about anything but themselves. No kids want to work, they just want to collect a paycheck. Hell, that's what I'm still waiting for, but I accept the fact that I have to work to make any money to support my family. The kids today will just live off mom and dad till the parent die and then it's their house and they did not even have to do anything but the "hard work" of tolerating mom and dad till they were dead. Look at the violent behavior happen in the US these days. This stuff never happened back then... WhY?
Because our children were never exposed to the volume of garbage they are now...
Who's fault is it? the parents... out busting ass so they can buy junior a new car for his 16th birthday... get a frickin' job and earn that car, you'll appreciate it more down the road....!
City wages war against violent video games
Basically, with this law in effect, depending on the size of your arcade, you might have to rent a larger builing if you wanted to stock Tekken. I think it was even ambiguous if you could create an "adult's only" arcade.
It wasn't really aimed at retail stores as much:
Of course, the above refers to the Indianapololis ban, not the St. Louis ban, but the articles I've read claimed the laws were very similar with the St. Louis ban going even further:First They Take Vice City, Then They Take Berlin: Video Game Legislation Offers Hard Lessons For Comic Books
The main point is that this was censorship, of a very specific kind. By imposing harsh restrictions on arcade owners that would cost money to meet, they basically could cause arcade owners to stop stocking certain games. Arcade owners are mostly interested in making money, not in idealistically protecting the right of the public to have the choice of playing the video games they want. (It's exactly the same purpose as the Castillo case, really, just swap out comic books for video games.)
The main thing that comes through in these cases is that the people putting these bans in place don't like video games at all and don't think kids (or adults) ought to be playing them, period. They go after them where they are weakest, the only reason they don't try for a blanket ban on all video games is because this is not Afghanistan and it wouldn't hold up. It's very reminiscent of the anti-Dungeons & Dragons crusades of years past, if these same people had stated right out why they didn't like D&D they would not have been listened to. So instead, they linked it to suicide and homicidal rampages among teenagers, even if the link was tenuous or an urban legend.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Indeed, but even studies are quite often biased.
Normal people play violent video games with lots of blood etc.
So do violent people
If you went out and took a stat, finding that 1 in every 5 people who play violent games has urges towards violence... an assumption could be drawn that the games promote violence in such violence. But... what about it such violent people are drawn to the games because of their violent nature, or simple just 1 in 5 people are violent.
I think if you took a group of abou 100 normal/anti-violence people, stuck them on PC's, and had them play UT2003, Quake3, etc until their eyeballs glowed... then took them to watch a live execution or whatnot, chances are they would be no less freaked out by watching a real person get his head shot off than before the study... sleep deprivation and other side-effect might play a factor instead.
It's the old damning lie about statistics... is it:
Person "B" does action "X" because of stimulus "A"
or
Person "B" is drawn towards stimulus "A" because he is of personality type drawn towards action "X"
or
Person "B" enjoys "A", and performs action "X", simply because 1 in 5 because he is in category "C" and such a type enjoys "X" and "A".
Ah, but the whole postal thing came from the fact that after way - many ex-soldiers who couldn't find work elsewhere ended up in the postal system. So in that case you had a bunch of people with gun-training, shell-shock, a post-war mentality, and supposedly a high-stress environment (I say supposedly since I'm not really sure how high-stress postal work is, nor am I sure it compares to tech work, or even worse callcentres).
In the case of most techies... I think it would be more like "geeze, that's the third person mysteriously electrocuted this week", or "look out, he's got a slide-rule!".
The simple answer as to the difference is that movie ratings are not law.
On a related note, I have to say that I don't think the movie ratings board does a good job, so I would not hold that up as an example of how software ratings should work. For an example, look at the way Clerks was treated for bad language while depictions of sex and violence in big-studio movies get a pass.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Yup. Im karma whoring.
Thats why I said "AGAIN."
no