Slashdot Mirror
Violent Video Game Law Struck Down
The Importance of writes "Washington State banned the sale of violent videogames depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers' to minors under age 17. When challenged, the law was blocked by a preliminary injunction. Yesterday, a federal district court decided that the law was unconstitutional because it failed the strict scrutiny test and was also void for vagueness. Read the 15-page decision [PDF]. A summary of the case's holdings with quotations here."
I think they let members of society get out thier frustrations without physically acting them out.
And it rendered on, until the end of its days.
... if a cop is killed in a movie, then ban the movie?
And possibly all future productions by those involved in it?
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Do the Roman centurions of 'Age of Empires' ... qualify as 'public law enforcement officers'?"
Shows just how laws like that could be misinterpreted...
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Drugs became illegal in the US because of these exact types of stupid legislators. Now, it's part of our culture. Walk down the street and you can find zillions of people who actually believe that pot kills. Same with video games. Once they ban them, it's easy to "educate" people with PR campaigns. Eventually, hardly anyone will remember the days when a 10 year old could play space invaders. Zillions of people will actually believe that videogames cause violence. Truth won't matter. Science won't matter. Research won't matter. They will believe it because they don't think about it, and are afraid to take a minority stand.
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
Violent Video Game Law Struck Down
:)
Hey, leave the poor guy alone!
Little Bricklets
Long ago we needed a separation between Church and State. Now we need a separation between Parent and State. Parents need to take some responsiblitity in raising their children and stop blaming every form of media that doesn't fit into their package of morals.
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
It's a good sign that free speech and common sense has largely won out in this circumstance; it's been some time since I've seen a legal issue on here that actually followed the principles of freedom granted by the constitution, rather than blatantly ignoring it ;P
One thing that I did notice though, was:
Which suggests that as expected, the debate over violent/explicit video games is long from over, and more restrictions may well be brought in over time.
This is bang on the money. Violent Video games give people stress relif; they are good for society. Would you rather someone take their frustrations out on other people, instead of fake people? Let's face it, there are plenty of injustices in the world that require more attention than any injustices proportedly caused by violence in media, be it video games or film.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Now I can stop worrying about the gameplay in San Andreas and get back to trying to get that 6 star rating in Vice City.
Moo!
It is interesting that the court appears to have said that obscenity can not be used as a justification (i.e. can't sell Playboy to minors) because obscenity deals with sexual matters, rather than violence.
While I think that this is a great win for free speech, does it seem a bit weird that the ability to blow someone's head clean off is given a higher protection than showing someone's nipple? Which one is really worse in the long run?
Note: I am not for censorship of any kind, though I think voluntary ratings and PARENTAL INVOLMENT I N CHOICES are the best solution, but it speaks volumes that violence seems to be celebrated but anything sexual must be covered up "for the children". It really goes to show the almost paradoxical prudist warrior culture that permeates America today.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
...are most cops that get injured in the line of duty attacked by people under the age of 18? I'm glad the law has been stopped--this is, IMO, the duty of the parent not the gov't.
Than I ever did playing Doom, Quake, or Half-Life.
Arn't most games involving this sort of thing 18s any way? O.o
I've played violent games since as long as I can remember and now I'm almost a complete pacafist, nice to know that society made me this way and not that I learnt that violence was a pointless expression which words can express much better.
Sure some days I feel like kicking someones face in and I'm greatful that we have Street fighter and similar games so I can vent my destructive urges before they end up getting me in court with this new "look at me funny and I sue you" world we live in.
I like muppets.
I hate it when I misspell boalded werds. Sarry.
Bah, and I had mod points this morning and burned them.
This is such bullshit. There is no formidable connection between violent video games / music and a proclivity to commit violence in the long run.
I'll tell you what the problem is with the youth of today with all the violence.... Shitty parents. Mystery solved.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
Graphic depictions of depraved acts of violence, suc as the murder, decapitation, and robbery of women in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, fall well within the more general definition of obscenity. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word "obscenity" means material that deals with sex. Only "works which depict or describe sexual conduct" are considered obscene and therefore unprotected.
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
Technoli
Actually, drugs (specifically marijuana) became illegal because of a single man's insane crusade against them. Drugs STAYED illegal for many other reasons.
google for "Harry J. Anslinger"
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
and then everyone could unsubscribe to cable :-)
sheer brilliance!!!
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
I understand the idea behind this new "law" but I still think that this is wrong way to fix the problem. If USA really wants to make life safer for 'law enforcement officers', how about stricter gun laws, instead? I think I have forgot something... oh yeah, not having lots of guns would be unconstitutional. I guess you should ban computer games and movies instead.
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
if i could get halo/ut style sticky nades for traffic and highway situations i think my level of violence would increase substantially
As the demographic moves from teenyboppers to more mature folks in their 20's, are they even really focusing on the right people? Yes, I understand that it's not exactly wholesome material when 47 fiber-wires the local law enforcement officials. I also understand that I'm playing a video game.
For the younger crowd, there's a rating system in place. If mommy buys Hitman: Contracts or Vice City for little johnny (even after reading the rating for it) -- and continues to let the PS2/TV/Internet babysit the child, I believe no law can help that "family."
It's a strange society that looks to everyone else for responsibility in raising children. When all else fails, I suppose we can always blame Canada. Until then, spend time with your children. Make sure they know the difference between reality and fantasy. Give them a sense of morality. Lead by example and for fsck's sake, let them know they matter. I bet that'll work much better than any legislation could.
Please, for the love of christ, please stop posting "MOD PARENT UP/DOWN" posts!
Nothing better than sitting down to a game of GTA, while listening to NWA's "Fuck the police", while watching the greatest scene in Terminator when he kills all those cops in the police station, with a Law and Order episode where a cop gets killed in the picture in picture..
Why so violent with your language?
Wouldn't "Violent Video Game Law Lightly Swatted Away Without Harming a Fly" be more appropriate?
Maybe. However i don't know anyone who thinks pot kills, everyone knows that pot just makes you stupid. In fact, I would argue that most people think alcohol is far more dangerous to your health. Drinking too much can kill you, smoking too much pot can't.
Drugs like heroin can kill. It's a good thing that heroin is illegal. So comparing video games which don't hurt anyone, to drugs, seems to be doing an injustice to video games.
I think the editors decided there would be too many "federal pound me in the ass prison" jokes that don't really apply, since female convicts are lacking an essential body part.
However, I'm left wondering, since her sentence is pretty light, if she is entitled to "conjugal visits".
No, the new decency laws will effectively do this by making it prohibitively expensive to do anything the least bit riskee. No need for laws when you can accomplish the same through extortion;)
The law is leaving the poor kids with no option but to illeagally acquire the games (warez). Great job!
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Yet again, we teach our kids and everyone playing games that pretend death is fine, but pretend love is not... and they wonder why everyone's weird!
stuff |
then, because of pacman, teenagers would gather in
dark rooms, listen to electronic music and pop pills. Oh wait...
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
All the law says is that stores are subject to fines if they sell violent video games to children under 17. Nobody is banned from playing them.
Just like R rated movies, I saw parents take their kids to R rated south park. I'm sure there will be parents who purchase GTA3 for their children.
Well with Doom III finally coming out, I can't be held responsible if I go about blasting demons and zombies that I come across.
So my point - other countries don't make a big deal out of nudity and nothing bad is happening to them. Is it?
My question what's the real difference?
Is it that we're, generally speaking, infantile or adolescent here in the U.S.? Or what?
I'm really growing tired of this bit-by-bit slow progression. Let's go ahead and get it over with. Let's install the telescreens, make everything illegal, certainly ban anything that any person on the planet thinks might possibly harm or inconvenience anyone in any way, and live tied down to a bedpost for the rest of our lives to make sure we are nice and safe from all the nasties. Let's have all of this done by tomorrow, the wait is killing me.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Pot kills just like drinking does.
Most people who use pot wouldn't be smart enough not to drive after they have used it. Hence it's just as dangerous as any of the other "take my mind off life" style addictive substances.
I like muppets.
Anyway, in case of future such laws, the shoot-all-cops games can always be exported abroad. I'm sure there will be plenty of market overseas. You just need to steer the police uniforms with 2-3 GIs to make the thing more recognizable...
Seriously, if you ask me all shoot-em-all games should be banned. Give'em incredible machines - that's a great one!
But that's not what the law is doing. A law banning the sale of M-rated videogames to under-17-year-olds, sure. I'd be okay with that, but this law banned sale of games featuring violence against law-enforcement officers, regardless of ESRB rating. Plenty of Everyone- or Teen-rated games feature such content - under this law, they would have been forbidden to minors as well.
Hell, if you read any of the links in this post (even the one to the previous slashdot story on the subject), you'd know this. Pay attention before you post.
Bart: "Dad! You killed the zombie Flanders!"
Homer: "He was a zombie?"
Please, for the love of christ, please stop posting "Please stop posting \"MOD PARENT UP/DOWN\" posts!".
First, as others have said, what makes a game (or, for instance, a cartoon or comic book, although these ones are less censored these days) different than a movie or a book?
GTA is much more "light" than any cops movie, yet are these censored all the time? Are all of these X-rated or something?
Second, the thing about law enforcement officials, specifically, is absurd. If that law passed, then what would come next? Shouldn't firefighters enjoy the same "protection" from violence in games? Old people? Women? They can be killed in a movie, but not in a game, because a game is different, right?
Besides, doesn't the game have an "M" or an "18" on the box? Shouldn't be sold to minors, period. No need to create a NEW law about the killing of THESE people you PARTICULARLY don't want killed, even if it's just a game. If a parent wants to buy it for his 8-year old kid, anyway, despite the obvious sticker, then it's HIS responsibility (although in America he'll blame the games industry and/or the government anyway, if something goes wrong with the kid later).
(BTW: the "kill the haitians" thing in Vice City was even more ridiculous. Drug dealers can sell drugs, kill people, but god forbid they make racist comments, because they are NICE people, good role models, after all...)
The Tlog - a technology blog
Sure, because when the government is done trampling the rights of those who aren't old enough to vote yet, they probably won't decide to restrict older people or anything. Nah. Not our fine, upstanding legislators.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
all organized religions and governments exist because someone wants to control someone else's behavior. There are no other reasons for either, everything always comes down to that premise.
This mindset is always based on two central points.
a.) My way is the right way, and because it is the right way, it is better than anyone elses (yours).
b.) Because I have the right way, and mine is better than yours, then I must know what's best for you because you clearly don't since your way isn't mine.
These ideas have caused virtually all wars murders and persecutions of all people throughout time.
and attacking a symptom doesn't fix the problem
The answer is, people don't know what is best for them; no one does because no one created themselves and they don't know why they are here, so you must leave people alone and help them when you can and it is meritted without interference in their personal evolutionary process. (do unto others as you would them do unto you isn't just a good idea it's the law, universal law.)
of course none of that will happen as long as people think they can solve problems by simply killing the people they have a problem with. (notice that doesn't work)
> It really goes to show the almost paradoxical prudist warrior culture that permeates America today.
...does it seem a bit weird that the ability to blow someone's head clean off is given a higher protection than showing someone's nipple? Which one is really worse in the long run?
Where in the world do people come up with this stuff? Ever heard of a film called "Braveheart"? You may remember some scenes of violence in that movie. And what rating did it achieve? R, for "brutal medieval warfare". That doesn't pull any punches; that doesn't say word one about the sensuality between Wallace and Murron.
>
That depends on how much you think seeing these things influences people. Would you rather deal with teenagers getting pregnant, STDs, AIDS-like epidemics, etc - or would you rather deal with murder, rape, riots, mobs, gangs, etc?
Seems like we have a lot of both to me.
Sex isn't love; desire is an emotion, just like anger. Either taken to an extreme can have unintended side effects.
Substitute some sort of exploitive pornography for "nipple", then ask yourself the same question again. Doesn't seem like children should be exposed to either one, does it? But, as you said, their parents need to be involved either way.
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
Then they wouldn't have anyone to look down on and feel superior in comparison to.
Technoli
Guess we should also ban all those episodes of TJ Hooker.. where's the bill?
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Walk down the street and you can find zillions of people who actually believe that pot kills. Same with video games.
You cannot simply equate pot to violent video games. People are harmed and killed under the influence of pot, or by someone else who is under the influence. If you want to equate pot to violent video games, you have to make the argument that after playing a violent video game, your capabilities are somehow impared while you are under the influence of the video game.
I think there is a short-term sensory influence of the video game, but I don't think it would impare anyone capabilities. For them to react in an overly violent manner, I would claim that they were violent to begin with and the game really had nothing to do with it.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
because their laws are more facsist than any other country. Respect the authority now and mod me down.
Am I the only one who thinks the headline to this story should be "Violent Video Game Law Fragged"
When children see violence, and they don't witness the _concequences_ of their violence they learn the wrong lessons and see violence as a solution to their problems. Don't believe me? Don't you think the US Public's acceptance of our Iraqi invasion is, in large part, due to our constant acclamation to violence over the TV and video games? Most people I know don't even see it as real -- it is just another TV show.
Wake up and be human. All violent games which show someone being shot, should have another scene where they see the victim's spouse, children, parents huddled over a gravestone or see the body go through convultions on the operating table. This is the only way to cure our turly insane acceptance for these inhumane acts.
come on, everyone knows that pot makes you drive better....
</sarcasm>
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
One of the most interesting example, at least in the U.S., was the ban on the smoking of opium. Opium was still widely and legally available, but smoking, a habit favored by chinese immigrants, was criminalized
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Video games up next.
Anyone else see the many parallels with firearm bans? Blaming something inanimate(a Rifle, GTA3, Sweet Mary Jane) for human crimes is the first one. The slander against said objects' image. A stupid, sheeplike, easily exploited populace is the intended result, although to be fair it is a cause as well as effect.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
everyone knows that pot just makes you stupid
Yeah, the several Nobel Laureates that were pot smokers were pretty stupid.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
This is true. My parents told me the story once about how great grandma and great grandpa used to take puffs on their crack pipes on the way to school. The crack pipes were, of course, made out of the radio antennas stolen off Model-T's.
Seriously, separation of Parent and State sounds like a great idea. Stupid fucking legislature separates themselves further from the Constitution every day.
Actually you're missing the principle, which is that prohibition doesn't work, and in fact it's counterproductive. I don't want people shooting up H on the streets but in the 1920s Bayer manufactured Heroin and sold it in the drug stores like aspirin and there was no problem.
And BTW, pot doesn't kill but it's some killer s**t.
--pyro_dude
...and my parents took me to the local Egghead Software to get a video game for my birthday. Being a young computer nerd, this was fine by me. Well, I chose some game that I really wanted (I now forget the title) and my mom INSTANTLY asked the sales guy if it had ANY violence in it. Yep, it sure did. So I put it down. I then chose "Blades of Steel", and the sales person told my parents you could get into a fight in the game (it's hockey, for those of you who don't know). So now, frustrated as hell, I put that game down. So then I decided on Microsoft Flight Simulator 4. Seemed to go ok, until we got home and my ma opened the package and read the manual.... "WHAT?!? WORLD WAR ONE COMBAT! YOU CAN SHOOT PEOPLE! AHHAHHAHAHHH YOU AREN'T PLAYING THIS!" I was a social retard for a while because of this constant shielding from the Chicken Little that was my mother. Hitops were 'gang shoes'... Etc etc. Funny that after all that, I still got into fist fights at least once year until I was in High School, because of my lack of height and my raising (social retard). At least I learned how to fight. :-/
Fucking stupid Tipper Gore bullshit, and my ma bought into it like a sucker.
My point? Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, and they need to be held responsible more often. I knew what the fuck the difference between fantasy and fiction was back then (I was 8), and so do kids today. In fact, I truly believe they are smart enough to game the system for protection when it comes down to it. What really needs to be done is for children to have better education. Spend all this wasted money on effectively teaching kids and giving them a future, and shut the fuck up about violence, because we all know that it's bullshit anyway.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Moderators... stop moderating up this bullshit unless they post valid links.
Yeah, the several Nobel Laureates that were pot smokers were pretty stupid.
1) Think how much smarter they would've been without.
2) Wonder how many others would've been without it?
We need to move back into the way of personal responsibility. Vote Libertarian!
Actually there is at least one study that shows drivers under the influence of pot drive MORE safely than those not; thought to be due to slower driving perhaps due to paranoia.. heh ;)
Oh, and there is not a single death attributable to marijuana in all of recorded history. Yet the stuff is not something to mess around with, I'll say.
--pyro_dude
bull shit there isn't evidence!
Moderators... stop moderating up this bullshit unless they post valid links.
Banning titles is indeed a bad idea, but (as previously stated by another person) restricting them is fine by me. Parents do need to work at raising their children, but the government needs to give them the tools to do so. If a law requires people to be 18 to buy "Cop Killah" games, then it gets my vote. But, banning such games is indeed against how I interpret the constitution. Let parents choose how to raise their children while stopping children from choosing how to raise themselves. As always a happy medium shows good results. Sometimes, adults also need to vent. Requiring credentials doesn't impact freedom (if you play your cards right, you will someday be 18 too). Washington took it too far, seems it is getting on the right track again.
There's only one thing I'm allergic to... Sudden Death. (Danger Mouse)
Do you realize how much tax revenue would be lost if they banned violent video games?!
"BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
I'd like to extend a big "Fuck You, Asshole".
People have been griping about this forever now. It truly amazes me how misguided parents can be. Take the hundreds of hours you spend whining and moaning, and go spend them with your children. Parents need to take some responsibility for their children's upbringing, if you don't like a game, then don't let them play it. If you hate television so much, don't let them watch it. I don't think hiding your children from reality is a good choice, though. It only truly becomes an issue when it's made an issue. You rant and rave to your child for years about how evil this that and the other thing is, there is probably a much better chance of them having problems coping with the cruel reality of our world when they are eventually forced to anyway. Provide guidance, wisdom, and caring for your kids. Teach them the difference between reality and video games, teach them to treat others with kindness, and let them come to their own conclusions. Going postal from playing a violent game only proves that you are one of two things: stupid, or insane.
Linux Forum
we are talking about graphic violence against humans, especially against law enforcement; RTFA
there are strong links between violent games and agressive behavior
Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball? All the bouncing and jiggling, and the X-treme'ness (I better stop cuz I'm starting to shvitz.)
Why get rid of the games that have all the killing, when you don't mind if your kids play with soft-core pr0n.
Makes me wonder what would happen if "these people" had their way. What would video games be like with zero violence? What would TV be like with zero violence?
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
There is such a huge moral difference between a game that has, for instance, an unavoidable in-game cutscene or scripted sequence that is terribly violent, or that offers such as part of the story -- and a game that just models a world, and you can CHOOSE to pick up a gun and shoot someone.
After a while, the GTA-esque games will have such advanced simulations for every part of the gameplay experience -- better vehicle physics, better AI, better "flocking" crowd behavior, etc -- because it becomes physically impossible to create all of the content by hand. We saw this is GTA3 already; mix-and-match, swappable body components to create random citizens, etc.
Already, easily half of the time you spend playing GTA 3 -- maybe much more than half -- is spent interacting independently with the simulations entirely apart from the presented story of the game.
Thus, it is really unfair to judge GTA-esque games on anything other than the material that they explicitly *present* to you. The fact that their physics subsystems may eventually make it possible to hit someone at 120mph and actually see their limbs separate from their body (soft-body physics to display the rippling and approximate tearing, but with much simpler joint systems in place that build on already existing ragdoll code) -- this should not weigh in the rating one way or another. Only what the game explicitly presents. Including perhaps the default violence the game depicts as you play it.
After all, what the fuck were you doing driving 120mph?
I would love to see GTA take a completely new turn, take a page from Postal (which sucked) and put a "job" into your next game. The idea being -- hey, criminals exist, and you COULD get involved with organized crime. That's always out there, and we've written plausible dialogue and a gripping, gritty story. But that is NOT WHAT OUR GAME IS ABOUT. Our game is a life simulator, and we never trap the player into things -- we even give him moments of revelation where he makes up his mind to just walk away, go back to his day job, and run errands for his genuinely loving girlfriend. She will send you to get milk, ask you to take her for a drive, and so forth. Every day, you drive to work, and we have an engaging "Worktris" minigame to simulate exciting cubicle life, where all the blocks are the same size and color: plain!
Outside is a dangerous world -- guns, corruption, and cocaine just waiting to be snorted off of the clitoris of a Cuban hooker -- and that is TERRIBLE and exciting. Our game is about the American Dream of a normal life, and we strongly urge our players at every point in the video game NOT TO CONTINUE to do what they are doing! There are heartfelt cutscenes where your family members cry and ask you to please step away from the darkness, to return to the joys of job and family!
God . . . God . . . . what beautiful, wonderful, tearfully poigniant irony! I can even see the game cover; it would look like a Christian Youth Rock Band poster, with a young man in wholesome khakis and a polo shirt, with a plain wholesome pregnant wife in the background wearing a plain wholesome unappealing Adidas sweatsuit . . . and in the shadows of the lower right-hand side, the dark reminders of the depths of depravity and sin that lie in wait for all of us!
GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN SUNSHINE (San Diego)
The Flight From Temptation
is instead of a law blocking violent video games because they think they might cause violence, they really should make a law that bans video games that suck so bad that they incite violence.
How many times have you been hit with a flying jewel case/cartridge while hearing someone shout, "You mean I fucking paid 50 bucks for this piece of shit!"
You've never met kids who've gone through the D.A.R.E. program. They tell all kinds or horrific lies about drugs. Crap like pot will turn you into a heroin junkie.
Now, I support teaching kids about the dangers of drugs. But I'm against lieing to them about it. If you want your kids to be able to deal with drugs they need to know the truth.
The problem with lieing to kids about drugs as mostly-harmless as pot is that when the kids do try it, and none of those evil things happen to them, they doubt your word on the really dangerous stuff like cocain and heroin.
Honesty is paramount when dealing with children if you want them to have the tools to survive.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Yup, it sure is good heroin is illegal (because it can kill you), just like cigarettes and alcohol are illegal. In my ideal world, the government would keep their noses out of anything I do on my own time to my own person. Wanna smoke pot? Knock yourself out! Do a few rails, shoot some tar, whatever man! Just like alcohol, stay the fuck out of the driver's seat. Why should I not be allowed to put whatever I want into my own body? There are plenty of warning labels on bleach, but it's sure not *illegal* for me to drink it, even though it'll pretty surely kill me. If everyone else is allowed to drink their vodka, why can't I smoke dope?
do not read this line twice.
is that the courts found that video games DO qualify as protected speech. This is a very good thing because it sets a precedent that will make banning/restricting games much harder.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
1) Think how much smarter they would've been without.
Probably not at all smarter. I'm not a particular fan of pot (it makes me paranoid; I much prefer a nice glass of 2000 Estancia Meritage), but there is absolutey no evidence it "makes you stupid" and a great many studies that indicate it is quite innocuous, including several fairly recent studies by the US Federal government that were subsequently squashed for political reasons.
Chronic abusers of any drug are another story, however, even there we see far greater damage resulting from alcoholism and addiction to prescription drugs. Recreational use isn't terribly healthy (no alien chemicals to the body are), but there is no correlation between pot use and lack of intelligence except in the most egregious cases of chronic, ongoing, long term excessive use where the abuser is essentially stoned 24/7.
2) Wonder how many others would've been without it?
Again, probably none. Anyone who abuses marijuana enough for it to impact their intelligence probably has an addictive personality, and would have substituted alcohol or some other equally if not more harmful substance had pot not existed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Of course what really happened was that the kid grew up to be stupid blind and deaf. A teenager infact. Now computer games also ensure they are virgins. You should think that makes the republicans happy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
Because American society is bloody fucking crazy. More exactly, because obscenity is currenly based on community standards, which currenly are more bothered by sex than violence.
I blame it on the witch-hanging Puritan influence, which in turn I blame on Martin Luther's failure to deal with Saint Augustine's idiocies along with the rest of the stupid shit in the RC Church.
(Yeah, I'm a Yank, and Catholic. Got a problem with that?)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
kids cannot play ANY violent game, no racing games since they involved speeding
as long as they can watch cnn headlines news, fox news where over 100,000 iraqis are killed, more are badly injured by collateral damage
killing real people ISNT violent
only games can make them violent, PERFECT.
linking video game violence to child agression
All you moderators are so rabidly libertarian that you won't even consider the options. I'll laugh when some 14 year old 'brother from the 'hood guns you down for looking at him strange.
you have to make the argument that after playing a violent video game, your capabilities are somehow impared while you are under the influence of the video game
I've found that its generally a bad idea to drive immediately after playing a particulary realistic, violent driving game though...
I am not one to support pot, I don't smoke it, but I see why other people do.
Did you ever think that they wouldn't have become that way without pot?
I know a number of programmers who inorder to deal with the stress their job gives them, they smoke pot.
As a result, they are calm and relaxed when working 90 hours a week.
Granted they annoy the hell out of me, they still do a damn fine job.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Pot Kills Citizens. Pot has always killed Citizens.
I guess you haven't noticed... The people who use heroin don't seem to mind that it's illegal. I do believe that the more violence that a person is exposed to in movies, games, books, and in real life the more they are apt to feel that violence is a way of solving problems. However, the degree to which it has an effect on the person varies by person. Thus it should be up to the person to decide how much violence to expose themself to. Or in the case of children it is the parents' job, not the government's. What happened to the idea of *parents* raising their children?!
You mean like how the minimum gambling and drinking age is 21? Dude, really, lay off the meth. Your paranoia is astounding.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
nt
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
The most telling part of the article is the tagline at the end - "Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence," Anderson has written, "and is certainly not the most important one."
sig: I'm not at home, or busy. please leave new sig after the tone.
Oh, and there is not a single death attributable to marijuana in all of recorded history.
There are many (three in my high school alone) deaths attributable to the influence of marijuana. Only one in my high school had anything to do with driving, so your argument that stoned people drive slower doesn't cover all possible harm. Also, I made it important that I was discussing the influence of marijuana because it is rather obvious that video game violence harm would have to be the influence of the games - not death simply by playing games too long.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
Well, sort of. I've never known anyone to go more than about 8MPH while stoned.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Can you tell us what happened? I'm kinda pretty sure pot's never killed anyone ever.
--pyro_dude
...Everyone knows that pot just makes you stupid...
No, no... pot has three main side effects. Decreased short term memory, decreased long term memory, and... I forgot the third.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Well, truth be told, the law isn't doing a damn thing seeing as how it was struck down.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
They were all comedies, I don't recall any cops being killed in any of them.
So it's OK to kill most people in video games, but not law enforcement officers.
This type of thing seems to be saying that somehow the lives of law enforcement officers are worth more than everyone else's. I certainly don't think so. Their lives are worth the same as everyone else's: no more, no less.
So playing a video game where law enforcement officers are killed is going to inspire people to go out and kill real ones? I think not.
If that's true, then people are going to go out and kill civilians instead after they play these games. What the hell kind of difference does it make whether a video game involves violence against law enforcement or not? Violent people are going to do violent things, video games or not. They don't suddenly get murderous blood-lust because they played a video game.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm 19, so I recently have experienced being a "child". Basically society treats you like shit in general. You have no rights, you are obviously an idiot who can't make any decisions, and even if your parents want you to have more rights, its next to impossible to get them.
The convenient part of this whole setup is, you still get the honor of paying taxes under 18, even without any representation in government or any rights. I started working part time jobs at 14, so thats 4 years of government oppresion (basically). I would be very happy to see a law put in place to allow the parents of a child to lower the age of majority for their kid. If they feel that their child is ready to take responsibility, they should be able to. (This should apply to smoking, drinking, etc. as well IMO)
otherwise he is just another troll... albeit one
with a libertarian (pro-slashdot) bent.
I could not agree more.
:P
The reaction of people like your mother is a very, very visceral one -- and it's visceral because AT THE TIME, you really WERE stupid! You were a retard.
I was in exactly your shoes, and I agree totally. I got around it by (thanks to my voracious reading) being more informed than my mom, who was an asolutely amazing airhead-savant artist who painted naked chicks on a 16-foot canvas and hung it behind our huge living room window on the one hand, and on the other hand sent me to my room because the word "vagina" is just inherently bad to say if you're a kid. She was so cheerful about it, so good-heartedly oblivious, that I never begrudged her trying to shield me from violent video games. Or trying to 'artistically' discolor my jeans with bleach when I was in 5th grade, to make me cool. Or wrapping my sack-lunch sandwich in a Panty Hose bag (thank god the whole thing was in a brown paper bag . . . gah).
So, I hear you. I was smart enough at age 10 to acquire whatever media and video games I wanted, without my mom being any the wiser, which worked out surprisingly well. And I turned out to be a really smart, well-adjusted dude.
But the legitimate concern that really DOES exist is that in between the time that you're 5 and the time that you're about 15, you can be a total effing lunatic retard.
A lot of the kids I know whose parents let them have all of the video games they wanted ("Doom 2", ooooh, "GoldenEye", oooooh, Mortal Kombat, "oooooh") and watch whatever martial arts movies they wanted -- these guys didn't end up being bad adults, but they were absolutely retarded as young adults, and a menace to society. I knew this one chunk/fat white kid that took his social cues from what he saw of urban culture as depicted by video games, so he would say things like "G money" and have a serious -- EXTREMELY serious -- expression on his face. Also, he one time was joking with a girl and when she dissed him, brought his palms down to the side of his crotch, said "Suck it bitch!", and they threw his hands out, flyaway style. He later received one of the most beautiful beatings I have ever seen delivered, at the hands of that girl's boyfriend.
And the miniature retards are even worse. GTA3 would actually scare me more because of the bad driving habits it encourages, the unrealistic expectations it creates, than I am about some hypothetical offspring of mine trying to beat a hooker to death and stealing her money in some dark alley.
Video games, even violent and explicit ones, don't have a twentieth the long-term negative effect that television and movies have. Shit, put the effects of those two together, and you've got the explanation for why we have so many insecure slutty girls with daddy issues.
So it's not that it will make you a worse person in the long run, it's that it can make you even more of a dangerous retard when you're going through the time in life where you're practically Timmah with an AK.
Seriously, if you want something banned in this country (the Good Ol' USofA,) just say it gives you a throbbin' nob.
I'm sure that people will get up in arms (which would not get them upset in the least,) and parade against the game.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It is one thing to say the games cause violence, and another thing to say it's a relief of those feelings.
In reality, it's probably determined by the individual.
A lot of people use the argument that pr0n will incite people to perform rapes. The reality is more complicated -- certainly they can find a relationship between people who have commited offences and use of pr0n, but can't establish a causal relationship. They can't say that all users of pr0n will commit a rape; merely that rapists are also likely to be consumers of pr0n.
Same for the video games. In the case of the all-too-well-known example of Columbine, those were certainly users of violent video games. In fact, their shot-accuracy was better than the police trained people tend to be because of those video games. You can't draw a general causal relationship between violent video games and vioent behaviour.
The more meaningful statement is more along the lines of "people who might already be borderline for the behaviour might rev themselves up with the activity" and "people who wouldn't do anything aren't affected by it". It's just simply neither "always a cause" or "never a cause" for all persons.
There are always going to be those for whom it is a relief of the impulses, and others for whom it just feeds it. This is why a lot of people argue against the cencoring of those things -- you simply can't know what it will do or if it did anything.
As long as there are two sides to it, there will always be people who say "ban 'em all in case someone is incited" and "don't ban any of 'em and make people responsible for their actions".
However, having seen games like GTA and the like, I wasn't impressed that my nephews had copies of them. They just seemed not something for a 13 year old to have as a past-time.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
an you tell us what happened? I'm kinda pretty sure pot's never killed anyone ever.
Please keep in mind that I am trying to make it painfully clear that I am not claiming that pot killed anyone. I am referring to the influence of pot.
The first incident happened before I went to the school, but I learned about it because the memorial to the student was being removed to build a car lot. Some students were getting stoned on the water tower at night where they wouldn't be noticed by anyone. Once well stoned, one fell off.
The second incident happened while I was at school. A student was hunting with his father. The student was stoned and most people believe both the father and student were smoking pot and hunting at the same time. The student claims that his rifle just went off in his hands and shot his father.
Third incident happened while I was at the school, but to a student who had already graduated. He was smoking pot with buddies, volunteered to do a Taco Bell run, and promptly drove his motorcycle right into the side of a building at 40-50mph. It was a Ninja, so his position on the bike was such that he hit the building head-first. I don't know if he had a helmet on or not, but I assume he didn't.
Again, if you read what I posted earlier, I am only trying to state that the influence of ANY drug (including alcohol) impairs a person's capabilities. To compare drugs to video games would require comparing the influence of drugs to the influence of video games.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
...I love violent games too, don't get me wrong. The problem I see is a pre-existing problem that might be exacerbated: That of lack of respect for law enforcement officials. Seriously. The amount of flak and disrespect that police officers get for what is an essential and dangerous function in society is likely to only reduce their sense of job-satisfaction. We've complained enough about the effects of job-dissatisfaction and disgruntlement to know what it does.
It's not the idea that someone is getting shot that bothers me, it's that it undermines before children respect for what should appear as figures of authority. It's the disrespect, people. The disrespect. Doesn't anybody understand that?
Yeah, I met kids who went through and even helped administer those anti-drug programs in H.S. They're good friends of mine. They all do pot now. (well, except for two girls)
And I didn't go through the program and I'm clean. Shows you how well lying works.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
...would such a game not already carry a Mature rating and hence be illegal for the kids to buy anyway?
My blog can kick your blog's ass
It also means that the remotest hope of seeing "Se7en: The We Are Killing Off Police Academy One Stomach-Turning Person At A Time" would go out the window.
The hope of at some point being able to see the cast of Police Academy die horrible deaths is sometimes all that keeps me going.
Pol Pot, you mean?
No one has ever demonstrated (or so far, even detected the need to demonstrate) that outlawing inanimate objects because someone might hurt themselves with them is a good solution, especialy considering the black market culture that any form of prohibition fuels.
If someone wants to shoot up heroin until he chokes to death on his own vomit, this matter does not concern me and it does not concern the state. You have a right to completely ruin your own life if you want to, or you have no freedom at all. Hell, anyone who wants to be addicted to heroin should be given the stuff for free so he no longer has any incentive to steal from anyone to obtain it, therefore limiting the damage to the person who wanted the self-destruction to begin with.
You know why we don't really have much freedom? Because people are afraid of what real freedom would be like.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Seeing the extended suffering would be so much more fulfilling! It would equate to bonus frags!
Would I get more points for killing someone with a larger extended family than for killing someone that was single, with no children?
What if you killed a single parent, denying the children the support of their sole provider? That should count triple, in my book.
(Get a grip... They're just pixels. Troll.)
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Started thinking, and virtually half of all video games ever made have depicted violence against "law enforcment officers" --
Zelda 3 - The first dungeon of the game is nothing but killing LEOs.
Metroid 3 - You remember that corpse in a spacesuit in front of the door to Kraid? Now, that's most likely another bounty hunter like Samus, and thus could be seen as a LEO.
Final Fantasy. Any Final Fantasy - Most notable is Final Fantasy IV, where the first half of the game is spent directly fighting the most powerful nation in the world.
Super Mario Bros. - You spend the entire freakin' game flattening goombas and stomping koopas, who are trying to kill Mario by direct order from King Koopa.
The list goes on and on. This is the problem with broad laws - they can be used to cover literally anything if you look at it from the right angle.
Castlevania - The story of a proud nation ruled by the ageless Count Dracula, and it's struggle against the treasonous Simon Belmont. Hundreds - nay, thousands of Dracula's innocent followers have been mindlessly slaughtered by this heartless terrorist who is hell bent on overthrowing the great leadership.
Etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Now, thats just crazy talk. ;)
Yeah I guess it's possible even if those do have a DAREish ring to them. Sorry to second guess you. Oh well.
--pyro_dude
WTF is the "strict scrutiny test"?
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
If anything, it's a haven for Liberals/Democrats.
Sure, there are some libertarians here, but I'd say we were far outnumbered by leftists.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
I agree with others that people need to be more involved with their children. There are games my children will not play. I have taught my 8 year old what the ratings are and to ask me.
Have these people ever watched the news?
The difference between the Nightly News and a violent video game is that the games are NOT REAL. My kids are smart enough to know the difference.
Life must be lived not legislated.
I can't use my sig - my computer can't read my handwriting.
Carpentry...
Not so fast. Be thankful... that they didn't realize how much money would be diverted from the computer industry to the movie industry if they had banned violent video games!
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
...find it much easier to answer "Mommy, why did he shoot her?" than "Mommy, why did he put his thing in her bottom?" And because it is much easier to say "You should never shoot anyone" than to explain the complexities of when, where and with who it is reasonable to have sex. "Not until you're <age>" is hardly going to work...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
They were also under the influence OF BEING FREAKING MORONS.
Yeesh.
1) Could of been alcohol
2) Could of been alcohol
3) Could of been alcohol
You forgot Wolfenstein 3D - the only things you kill in that game are law enforcement officers.
- Thomas;
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
Why does every law have to be criticised because it supposedly might lead to some bogus, imaginary laws waaaaay into the future that haven't a hope of being passed? Sheesh!
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Oh boy, this means I get to go ahead and release my new game: "Washington State Trooper Shooting Gallery". This will complete the "Kill More Cops" series. The profits were beginning to sag on "Bludgeon a Bobby".
"I'm of the opinion that all the under 17 or under 18 laws can be brought to under 13 and society will be better off in the long run."
Even voting laws? I could understand lowered to 16, but 13? Not a good thing for politics - unlike many other under 18 laws (taxes, etc.), I'm sure most American children have some idea of principles, and which party to vote for. At least, I hope so...
Violent Video Game Law Fragged.
Have a nice day.
Forget violence in video games.... Give me more porn in video games!!!
2) Wonder how many others would've been without it?
There's a set number of Nobel prizes a year. I'm guessing we would have had the same number of Nobel Laueates as we do now, barring any change due to multiple people sharing an award. Assuming, of course, that smoking pop recreationally even affects intelligence, which hasn't been proven.
If you want to equate pot to violent video games, you have to make the argument that after playing a violent video game, your capabilities are somehow impared while you are under the influence of the video game
Actually, I do tend to speed more after playing vice city or one of my racing
games but it generally only lasts for a couple of minutes until I settle
down into my normal driving habits. Whether that counts as an impairment of my
driving ability is entirely up to you.
*sigh* back to work...
Honesty is paramount when dealing with children if you want them to have the tools to survive. Goddamn, I guess lying about Santa Clause was a bad idea.
There's only one thing I'm allergic to... Sudden Death. (Danger Mouse)
is that it is very unlikely that you could get away with un-premeditated violence against a police officer. If you mess with a police officer, you are probably going down, whether that means arrest, or worse. The police officers are simply one of the most obnoxiously difficult parts of the whole game. How many other characters in the game can end your mission simply by getting close to you and 'arresting' you? How many other characters in the game stand a good chance in a gun fight or a car chase with you?
Mathematics is not a crime.
You've never met kids who've gone through the D.A.R.E. program. They tell all kinds or horrific lies about drugs. Crap like pot will turn you into a heroin junkie.
Yes, I've met those kids. I was one of them, actually.
And then I went to college and, like most people that age, learned that smoking dope or doing 'shrooms every once in a while doesn't cause lethal overdoses, or make you insane, or ruin your life.
D.A.R.E. may indeed be exaggerating the dangers of many drugs, but it's not as though kids believe what they're taught forever.
>Drugs like heroin can kill.
>It's a good thing that heroin is illegal.
Sure, drink enough Alchohol and you would die. Hell, drink lots of water and you could die.
Guns can kill, somehow they do not seem to be illegal.
My point is that anything and everything can kill, just because the people using it aren't smart enough to take decisions about their life and misuse it should not make it illegal.
Sure, Heroin is harmful. On the other hand, I know several people who do Heroin once in a while, have a great time and are not hooked onto it. The girl who lives across my dorm does Cocaine that way. She is smart enough not to fuck things up, and has fun while she is at it.
Give people the choice, making it illegal is not the solution. If they fuck it up, they're stupid and will pay the price.
Does this include shopping mall security guards?
I'll call bullshit on this one.
#1 dinks hanging out on a water tower. One falls. Pot was smoked. Therefore pot kills. Wrong. Being an idiot, and going to a dangerous place, acting like a retard got him killed. I bet beer was involved too, especially since pot has very minimal effect on balance, unlike booze.
#2 Two idiots go to the woods, and do not practice proper hunter safety (why the fuck would his loaded gun EVER be pointed in the direction of his father). Pot was smoked. Therefore pot kills. Wrong. Being an idiot, and forgetting hunting safety rules #1 and #2 (never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and never drink/do drugs when hunting) kills.
#3 One retard is driving his high speed motorcycle, without a helmet, and drives into a wall. He was smoking pot. Therfore pot kills. Wrong. The guy was driving like an idiot, without a helmet, and he hit something and died.
In each of your cases, the individuals were acting in a totally irresponsible manner. Smoking and hunting, smoking and driving, and smoking and trespassing. Using this logic you could have also said that having diner can kill. Since each of these people had diner before they died doing something stupid. There is no connection. This is the kind of poor cause/effect relationships that are used to keep responsible people from enjoying a harmless, benign drug. Just because some idiots drink and drive, does not mean that no one should be able to enjoy a drink. If you wanted to redo your list, with the number of people at your school who died after drinking and doing something stupid, I bet you could come up with a shit load more than three. I know I can.
So everyone here thinks companys should be allowed to sell young kids games that depict horrifc violence?
So nothing is age-inappropriate anymore? Everything is up for grabs by anyone, right? Otherwise, our whiny little bitch asses will wet ourselves about our "rights" being violated.
Lets let our 8 year old buy R-rated movies.
Hell, lets let our 8 year old buy X-rated movies!
Its free speech, right? Let my 8 year old into the porno shop and if the clerk refuses to sell him his mags, then I will sue them!! They are violating our "rights"!!
Oh but its ok to stop kids from buying porn? But selling him something he can play for 12 hours a day, murdering visually realistic images of innocent men, women, and children, that is ok??? Is that how it works, slashbots?
We hate censorship! We use buggy, slow-ass computer programs to download our illegal materials because we think it makes us anonymous!! (it doesn't, you ignorant fools).
I am in the SCA and frequently take the time to relax by beating the shit out of my friends with a big stick while wearing armor. You have no idea how cathardic it is to fight legally and then have a beer with these same friends afterward. It has helped me maintain my sanity at work, as it allows me to act out my hostilities towards my co-workers without actually killing any of them.
I work for the government and I'm here to help you... Really!
The long standing arguement against banning guns is it means only the criminals will have them.
Yes, it's true that only criminals will have them. But it's not true that all the criminals that would otherwise have had them, would still have them.
Is this another effort to stop terrorism?
Innyway, after a very stressful day at work yesterday, for some reason I was inspired when I got home to fire up Vice City and head for the Malibu Club with a sniper rifle, just to see what would happen if I started taking out the crowd one by one, headshot by headshot. Amusing, if sick, and I did end up getting wiped out by the cops, but it made me feel a lot more relaxed after a shitty day. Now, if I hadn't been able to indulge in that bizarre bit of sandbox mayhem, where would my pent-up aggression have gone?
(And no, stress-relieving sex wasn't a possibility. I'm a regular on /., dur-hoy!)
You must think in Russian.
It's a good thing the judges ruled this way or this quiet psycho might just snap, and then stalk from courtroom to courtroom with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into lawyers and legal assistants. -- With apologies to Chuck Palahniuk
funniest thing i've read all day. I'd mod it up if my tinfoil hat didn't make me post as AC. Oh no, my IP is broadcasting. Time to grab a new IP, good ole' DHCP you'll keep the evil government away.
from the 'score one for the cop-killas' dept.
You might as well say that it was the influence of water that caused those deaths. After all, I'm sure the father and son drank some water at some point before or during their hunting trip. The guy with the Ninja probably used water to shower that morning. And the kids on top of the water tower, well, hey, that one's obvious!
Hey, I was drinking water yesterday morning while operating heavy machinery. The supervisors even gave it to us! We're lucky nobody died.
And hey, if pot wasn't illegal, those kids wouldn't have had to go hide on top of the water tower to avoid being noticed. They might still be here if it weren't for ridiculous laws.
The fact is those people were killed by being stupid, not for smoking pot. Stories like these are just FUD, even if they are completely true.
It seems like everyone is agreed: That the government shouldn't ban violent video games.
I'm here to voice an opinion against the "standard" opinion.
Parents are responsible for their kids. I don't doubt that. However, the government has taken a large part of that responsibility away from the parents. I am not allowed as a parent to do things to control my kid that were simply non-controversial 30 years ago. For instance, spanking.
I see my neighbors being dragged away by bureacrats because of unsubstantiated allegations. Somehow the opinion of a 7 year old now has more legal weight than the testimony of a grown man.
It sounds like I am arguing for less government control. Yes, I believe that is the way to go. Get the government out of our homes.
But in today's environment, the government isn't going to let up any time soon. So we ban violent video games.
Why? Because if we don't ban them, they may become a "right". And soon, I may be dragged away by bureacrats if I don't allow my children to play them.
So as long as the government is busy being a parent, we have to make sure it is doing its role properly.
If you don't want government to ban video games, then you'd better support getting government out of our homes. No more social services. No more community outreach programs. Free up the education system and return control to the community. And stop collecting taxes to pay for some crack addict living in government housing.
So you have two choices: Big government or limited government. If you support big government, I support video game bans. If you support limited government, then government can't ban video games. Can't have it both ways.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Im gonna go fire up a game of GTA: Vice City just to celebrate! No cop will be safe!
My father almost died from drinking too much one weekend. And not because of driving or doing anything that might be considered dangerous in that condition (except for drinking more). The doctors couldn't believe this man was still alive. (he stopped drinking and started living a couple of years back)
As far as I know, you can't OD on pot like that. When you hit a certain limit, you fall asleep.
(prefer to be anonymous)
What kind of idiot uses violent metaphors to describe their initiatives against violence?
irb(main):001:0>
This post got long. It's my first, though, so please don't flame me too hard. The proposed legislation appears to me to be an alarmist short-term solution to the increasingly violent nature of world. Instead of treating the "problem" (discussed below), it seeks to single out a black sheep for slaughter, which undoubtedly will appease .... someone(I just can't relate). A paralell example from my own field is introducing non-native fishes to eat or control some bug or plant, instead of addressing the problem of how the bug or plant got there in the first place. Such solutions (like banning some games but not others) are usually economically driven, and the long-term effects on the ecosystem are usually detrimental.
Shoot-em-up games reflect 1) a society that inhabits an overcrowded world full of problems and differing viewpoints, 2) entertainment mimicking reality (NOT vice versa - carjackings existed WAY before Atari even hit the streets) and 3) the core motive of human beings, in general.
Haven't we noticed that violence is an inherent social norm? Violence is the world's favorite pasttime! I mean, I've seen Rugby matches that make GTA look like Bubble Bobble - are you gonna ban that because people get beaten up over the game? No, because we like to watch it, it gets our blood going, and we live vicariously through the bits of gore that fly across the field. From a very early age, kids are exposed to violence manifested as toy guns, cartoons (Bugs Bunny, as you recall, was mostly funny because Elmer got blown up in various ways), contact sports, etc. etc. etc. The classic 'Good vs. Evil' theme is all about one side kicking the other side's ass.
And where does this violent urge stem from? Kids mimicking adults. Back one step, from society. Back another step, from mankind's tendency to consume and acquire. Over one step to the left, it comes from our biological nature - the means to achieve breeding, feeding, and finding shelter (the three fundamental directives of any living creature) usually involves kicking some other living thing's ass, or killing it.
That's right - killing is 'fun' because it satisfies a biological urge that society deems inappropriate (and rightly so, I might add). Watch young animals play - they practice fighting.
No laws or banning of products will ever change the fact that humans enjoy violence. If you weed all the dandelions out of your garden, blackberry comes up instead. With video games, banning them will only encourage piracy and bankrupt all but the most powerful game companies (and if I don't see Fallout 3, I'll be pissed), but more importantly, it will force the hand of the next technology that allows us to feed our inner beast.
IS video game violence a 'problem'? OR is the real problem that we are inching closer to killing each other off, and society is reflecting this reality, and old, white men who have become afraid are taking short-sighted steps to prevent it?
Thanks for listening.
> "Garbage in, garbage out" isn't just a cute saying.
If you were a programmer, you'd know that the correct phrase is "Garbage doesn't get in."
It's impossible to study violence; there is no way to correctly recreate violent situations and the events leading up to them, without holodeck tech, so any study on the subject proves to be false. I'm certain that if you walked a mile in Klebold or Harris' shoes, you'd find yourself in the same place they did -- have you played the original Doom??? The graphics sucked. If the graphics were better, these guys wouldn't have bothered doing Columbine... they would have put their time into making a killer Doom 3 mod of the massacre, and then found themselves expelled and shipped out of the nasty environment that helped trigger their rage in the first place.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
So you're saying that if someone is sixteen they shouldn't buy a Star Wars game because the Storm Troopers are the empire's law enforcement? You're saying that someone age sixteen should not be allowed to buy Splinter Cell, a T rated game, because you can (you're not even required to) attack two corrupt police officers who extort a man by threatening to kill him for a minor offence? What about Jak II, a cartoony game featuring battles against a corrupt regiem? You have to realise that this law covers all types of games, not just ones like Grand Theft Auto. Furthermore, you are clearly biased on the issue as you are over eighteen and this would not affect you. I am under eighteen, and I play many of the games in question, and both the current rating system and my parents have no problems with this.
a study that says rapists look at porn is pretty dumb and about as valuable as a study that says rapists eat bread. so what? it's a false cause and effect.
But i think the role is diffrent. Rape is generally never about sex (however stabbings are, go figure). The rapist who is looking at porn, persumably, hates women and is thinking violent thoughts towards her, while the average guy is just thinking about consentual awesomness.
Besides, there aer so many studies that say so many things, the room for sweeping bias is amazing...
As for videogames, i agree that they provide a catahrtic release, and are theraputic. While, not encouraging people to be violent, i do believe that there is the unfortunate side effect of disensitisation (after a while certain stimulus fails to shock). Of course, teh same coudl eb said of the evening news.
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
Crap like pot will turn you into a heroin junkie.
Ummm. No. Maybe pot helped them in becoming heroin junkies, but I'm preeeeeetty sure that there were some other facts in that as well.
And for the record, I've smoked pot. Once. I didn't find it all that interesting.
Pot may be a drug used by a person with a personality/lifestyle/life-condition that would lead to higher drug use.
Not everyone who I know who has smoked it has a problem, nor is everyone who does smoke it on occasion an abuser. Those who use it as a means to get through each day, however, are abusers.
However, my father and I have argued about this a few times, and I think he has a valid point - there are some really sick individuals out there that may be made worse by playing VVGs. Responsible, rational people know that it is just a game. Unfortunately, some people are neither responsible nor rational. I think these kinds of people could be incited to greater violence than they would otherwise commit.
That having been said, my response to my father was this - first do something about the proliferation of assault weapons that allow someone to kill masses of people, then let's talk about VVGs. He found that difficult to argue with.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
a couple of the relevent parts:
- killing, like sex, became a part of an underworld when it was pushed out of peoples' regular lives.
- he makes a point that training simular to violant video games is used to give soldiers the ability to overcome their built-in resistance to killing. it is important to note here that he does NOT say that video games make people kill, but rather that it gives them the ability to kill, but he makes a point of saying that it still takes a trigger to get these people to kill.
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
Actually, I do tend to speed more after playing vice city or one of my racing
games
You think that's bad... I drive a sports car with almost twice the horsepower it came with (custom engine swap) and great cornering abilities. We went out and raced high powered "Indy Kart" Go-Karts on a couple of occasions. Driving my car home after several hours of that was quite the experience. Damn near lost control taking a corner because I was still "high" on the Go-Kart's vastly superior handling.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
the term you are looking for is "correlation" - which 95% of people don't seem to understand when they look at the facts.
Violent kids watch more TV.
Ridiculous conclusion: TV causes kids to be violent
This is incorrect. There is a correlation between the two, but nothing more. Kids who were violent to begin with may be attracted to TV, among thousands of other possibilities.
I make it a point to bring this stuff up every time people make these bad conclusions, but it gets sort of scary when you realize that on a mass scale, these misinformed people are the ones pushing our politicians to pass laws based on bad assumptions.
.
Yeah, that's stupid, but it's the example that I'm going to bring up to friends and family every time some do-gooders try to ban something like this. No matter how "For The Children!" it may seem, I guarantee that you can find a loophole that demonstrates that the would-be law is pro-Nazi or pro-terrorist.
If legislators want to play dumb games with our laws, then turnabout is fair play. Anyone else in with me?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Pretend love?" You must be watching the porn where "I love you" wouldn't trash the fantasy of the target demographic.
Oh wait. There is no such thing, unless you're counting daytime soaps, which children aren't restricted from watching.
You'd get confused and start munching on the seats. Or if you could be bothered, ramraid a donut shop :)
Your post just illustrates the grandparent's point. Make something illegal, people will assume it is for a good reason. You might as well have said, "everyone knows violent videogames makes people violent".
Actually that WOULD be pretty valuable, at least when picking women up in a bar. "Hey baby, you can trust me - I'm on Atkins."
Bad management trumps ideology - Show the world you want better leadership. http://www.timefornewmanagement.com
And because it is much easier to say "You should never shoot anyone" than to explain the complexities of when, where and with who it is reasonable to have sex.
It seems like it would be a *good* thing to have parents explain their viewpoints on sex as much as possible, instead of letting their kids learn things the hard way (oh, if they want to take the hard route, then that's pretty much the way it's going to be, but it seems *inane* that we spend so much time trying to produce an ignorant society).
The amount of money and effort spent on trying to keep children ignorant of sex and sexually-related things in the United States is amazing. And it doesn't *keep* children from finding out about sex, because, well, sex is everywhere. Really, the main thing that it manages to isolate children from is their parents' values. A lot of children may have "The Conversation" with their parents and that's pretty much it when it comes to sex. They run out and are forced to form their own values. And the taboo makes it harder and harder for parents ever to talk about sexual subjects.
Remember that part of the maturity process is learning who to trust -- there are people that lie or are mistaken or simply have different values in everyone's life, and people (including children) learn how to evaluate which things they should ignore. If a parent simply says "You can't watch that." "Why?" "Because I said so.", then the child is not given any reason at all to trust that the person making the call is correct and not mistaken. As a matter of fact, they are inclined to think that they are *wrong*, since given the child's current values and mindset, what they were doing is clearly desireable -- they were doing it. This just teaches the child to ignore or bypass what people say on the subject, just as they learn to ignore the advertisers on TV that say that "this gum is the coolest thing ever".
May we never see th
First, I love video games. I've owned game consoles since you could get your hands on a 2600, I've written fanzines about them, I worked at a video game magazine for four years, and I absolutely support the idea of "mature" games. Games aren't just for kids, so there should be games that also cater to an older crowd. Not that older people can't enjoy Mario, Sonic, and whatnot, but sometimes they also want GTA, Halo, or whatever else.
However, the video game industry needs to get serious about the "M" rating. Right now, they want it both ways - they want to not have restrictions on what can go into an M-rated game, yet at the same time they also want no restrictions on who can buy the games. As soon as somebody brings up the idea of allowing only 18 and older gamers to be able to purchase M-rated games, they get themselves worked up into a tizzy, cry foul, and hide behind the First Ammendment. What makes video games any different than movies? Why are movies expected to work by that rule, but video games aren't? I know why - because a forced ratings system is still not into place, and the video game companies don't want to see their sales decrease. That isn't a valid reason for not wanting to get their act together, though, I'm afraid.
The video game industry needs to grow up, and earn itself more legitimacy. They need to be serious about the M-rating, and put an "ID or no sale" policy into place. Doesn't have to be 18 per say - it could be 17, or even 16.
If the video game industry did this, it would be less likely that any form of government would try to step in and muck around like we see here, and creators would also have more freedom for expressing "mature" ideas and themes in their games.
Secondly, I don't think the law is an entirely bad idea. Everyone is always saying that if you don't want your kids to play violent games, don't buy them. Well, it makes a parent's job much harder when little billy can run down to the mall with his birthday money from Grandma, where the clerk will happily sell him a copy of "Whore-Killer 3: The Herpes Connection." We aren't talking censorship, here, just mild regulation.
The problem is, how do you define what a violent act is? And who is included in the group "law-enforcement personnel"? Police, obviously. But how about military? Federal agents? Alien overlords? (okay, I just threw that one in for fun)
My point is that this is not a cut-and-dry issue. And Washington (my home state) happens to be a fairly enlightened and forward-thinking place most of the time. At least we don't have any laws banning gay marriages yet. *ducks and covers*
Pot has only a very minor impact on long-term memory (I was trying to argue against drug legalization in a debate once, and tried using the "long term damage" card). Turned out, once I actually read a couple of studies, that pot really isn't particularly damaging in the long term. I ended up being vaguely pro-legalization after also reading up on some of the less-than-savory politics involved with pot's delegalization.
I would suspect that the fact that you're smoking something that's unfiltered is a larger concern, but really, when it comes to long-term damage or addictive factor, pot simply doesn't compare with alcohol (can cause violent behavior and lack of inhibitions, damages the liver, slows reactions) or cigarettes (lung cancer is a major issue and very addictive).
I kind of wish that people wouldn't smoke pot, but it's on the same level that I wish people wouldn't watch football -- both "waste" time, but just aren't all that damaging.
I'm even a fan of the War on Drugs (how's that for not being a hippie) -- I'm just no longer convinced that pot is enough of a concern for it to be included in that war. The big problem that I have with drug abuse is the addictive nature. The efficiency of our economy and society depends on rational thought and addictions break that assumption. Pot just isn't addictive. Drink caffinated beverages, and you'll pick up more of an addiction.
And I've never smoked pot, nor consumed alcohol. I'm speaking with about as little of a bias as could be imagined.
Furthermore, DARE and a number of other anti-drug programs maintain marketing programs that I consider to be fairly dishonest -- I remember the images they had of "80s drug dealers" with claws and the like. It's just not good for a government to try to lie to its people -- it eliminates trust, and promotes cynicism.
May we never see th
A child's mind is like a bank, whatever you put into it, you get it back 10 years later with interest.
Porn and violence is tearing apart marriages and families. Anyone who can't see the moral decay and complete deterioration of society as a whole because of these two abhorations has their head up their ass.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Interestingly, kids who go through those programs are statistically more likely to experiment with drugs than kids who don't.
DNA just wants to be free...
Someone needs to invent a violent game customized to the player's life. The setting would be the player's work or neighborhood--anywhere he/she would want to slaughter a lot of people they hate in whatever ways they find satisfying.
In my case, I work in an electronics store with plenty of rude, clueless people who seem to enjoy bringing their offspring into the place and let them scream like nazguls until they decide not to buy anything and leave.
I want a game where I can kill these assholes with large blunt objects wrapped in barbed wire or some type of flame-throwing chainsaw. Then at the end of the level, I get to cook and eat their children. Now, that's a video game!
God, I love cocane. Cocane gives people stress relief, it's good for society! Would you rather people go through their shitty job cranky or fucked-up? Let's face it, there are plenty of injustices in the world that require more attention than any injustices caused by cocane, be it in cocane or crack form. It's only when people lose their cocane that it becomes a problem.
/Not actually a cokehead.
//Not actually against violent videogames, just against shitty logic.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
I have never seen GTA, but I read someplace-and I am willing to be corrected on it of course if I am wrong-that in one of the scenes of play, the "heros" or whomever these illusionary characters are supposed to represent to the human players, rape a prostitute then kill her aftwards. Is this correct? If so,I am wondering, this is supposed to be "entertaining" and "really cool" and "relieve stress" somehow?
I think people are being more than a little coy with their reactions to imagery-video and sound, including subsonics designed to garner an emotional response- manipulations,leading to conditioining, even brainwashing to use a more commonly understood term for all of the above, and thinking they are "immune" to it, because they are...fill in the blank, "leet" will suffice.
Nothing is further from the truth, all humans are susceptable to it, in some form or another..
Advertising works. Brainwashing works. Industry (and governments and cults for that matter) would not drop a hundred billion a year on advertising-brainwashing, using images and sounds to garner a reaction- if it didn't work. On another level, the armed forces would not do what they do in boot camp if it didn't work. They would not now be developing videogames to add to that brainwashing effort if they thought or knew it didn't work.
Conditioning conditions, that's what it is designed to do, it gets people to accept what they normally wouldn't be inclined to accept, to one degree or another,and especially if they can be changed quickly to become *enthusiastic* about it, to give them a "reward" somehow,so they become addicted to it even faster, and therefore become conditioned or brainwashed faster.
Here's another example that should be obvious. The mass broadcast media works in getting people to accept the notion that "they can't change government" or "you can't fight city hall" and "what you gonna do?" such ideas and strongly held beliefs, to just year in and out accept their version of the lesser but still evil, and put up with it. They get that way primarily from first being brainwashed into it in public schools when they are very young and impressionable, and then a lifetime of watching and being conditioned by what they are told in the 6 o clock news, as "real",and everything else-no matter the data-is "tin foil hat conspiracy theory". That is an example of a form of mass conditioning done through electronic images and sounds primarily, and it works very, very well.
To think anything as obviously addictive as violent video games has *no* long term harmful affect,or does not lead to a certain amount of conditioning or acceptance, to me, is naieve. The level is a variable, but not that it happens.
This is a pretty sensitive subject here on slashdot,and it is about as close to an automatic kneejerk reaction as you can get to any subject, even beyond automatic SCO loathing. As much as our society as a whole does games, here it has to be a much higher percentage generally speaking, so I would say there would be immediate almost total mass denial of any of the negative aspects to violent video games. I knew that before I went past the headline. And, looking at the thread, it's mostly true, "games" where people are killed and tortured are "healthy" for you it is claimed.
uh huh, sure they are.
I'll have to fall in the distinct minority here on slashdot when it comes to video games, and in particular the violent ones. I do not find them, or even the concept of them, "healthy". At best on I am neutral on some, but the violent ones? No, I've seen adults addicted to them, it is not pretty nor healthy. As expected, if you as a friend drop a hint they just might be addicted, they won't admit it either.
Of course, I also have never enjoyed slasher movies, which are just as popular I gather in society. I've seen a few, way in the past, just enough to think to myself, "this is the *real* pornography that is harmful to people" and to stop lookin
Washington State Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson can be reached as follows:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/members/d36_2.htm
I encourage you to contact her regarding this outtrageous, unconstitutional law.
Way back when, I must have been about seventeen, I'd just started out on my first "serious" relationship with a girl.
My dad had been aware of my previous fumbling attempts at courtship, but up until now he'd kept his peace.
One day he looked at me and for some reason he'd decided this was the right time to impart his hard-won wisdom:
"Son, there's just a few things you need to keep in mind in your relations with women. A women wants a friend, an equal and a confidant. She wants someone who'll listen without judging. She wants someone who will make her feel like the most special person in the world - not all the time - just from time to time. Sounds hard, doesn't it? It is. But the rewards are worth the effort. If you can be all these things to a woman, she'll let you do *anything* to her! Fuck her anally, tie her up, come in her face, take photos - the works!"
Sometimes, I wish he'd keep his mouth shut. This was just such a time.
The law won't do a damn thing because IT WAS STRUCK DOWN as being too vague for the reasons you just mentioned. You're damn right I'm biased. I don't want some dipshit in Omaha blaming GTA because their kid shot up his school, which results in ME not being able to play games like that because manufactuers are too fucking scared to make them. If your parents are fine with you playing GTA, that's cool. I'd be fine with my kids playing GTA too. But exactly where is the harm in requiring parents to actually put some EFFORT into their kids development? Are we to the point where parents are too fucking lazy or indifferent to get off their ass and buy their kid a game? Or even just take them to the damn store so they can buy it themselves?
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
I'm a neogeezer and I think the same exact way as you do, but with a twist! I try to avoid cops, because they are all 20 year old skinhead punks(or look and act like it to me) and they think I am up to no good!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
So that old dosish Duke Nukem 3D is now outlawed in WA. That is, if only a mutant alien pigcop counts as depicting a law enforcement officer. If so, minors can't play and vice versa.
I am not sure about it. Is there some government directive about it?
There you are, staring at me again.
This is getting out of control today. I remember when i was 8 or 9 and my parents finally got us an NES. I was playing Mario showing my mom how cool it was and i fell in a hole and said "I died." My mom totally freaked out and made me promise to never say that "I died" again. I remember thinking to myself "Jesus, does my mom really think i'm that stupid?" Well, apparently she thought my young impressionable mind would start to think that if I died for real, i could simply push restart or get a "One Up" like I could with mario! I guess my point is that kids are not quite are retarded as adults sometimes think.
I recommend a really good documentary on the history of weed and how it became illegal called "Grass" narrated by Woody Harrelson.
How much money does the war on pot cost us all? First of all we have to pay for all the law inforcement, then throw in the fact that most people housed in jail are there for drug related "crimes". Then consider what would happen if drugs where all legal... Drug dealers would be out of business, so there goes all the drug related murders. And i'm sure the goverment would tax the hell out of it, so instead of spending billions a year, we would be making tons of cash... Talk about getting rid of the deficit! Finally, ask yourself this: If all drugs were legal, would i do cocain or heroin? If you dont do them already then the answer is probobly NO!
You didn't spell fAtkins correctly.
Bullshit. I have. And I'm a member of www.mpp.org
One of my friends won a DARE contest for an essay he wrote about drugs being bad when he was 11. A few years back he got busted for distribution. He also used to be a total tweaker. DARE!
well if you're smoking pot it's true that you pass out before you can get a lethal dose into your bloodstream. but ingesting THC it's possible to OD
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Let's not forget that Charles DuPont felt threatened by the impending rush of Hemp Plastics. Henry Ford actually built a prototype for a car which was almost entirely made of hemp plastic, and was more durable and cost less than existing vehicles...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As for the hunting, that's a case of idiot use of a firearm. If you don't point the gun at your father you can't shoot him. Incidentally I have a bolt action .30-06 with a sticky bolt and while clearing it I've had the scope whack me in the forehead as the gun kicked and the bullet went downrange - because that's the direction in which I was holding it.
As for the last one, what a fucking goon. Put on your damn helmet, and don't try to hot dog.
I've had several car accidents, and I was sober during all of them. (No, I'm not proud that I've had 'em.) Nonetheless I've had more moments when I was driving under the influence of something (including alcohol, once, never EVER doing that again) than I have had accidents.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe it doesn't work 100%, but I don't think eliminating drug laws solves the problem either, and I suspect you wouldn't be in favor of 100% drug control?
I don't want people shooting up H on the streets but in the 1920s Bayer manufactured Heroin and sold it in the drug stores like aspirin and there was no problem.
I wouldn't say that there was no problem.
--http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/lashbaugh/unit_10_
And BTW, pot doesn't kill but it's some killer s**t.
I feel I have a responsibility to tell my story since people like you spread misinformation that cause people to underestimate the psychoactive effects of marijuana. At the age of 17 I smoked weed, I began to hallucinate excessively and became depersonalized from my normal perception of reality. To this day I have HPPD and have flashbacks continually. It was the most destructive thing I have ever done to my body and it destroyed my life.
- a. This might be influenced by fear of discovery of use.
- b. No prolonged bad trips with traumatic aftereffects occur, although flashbacks have been reported.
- c. There is no evidence of depression or schizophrenia following use, but depersonalization can be persistent and recurrent.
--http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/lashbaugh/unit_11_leWhat a nice philosophy, at least up until the part where all those drug abusers have to apply for disability and public assistance due to all the health issues related to the addictive lifestyle.
Other peoples' stupidity has an effect on the rest of society.
The driving study is flawed. The participants were not random, but were experienced marijuana users, and therefore fail to represent the large number of people who have toxic adverse reactions to marijuana.
The drivers had to wait for 30mins of analysis and waiting before they actually went to the driving test site.
Yeah, I get so pissed off that I can't find my Machine Guns after a harrowing bout of Twisted Metal...
Ditto here in all respects but perhaps to a greater degree.
I don't and won't promote drug use, whether it be weed, alcohol, or (especially and for good reasons) meth, but I find it personally hilarious in a disgustingly sad way that too many people find excuses for general idiocy and write laws accordingly.
Speaking from two decades of personal experience, what really hurts most people is being unprepared for the experiences they will encounter. Meanwhile our education system is going to hell...
What a soft, gentle feely country we're becoming...maybe we need controls on DiHydrogen Monoxide, it seems to be fucking up way too many people in this country who overindulge on it.
Sigh.
Wouldn't government ads saying "Idiocy/Ignorance Kills" be the totality of irony? lol
Cheers!
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
But mod parent up!
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
That law was pretty retarded. All it does is convince people to commit software piracy. A kid walks into the game store, tries to buy GTA3 or whatever, is told no. He says, fine, goes home and downloads it. How could they possibly be so short sighted as to think that would work?
The difference in whether sex and/or violence are seen as obscene is cultural. There was a TV show that had separate cuts for the American and European audiences: the American show removed 10 minutes of sexual content; the European show removed 10 minutes of gore. Americans think breasts are disgusting, and should not be seen by people over 3 years old; Europeans, and most of the world excluding the USA, have topless beaches.
A society WITHOUT sex will die out. A society WITH violence will die out. The USA has always considered immigration a cleaner form of population growth than encouraging people to reproduce. I (an American) know only one set of parents of child-bearing age that has more than 2 children.
This difference can be positive. Americans redirect their sexual energy into other activity, such as the 70-hour work week, and redirect their sexual obsession into inventions such as the Internet that allow better (more private) distribution of pornography. Our sexually-regressed society drives the advancement of technology, while depending on other countries to supply us with new people.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.