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.

And the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scores a

[j0nkatz]

FATALITY!

Whew. I was worried about my niece.

[Unknown Poltroon]

She keeps playing minesweeper on my computer. Thats pretty violent, i mean with all the dead happy faces and all.

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?

[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

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

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

[BWJones]

Video games don't breeb violence...poor parenting does.

No, but an argument could be made for desensitization. I think I have posted this here before, but in the Corps (Marine Corps), one of the most difficult things to do in training recruits is to get them to not hesitate pulling the trigger to end another human beings life. (humans tend to default towards not killing each other unless they are sociopaths which the Corps does not want). To overcome this issue, recently the Corps has been experimenting with 3D shootemups in an attempt at desensitization and teaching squad maneuvering and strategy skills, but primarily desensitization.

So, do video games desensitize kids to violence?

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...

[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)

Pre-emptive strike

[fahrvergnugen]

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.

Re:Pre-emptive strike

[Yet Another Moron]

Before Yet Another Moron gets on here and starts ranting about how it works for the movies, why not for the games...

Oh, come ON, I don't deserve this. What have I ever done to you?

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.

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.