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.

Comments

The ball is not in our court

[Swayne Shabazz]

"I'm looking for the sunny side to a situation that seems littered with defeat."

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.

How is this different from porn?

[Sean80]

I'm really confused about this. How is sexually explicit material in a game any different from sexually explicit material on a DVD?

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?

Re:How is this different from porn?

[Telastyn]

Hence why the law was struck down on the fact that it also outlawed violence. The judge (imo correctly) ruled that violent images are not obscene, and thus protected by the 1st amendment. Likely a similar law baring sexual content would stand (and afaik already exists in many places)

Re:How is this different from porn?

[Sean80]

I'll never, ever understand this ordering of priorities. If I had to make a choice for my kids, would I rather they got out into the street and have sex with a lot of people, or go out into the street and shoot a lot of people? I know that sounds funny, but it's what we're ultimately talking about here.

To me, violence is far more obscene than sexually explicit material.

Re:How is this different from porn?

[pVoid]

To quote our lord and savior, Colonel Kurts:

"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'Fuck' on their airplane... Because: it's obscene".

- Apocalypse Now

Re:How is this different from porn?

[lvdrproject]

Yes, i do.

Just ask anybody at my school. They couldn't give a shit less, either way. They act like the school's discouragement towards talking about the blow-jobs they got/gave last weekend, the mishaps they had with their tampons, and the frequency of their masturbation is totally ridiculous.

Aside from that, just talk to somebody on IRC. Most people there don't seem to have any problem whatsoever discussing sex in full and gruesome detail.

I guess i kind of see where you're coming from, though, a little. In some peoples' minds, it's like that. For example, my English teacher thinks war movies are super-fantastic in their realistic depiction of people getting their legs torn to shreds, but she seems to think that sex in movies is unnecessary, and insists that we fast-forward through all scenes involving physical romance.

On the other other hand, NBC and ABC and Fox seem to discourage violence in their programming, while sex is the primary focus of pretty much every piece of trash they run.

So i guess, in a word, it depends.

Re:How is this different from porn?

[homer_ca]

Unless you're talking about something like an Interactive Blowjob porn game, most sexually explicit games wouldn't rate anything more than an R movie which is restricted for minors, but not prohibited. BMX XXX might have flashed some boobs and that's it. GTA talks about ho's and drugs, but they don't show much.

Re:How is this different from porn?

[TGK]

As usual the Slashdot crowd, while my first goto on technical matters, isn't quite up to speed on the legal side of things. While I am not a lawyer I'm more or less married to one, so let me see if I can clarify this.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that certain types of material can be declared "obscene." This differs from material that is just offensive. Obscene material offends the sensibilities of the community it is in so much that the rights of one person to have/view that material infringes on everyone elses right not to have to deal with it.

The best example I can think of would be something like Hard Core Anal Action MCXVII in an all quaker community.

The Court ruled that in cases like that the community has the right to ban the material from sale and public display localy.

In the case of violence it is very hard to make such a case, especialy on a large scale basis. We are a violent culture. Unloading, as Kurt Vonegutt put it, weapons that cost more than a high school on a third world country, garnered some of the highest ratings of the spring television season. As a people we love violence, and we see it every day. As long as the 7:00 news has more blood, guts, and gore than Vice City you're not going to see a ban on violent video games standing up to any sort of legal scrutiny.

Hope this helps.

Video games don't breed violence...

[Gortbusters.org]

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.

Re:Video games don't breed violence...

[DeepDarkSky]

But you can never say that violent video games have no effect or no influence whatsoever on the individuals that play them. Neither does, as your post seem to imply (though I know that's not what you meant), poor parenting breed violence.

Good parenting can minimize the violence, but poor parenting doesn't necessarily cause violence. 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.

(If that wasn't a muddle confusing mess, I don't know what is)

Re:Video games don't breed violence...

[kazad]

It's true that bad parenting (or no parenting at all) is a large problem, but the video games and TV shows need to take responsibility as well.

Parents who police and control their child's every movement probably cause as much psychological damage as the violent games/shows. Realistically, parents cannot monitor every audiovisual input their child receives -- it is the duty of those *creating* that input to make it reasonably wholesome for the sake of children.

Violent games/TV shows are about trends -- not every person will attack someone, but does the average person become more violent? If so, there is a negative influence. Think about brainwashing and propaganda -- still think TV/movies/games don't have any effect? None at all?

A particularly poignant example is this: in high school, I saw a video that showed a live execution. It was during the Vietnam War; an officer held a gun to the head of an enemy solider (Viet Cong I think), pulled the trigger, and the victim fell. He slumped over, blood spurted out of his head like a fountain, and slowly subsided.

That really effected me. I think we can agree that is a moving video. But why is that so different from a video game depicting the same thing. "Because it's real!" you say. The fact that *you* know it is real and not a hollywood set makes that difference. The same exact audiovisual input, coupled with the fact that "it's real" makes it scary.

Now think about kids. They have a hard time understanding what is real and what isn't, hell, we give them stories about the Easter Bunny and Santa. And so we expect them to understand that the deaths on the news are entirely different than the deaths on a video game, even though with increasing graphics, etc. they may look strikingly similar.

I'm not against banning the games; humans have come a long way from the Roman Colleseum and spectators making a sport of death. Death is a sad, inevitable fact of life, which cannot be fully appreciated by young children. Training them to kill at that age, or to view repeated killings, will surely have some effect. Minimizing this before they are old enough to understand (like restricting porn from them when they are young) is a Good Thing.

So yeah, I want to play some counterstrike/quake like the next guy, but maybe the little chilluns should kill monsters (aka Doom 3) instead of living, breathing humans.

That's my two cents. =)

Re:Video games don't breed violence...

[BWJones]

I have killed probably millions of digital people in my game playing days, but when I accidentially step on a snail, I get bummed out. To me, life is sacred. But that is not to say that I don't think killing can be justified, it is just very regretable.

Well, that is encouraging and good to know. However, it is one thing to say that "yes, I played video games (I most certainly did) and there is nothing wrong with me! I don't kill people". But it is quite another thing to perform population studies and test the hypothesis that video games do not desensitize people to violence. Isolated individuals speaking up does not a scientific study make.

Re:Video games don't breed violence...

[Scrameustache]

Neither can you say with 100% certainty that violent games do not cause violent behavior

Yes I can.
The reasoning goes like this: Was there violent behaviour before videogames? Yes? Then videogames are not the cause of the violence. Pretty simple. : )

Re:Video games don't breed violence...

[deadsaijinx*]

Maybe I'm a freak, but violent games never caused violence in me. My gaming is kinda the opposite of my philosophy, I play violent games, but I have never supported violence of any type. In fact, I am arderntly against any form of violence. Therefore, I really do blame the parents. If parents would just instill some MORALS into their kids, the violence would definitely be minimized. And that doesn't even mean you need to spend a great deal of time with your kids either. I'm a latch-key kids, and I practically raised my little brothers and sisters. But what time my parents did spend with me, they spent teaching me right from wrong, and just expressing their love. That's all it takes, but people seem incapable of just that.

From what I've seen, it's that parents don't correct their kids soon enough. Maybe I'm just a sadistic bastard, but a parent sometimes needs to resort to some less than savory method to correct their kids (spare the rod and spoil the child and all), but most parents don't seem to want to get their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of being a parent.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I feel safe in saying that the only reason why games get so much bad attention is that parents want a scape goat, an easy way out of responsibility. Perhaps responcibility is a concept long lost to most American parents these days, and the ones that do try to take responsibilty do so by censoring out the world. This in itself is, imo, flawed in concept and dangerous for the child. A child whom is given options will, with positive assistance and advice fromt he parents, make better decisions. From what I've seen, the most violent children are children whose parents were over protective. It is their insatiable urge to be freed from the bounds of their parents that seems to drive their violence. This, of course, doesn't call into account the poorer groups in society, where violence stems from much more conviluted sources, but its the middle class that purchases the most games.

I know that some children shouldn't play violent games because it does increase their violent behavior. as much as i love FPS, i accept that some people are too impresionable for them. The trick, as I see it, is to instill maturity and decision making skills into the child, and to remind them that you love them. After that, it is up to them to find their way in life. I know that I've made mistakes that could have been avoided, but I've learned through trial and error that violence is wrong, and society is better without it. And I feel that is everyones goal, to build a better society. To do so, you must teach your child how to make decisions, not to make them for them. Leave the games alone, let them choose whether or not they want to play them, and don't be afraid to punish them when their behavior gets out of line.

(hmmmm, wow, that rambles)

You speak the truth, but I think

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Definition == Slippery Slope

[StAugustineLovesYou]

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.

yay, I can kill nazi's now

[zakezuke]

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.

Re:Excellent

[dj_paulgibbs]

If a shopkeeper allows a 13 year old to buy a pornographic game or a game about serial murder, then it's not the game (its developer or publisher) that needs to be looked at.

There are no National Laws

[Tiger Smile]

"Since the Federal government has been considering a national law along these lines, these decisions on local laws may be important soon."

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/ 93-1260.ZO .html

-- James Dornan

no, no, no

[appleLaserWriter]

GOOD parenting encourages violence. We must kill all the terrorists! Counterstrike!

Re:Excellent

[MyPantsAreOnFire!]

If a shopkeeper allows a 13 year old to buy a pornographic game or a game about serial murder, then it's not the game (its developer or publisher) that needs to be looked at.

True. And in the same sense, if the kid is out with $50 to spend on these types of things instead of doing homework, participating in sports, or spending time with their parents, then it's not just the shopkeeper, but also the parents that need to be looked at.

If parents don't want this stuff getting into their kids' hands, maybe they should get off their own asses and spend some time with their kids.

Any non-violent games out there?

[rothic]

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?

!st Amendment seems beside the point

[geekee]

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.

I don't get it

[extrarice]

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?

Re:I don't get it

[deadsaijinx*]

The difference is really who wants to sell it. I think, and don't quote me on this, that a minor has virtually 0 rights in US law. Therefore, it should be up to the PARENTS, or those with LOCOS PARENTIS, to enforce those laws. Movie theators, IIRC, are only doing their enforcement voluntarily, and most do so to avoid angry parents. Not that the employees enforce the rules most of the time.

Personally, I am against the barring of purchasing either, only the parent should decide.

But then there is economics. Lots of older people buy movies, teens buy the most games.

Re:Vice City

[Visaris]

I dissagree. If my child is old enough to pick up the controller and start driving around and shooting people, then I think he's old enough to learn the diference between what's real and what isn't. I'd consider myself a failure as a parent if I couldn't teach that to my kids by the time they can play a console game with any proficency.

The pictures in the box aren't real jimmy!

Reign in your righteous indignation for a minute..

[fondue]

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.

Re:The Fat Idiot's Brother

[AME]

Disagreement about a philosophical or political ideology does not make someone an idiot.

A stronger indication of "idiocy," per se, might be in using purely invective arguments against philosophical or political opponents. This, by the way, is what you have just done.

Re:This could actually be a good thing.

[El]

First off, minors shouldn't play games where the objective is to realistically murder people.

And why not? I don't care about your opinion; can you cite any scientific studies that prove actual harm? Why is it that a day before his 18th birthday, a young adult shouldn't be allowed to participate in fantasy violence, but the next day it is perfectly ok to ship the same young adult to Iraq on a mission to actually kill real people? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

2 steps, and i agree with you

[MacAndrew]

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.

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. :) 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.

It's the parents! Damn you lousy parents!

[Phoenix Dreamscape]

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.

Re:It's the parents! Damn you lousy parents!

[ciphertext]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

and

[_avs_007]

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...

Re:Excellent

[BitterOak]

And in the same sense, if the kid is out with $50 to spend on these types of things instead of doing homework, participating in sports, or spending time with their parents, then it's not just the shopkeeper, but also the parents that need to be looked at.

So you're saying that kids shouldn't be allowed any free time at all?!? Parents and teachers must keep them swamped with homework, sports activities, and time with parents that they can't have any life of their own? I agree that the above-mentioned activities are good for kids, but they need a life, too.

Re:Tough Subject

[Cid Highwind]

Don't you think the burden of proof should be on the people making a positive claim (in this case "violent video games cause more violent behaviour")? Unless there is some very good evidence supporting that claim, I think the govenment is overstepping it's bounds regulating game sales.

Disclaimer: I'm a legal adult, I like playing violent games, and I don't think they make me more violent... Now hand over the fucking Duke Nukem CD, or I'll kill every one of you with my thermonuclear heat-seeking railgun!!!