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."

96 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. i love violent games. by Sovern · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:i love violent games. by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Funny
      i love violent games
      On August 5th I will begin letting some serious frustration out on "personal demons"... :)
      --
      Sigs cause cancer.
    2. Re:i love violent games. by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And who here is surprised that people who would commit violence will also play video games?

      Wait, which one was supposed to be the causation? Or is there causation at all? Perhaps it's just correlation?

      Please be a little more specific with regards to "linking". Vague comments don't help anyone.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    3. Re:i love violent games. by TamMan2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There have been many studies linking violence in movies and video games to violent crimes committed later in life.

      funded by?

      I have heard of several of these "studies" but when you read about the protocals used in the study there are huge causal leaps of faith one must take to believe the data.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    4. Re:i love violent games. by liquidsin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well then I guess maybe the parents of these minors ought to try parenting them instead of letting the state decide what's best for their children. I remember playing Doom and Wolfenstein when I was younger and my mom telling me I could only play them if I was done all my homework, took breaks every now and then, and understood that violence wasn't the way to solve problems, nor was it acceptable, and that if I started getting into fights at school or my grades started dropping, no more video games. (fighting was, however, still allowed in hockey...gotta love Canadian hockey moms!)

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    5. Re:i love violent games. by dirk · · Score: 4, Informative

      While many studies have linked violent video games and movies with violent crime, there have been no studies that they prove that violent movies/games CAUSE violent actions. Correlation is not causation.

      To steal an example from Michael Moore, why do these people playing violent games mean that is what caused their violent actions? The Columbine kids liked bowling as well, but no one is trying to say bowling causes violent actions. While it is easy to say that most people who committ acts of violence see violent video games and movies, that ignores the fact that most people who see voilent videos games and movies do not committ acts of violence.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    6. Re:i love violent games. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am sure he can find some studies but the problem is that these studies are usually bullshit and unscientific. A good example is the one that studied children with a history of violence and found that most of them had played violent games. What it doesn't answer is whether the games made them violent or their violence made them attracted to violent games.

      This is even older than video games, though. Remember when D&D supposedly made kids violent? The amazing thing is that we live in one of the least violent times in history.

    7. Re:i love violent games. by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cases of Polio go up in the summer. Amount of ice cream eaten goes up in summer. The two are linked. Therefor, ice cream causes polio and must be banned!

      Don't be too ashamed, its a common misunderstanding to think correlation means causation. I highly suggest reading this course on Causal Reasoning from CMU.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    8. Re:i love violent games. by Cat_Byte · · Score: 3, Funny
      teen violence was down this year from last

      Some of them are 20 now ;)

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    9. Re:i love violent games. by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Once again... it comes down to good parenting. If your children are of school age, then you need to have spent time with them teaching them how to deal with other people. If there is a problem with them in school, then you need to have a conversation with them about it. You also need to have conversations with them all the time regardless of wether or not their behavior is appropriate in group situations.

      I'm not perfect, nor are my children. But we spend a lot of time just talking to them about what's going on in their lives. That's where you find out how they're applying the skills you've taught them.

      "So and so did this" and "so and so said that" are what you hear. "How did you take it? How did you respond?" are your responses. You get to the right and wrong pretty easily, and very often they'll make you proud in how they deal with adversity they come up against. Don't get me wrong... when they do something irresponsible or downright wrong, not only do we have lengthy conversations with them, but punishment is dealt out as well. One of the hardest things to do in the world is to punish your own child, but it's an important factor in their growth, when appropriate.

      That being said, most people can't afford to supervise their children 24x7. But if you're at all suggesting that schools are part of the problem, then I'll simply write you off as one of those parents who think school is a babysitter and you should let them teach your children behavior skills rather than you having to do it.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    10. Re:i love violent games. by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have what is typically called "good ol' days" syndrome. Every generation believes that the next generation is degenerate and proof to the decline of civilization. Your parents may have raised you properly but that doesn't mean that everybody's parents did. How do you think police officers were viewed 100 years ago? Do you think they were considered fine upstanding people that everybody waved to? Corruption and violence are nothing new to society. You just are hearing about it more than you did when your mom and dad were driving you around.

    11. Re:i love violent games. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the other hand, if you believe that, then it makes kids perfect fodder for the US military in Iraq.

      You think the hundreds of US troops now shooting civilians for not stopping at poorly identified checkpoints, not to mention throwing people on the ground and stepping on their necks, or for that matter bombing civilians from the air in "clean surgical" strikes (not to further mention Abu Ghraib) are somehow wierdo psychopaths who all chose to join the US military?

      No, they're perfectly ordinary US citizens (remember "Blazing Saddles"? "You know, morons!") who were conditioned NOT by video games but by the daily NEWS and the daily LAWS extolling STATE violence as "okay".

      It's people who think "morality matters" that create intolerance and hatred for people who are painted as being "immoral". Anything is justified against "immoral" people - don't give them fair trials, suspend the rules of evidence, suspend the rules of search and seizure, "We have to protect the children!". Best way to protect the children in the view of people like you is to murder anyone producing a violent video game or a porn video.

      Do you think cops were EVER the clean-cut, good-looking kids on "Adam-12"? I've got news for you. They aren't now and never were. They ARE weirdo psychopaths who join up to wear uniforms, carry guns, push people around and act above the law.

      This is the nature of the state. The more STATE you have, the more VIOLENCE you have.

      People's perception that the state is necessary to control humanity's inate violent nature have it ass-backwards. The state is the CAUSE of human violence. I'll amend that: the state is only the proximate cause of human violence. The REAL cause is the inate human fear of death and primate hierarchical dominance-submission reactions based on that fear. And that fear is expressed in religious and state institutions - especially "institutionalized morality" (assholes like Ashcroft).

      Until you correct human nature, it won't matter if you remove video games. It would matter more if you could remove the state. But it will only really matter when you can change basic human fear.

      Fortunately that day is coming.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    12. Re:i love violent games. by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Remember in comic books when the good guy turned the bad guy into the cops? Now the 'good guy' rips the cops guts out and leads the others on a high speed chase killing more.

      Around the time of the red scare and HUAC the comic book industry feared being black balled as communists so they voluntarly censored themselves for over 30 years. No shadow could be cast over a law enorcemnt officers, government was blindly trusted, and no talk of drugs (even anti-drug story's). Personally, I'm glad that's changed. I couldn't tolerate living in a fake, leave it to beaver world.

      As far as cutting class and slapping women are concerned, country music has been doing that for decades, and people have been romanticizing killers and gangsters for even longer. And it's not cool to be a drug dealer, but some people have nowhere else to go and there's too much money to be made. I do recall some of the prohibition era gangsters being idolized too.
      Same product, new wrapper.

  2. So.. by manavendra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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/
    1. Re:So.. by black+mariah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but it is rated R and movie theaters have the option of not allowing children to see it. In fact, if it's bad enough then it's rated NC-17 and nobody under 17 can see it at all. Learn to read.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:So.. by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except those are voluntary actions. There is no law banning children from theaters for R or NC-17, such a law would be unconstitutional, see the first ammendment.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:So.. by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      14 years old can pull the trigger as easily as a 22 year old.

      In this country, ([stand up straight, remove hats] our Blessed and Glorious Country), you are a child, a child you hear, with no rights, no voice, no nothing, until you turn 18 and then wham, society hits you with a ton of bricks (paperwork) and all of a sudden you're supposed to conduct yourself as an adult and a productive member of society. Well, if you don't get the training and exposure, sherlock, you ain't gonna be any good at dealing with adult stuff.

      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.

      US, wake up, the other 5.7 billion people can't all be wrong.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:So.. by gUmbi · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... if a cop is killed in a movie, then ban the movie?

      *shrug* At least the public would no longer be tortured by Police Academy sequels

    5. Re:So.. by pavon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My reservation with that is that if you are going to give them the responibilities of being an adult at age 13 you really ought to give them the freedoms as well. If you don't that is just plain contrary to liberty, and unfair.

      If you do, then they are no longer subject to their parents at 13, and I'm sorry but kids that age need parents to watch over them as much or more than any time in thier life. Preferably it will more hands off, but parents need the ability to step in when the situation merits it. Doing what you say would basically be giving state blessing for parents to stop taking responsibility for thier kids actions at 13 and would be a very bad policy in my opinion.

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. My favorite line by hether · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.
    1. Re:My favorite line by GPLDAN · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about the zombie police officers in resident evil? No historical obfuscation there. It IS a public law enforcement officer, no question about that. It just happens to not want to serve and protect, unless it means serving up your brains for lunch.

      What about a film noir story that depicts a corrupt cop? Is it ok to kill him, because he is corrupt? What defines his corruption? What if he just performs vigiliante actions, like killing robbers and then planting guns on them? Can he be killed?

      Would it be okay to make a game in which I could be allowed to...oh....say.... rob a hooker after doing her? Carjack innocent people? Oh....wait

    2. Re:My favorite line by write_with_numbers · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about the German guards in Medal of Honor...
      aren't they technically enforcing laws?

      What kind of world are we living in where we can't pretend to shoot Nazis anymore?!

      --
      You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush
  5. Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:drugs by vuvewux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  6. Good by vuvewux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Good by I8TheWorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wholeheartedly agree. My fiance (a police officer) and I have three kids. GTA hasn't found its way into our collection of PS2 games, because, strangely enough, we act like parents. Neither of us is going to try to tell other people they can't play it... that's not any of our business.

      What's interesting about her job is she is now a PO with the local ISD. When she worked at the school in east county where the average income is much lower, and people are more "common" for lack of a better term, a phone call to a parent resulted in an apology and an action. Now that she works at the school in the "affluent" neighborhood, a phone call to a parent results in blamestorming, "not my child" and "you people should be doing more to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen." Those folks want the rest of the world to raise their children so they're not inconvenienced, and they're the people that think laws like this are a good idea.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    2. Re:Good by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >When you get into an accident, you have to get >rescued/treated and perhaps go to a hospital >and get treated there. Then everyone else gets >to pay.

      Everyone else pays? Then why am I shelling out all this money for insurance. You go to a hospital in an ambulance, you pay for the ambulance. They make insurance mandatory for a reason. And I support mandatory insurance, because it forces people to be able to pay for their own mistakes.

      If people hurt themselves, so long as it's their own fault, that's life. The alternative is other people making my choices for me. I don't want the government to be able to say I can't go white water rafting or rock climbing or scuba diving because it's too dangerous. Warnings are one thing. Telling someone to get down is one thing. Fines are idiotic.

      Why doesn't anyone consider the political consequences of the US government's recent conversion to the belief that people are basically mentally incompetent and need a parental government to protect them?

      I can't drive along a 20 mph stretch of road with my seatbelt off, but I can drive 65 mph down some strech of highway with it on. Where do you think I'm safer? The government is doing a shitty job of protecting me from myself. If I get in an accident, I should sue them for letting me drive on that fast, dangerous highway, right? It's their responsibility, not just to warn me, but to force me to be safe.
      Ah, but they figure people get more benifts driving down a fast highway. Shouldn't I be allowed to make that decision, for better or worse?

      Maybe people just live in a society where they think others should force them to do the right thing, and the consequences for their actions should be other people's responsibility. It would explain a lot of the insane lawsuits flying around.

      It's not the government's job to stop stupid people from hurting themselves or to decide what risks are acceptable. It's their job to stop stupid people from hurting me, or cheating me, or giving me false information. The government can give helpful information, but it isn't my parent and it shouldn't have any burden or compulsion to make my cost-benefit anlayses for me. These are the same people who wanted to invest Social Security in the stock market, remember? They suck at cost benefit analysis.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    3. Re:Good by anethema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm, in canada, age of consent is 14. Is it really illegal for a 21 year old to have sex with his 18 year old gf? Thats kind of stupid no?

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  7. Good to see by XeRXeS-TCN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    Given the nationwide, on-going dispute in this area, it is reasonable to ask whether a state may ever impose a ban on the disseminations of video games to children under 18. The answer is "probably yes" if the games contain sexually explicit images, and "maybe" if the games contain violent images, such as torture or bondages, that appeal to the prurient interest to minors.

    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.

    1. Re:Good to see by dirk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because as we all know, taking a cumshot is much worse than taking a gunshot.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  8. Mod Parent Up by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Cat_Byte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you use it for practice you'll be soreley disappointed when you can't aim with a mouse and find that one returned bullet does more than take a little health away.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    2. Re:Mod Parent Up by pyro_dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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? Is there any evidence of this, or is it speculation? Personally I'm a fence-sitter on the issue. I don't think some mortal combat is going to make anyone a serial killer but then again we are what we consume, not just through food but through mind as well.

      --
      --pyro_dude
    3. Re:Mod Parent Up by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same thing with pornography BTW. If you can beat off to a girly mag you're less likely to have pent up frustration that will make you want to cheat on your spouse, hire a hooker, harass that cute technician, etc.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Mod Parent Up by harrkev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Riiiight. If you are married, lots of porn can give you the "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" type of feeling. Then, one day you decide to jump on the fence. This can easily ruin a marriage.

      Happiness lies in being content with what you have. Very few women can compare to the air-brushed beauties in magazines. And the ones that DO look like playboy models are not likely to hang out with your average slashdot geek. So, if you let the magazines and videos dictate what your sense of beauty is, you find that your real love live is not quite up to the ones in the videos. The, you get dissatisfied. Then, you cheat. Then, you get caught. Then, you pay $2000/month in alimony + child support. Then you wind up alone at the gas station of love and use the self-service pump because the playboy models are not attracted to guys who drive Yugos because they pay too much alimony.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:Mod Parent Up by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Same thing with pornography BTW. If you can beat off to a girly mag you're less likely to have pent up frustration that will make you want to cheat on your spouse, hire a hooker, harass that cute technician, etc."

      I wish more women understood this. Some of them out there actually get offended that the guy they're involved with looks at porn. "I should be enough for him!" *Shudder* Hint, ladies, there is no such thing as a woman on this planet that would 100% completely satisfactorally squelch a guy's curiosity about other women. We are not WIRED this way. We are not programmed to take one mate, settle down, and that's it. We were developed to run around and make everybody pregnant. Don't believe me? Look at other examples of the male's role in nature. We bend over backwards to have monogomous relationships, we should be granted at least a little bit of release.

      I think the story is similar for the violence in video games debate. It needs to be understood that there are a LOT of people out there who aren't against video game violence because they grew up on it. Despite that, they are not violent people. They don't have violent tendencies. They don't have anything wrong with them that they would desperately want to avoid spreading to other children. For this reason, very serious proof needs to come about. Unfortunately, that proof is going to have to by the truckload. One kid shooting a car and blaming GTA3 is not compelling. 100 kids, well maybe. 10,000 Okay, we can believe it.

      In both cases, a level of understanding has to be developed.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:Mod Parent Up by tntguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      But you'd still have the porn.

    7. Re:Mod Parent Up by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad that none of that is actually true. Interesting that in everything else in life being content is a bad thing yet in finding a loving relationship we should just be happy with what we have. The reason marraiges get ruined is because people do settle. They think that they have to get married by a certain age. They go into marraige with this false idea of what marraige really is. I find it most disturbing that people get married without living together and without having sex. It's funny that somebody who wouldn't think of buying a car without test driving it or buy a house without having it inspected would marry somebody without having even seen them naked or seen what they are like living with every day.

      There is also absolutely nothing that says that having sexual fantasies is actually going to make you leave your wife. I fantasize about being a baseball player sometimes but that doesn't mean I am quitting my day job. You are basically saying that fantasy is unhealthy. If that is your point than I don't think you will find a lot of converts on this site.

    8. Re:Mod Parent Up by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If this is true, then how do we explain the studies that show a very strong correlation between use of pornography and violent rape?"

      Can you imagine a rapist not looking at porn?

      I'm not convinced that porn would cause violent rape. How many rapists have been to jail, arguably a place where porn would be very hard to come by, and commited the crime again upon completion of their sentence? How many people with porn stashes out there have raped anybody?

      I can't claim I'm any more correct than those studies. I can tell you that internet porn is so wide spread that it'd make one wonder why rape isn't more common place.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Mod Parent Up by CreatureComfort · · Score: 4, Informative

      I find your proposition interesting. Can you provide links to reputable, scientific studies showing a positive correlation between pornography and rape?

      On the contrary, most of the reputable sources I can find have distinct quotes such as:
      One of the first authoritative bodies to spell out an unequivocal verdict of not guilty for pornography was the Danish Medico-Legal Council whose 1965 report to the Danish Penal Law Committee concluded that, to the Council's knowledge, based on criminological and clinical evidence 'there exists no scientific investigations to form a basis for the supposition that pornography . . . can contribute to normal adult's or young persons' committing sexual offences' (Penal Law Committee 1966, p. 80). This distinguished body of forensic physicians and psychiatrists explicitly mentioned that the statement referred to pornographic writings, pictures and films describing normal as well as perverted sexual phenomena. Five years later the United States Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970, p. 53) (or rather twelve of the seventeen participating members) arrived at a similar conclusion, stating that 'empirical research designed to clarify the question has found no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behaviour among youth or adults'. Another verdict of not- guilty but this time based on overwhelming amounts of research: careful reviews of earlier research and thirty-nine additional effect studies sponsored by the Commission."

      and
      "a number of researchers in the late 1970s who, applying modern sexological laboratory techniques, were able to measure erectile responses in convicted rapists and normals who were watching, listening to, or reading depictions of sexual activities including consenting and coercive sex. The first results (several studies by Abel, Barbaree, Marshall, Quinsey and others) seemed very promising: while normals showed greater arousal to scenes of mutually consenting sex than they did to similar scenes involving coerced sex, rapists appeared to be equally aroused by the consensual and the coerced scenes. However, subsequent large-scale replications of these studies, as well as a more recent intensive study have shown that among a group of rapists, arousal to forced sex was significantly lower than it was to consenting sex; moreover, the rapists did not differ in this regard from groups of ordinary men (Kutchinsky 1991; forthcoming). Meanwhile, despite the negative findings of the United States Obscenity Commission, which were later reiterated by the British Williams Committee in 1979, the idea that pornography may be the direct cause of rape had continued to gain support among anti- pornography groups; and since the mid-1970s the Christian/Conservative moralists viewpoints (which had been voiced, among others, by the minority of the U.S. Obscenity Commission) were joined by feminist oriented groups."


      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    10. Re:Mod Parent Up by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its very easy, the confusion between men and women. Once women realize that men are incredibly simple creatures, and they should leave us alone, they can be happier. Its very simple:

      Women want ONE man to fulfill her EVERY need.

      Men want EVERY woman to fulfill his ONE need.

      Its almost that simple, really. You want to impress a man? Show up naked, bring food, and don't block the TV. We really don't need much, but we can't stand being bitched at, or told our constant hornyness is wrong or bad. You leave us alone about dirty movies, lighten up a little, and we will do anything for you. Anything. Fortunately, my wife already knows this, which is one reason I married her.

      To all the women here reading slashdot (both of you), please pass this on.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    11. Re:Mod Parent Up by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "Fortunately, my wife already knows this, which is one reason I married her."

      I've had similar luck. My gf isn't bothered by porn. It's great for me because I can live without it being some sort of big secret. One thing she knows is if I'm home looking at porn, I'm not out shopping. Heh.

      Part of this is I lucked out in the gf department. She's great and I wouldn't trade her for anybody. I think the other part of this, though, is that I don't think I'm abusing her patience. For example, I don't have a stack of magazines under the mattress. She's well aware of the gigs of porn I've accumulated over the years, but not because I'm constantly browsing it. It's private time, not 'blast her in the face' I'm looking at porn all the time. (Boy I can't wait for an AC to take off with that little quote. :P) I think being respectful about it is significant here. She isn't having to compete with porn. I imagine that's something that a lot of women do have to deal with.

      I've thought about this since my previous post on this matter. I think it was a little short-sighted of me to say women need to understand, guys need to undertstand, too. Porn is a problem when porn is a problem. If money was spent on porn instead of toilet paper, you've done something wrong. If you go out to the nudie bar and blow a bunch of money and she's at home watching TV, then you owe her an evening of fun. Etc etc.

      Sorry I've drifted off-topic here, I accept negative moderations if they're deemed necessary. No biggie. Just felt like sharing a bit here. It wasn't all that long ago I saw a relationship between two friends of mine disintegrate. She blamed the porn, but I think it had to do with lack of respect they were showing each other. She felt he wanted more, he felt she wasn't doing enough. *Sigh* They coulda worked it out if it didn't turn into a stand-your-ground battle.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  9. Good...and bad... by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. So... by Unnngh! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

  11. I get more violent watching Congress on C-SPAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Than I ever did playing Doom, Quake, or Half-Life.

  12. BS by thedogcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  13. Someone help me out with this one... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Someone help me out with this one... by geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has something to do with society/religion and consequences.

      Firstly, sex can have some pretty bad consequences, for instance teenage pregnancy which severely handicaps young people. I know. I was a father at 19 and while I've gone on to great things many do not, especially in poorer communities. That said, young people who are not violent can watch violent movies and just be entertained, then shrug it off later. Young people however are naturally all VERY horny and extremely curious. Growing up I can remember plenty of "show me yours and I'll show you mine" moments. Stealing dads pornos, running out of the adult book shop porno movie securely stashed under the coat. Lots of awkward moments with girls etc etc. People are afraid easy access to this material will cause trauma, and the fact is that if it goes unchecked and without guidance it will. Imagine being 10 years old and seeing a japanese bukake video and thinking that's normal.

      I'm not defending it, but people seem to think these days that sex has no consequences when it very clearly does. Young people are the least aware of these consequences and subsequently the most effected by them. Disease, pregnancy, disrespect of the opposite sex. The effects these activities have on education, emotional development and maturity. These are all real things and should not be neglected because you and others think sex is harmless.

      "Sex like fire makes an excellent servant but a terrible master" - The Buddha

    2. Re:Someone help me out with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firstly, sex can have some pretty bad consequences, for instance teenage pregnancy which severely handicaps young people. I know. I was a father at 19 and while I've gone on to great things many do not, especially in poorer communities. That said, young people who are not violent can watch violent movies and just be entertained, then shrug it off later. Young people however are naturally all VERY horny and extremely curious. Growing up I can remember plenty of "show me yours and I'll show you mine" moments. Stealing dads pornos, running out of the adult book shop porno movie securely stashed under the coat.

      Right.. Porn made you get a girl pregnant.. Ah-huh. Nothing at all to do with hormones, being a horn-dog, not using protection, and having no sense of responsibility to the extent of even today blaming society rather than your cock.

      Why won't anyone think of the 19 year-old children??

    3. Re:Someone help me out with this one... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never said that I thought sex was harmless, but a lot of the harm that sex causes can be avoided by educating children properly. And by properly I mean none of this "don't touch anyone until you are married" nonsense that one would have to be an idiot to think that most people will follow. For some reason (probably the same reason Americans don't like sexual portayals in the first place) we refuse to consider open, honest and frank sexual education.

    4. Re:Someone help me out with this one... by Piquan · · Score: 2, Informative

      But why is a type of speech restricted simply because it isn't used to speak out against 'the Man'?

      It's not. If we're referring to obscenity, it's restricted because it is believed to have "a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires" (Commonwealth v. Isenstadt (1945), 318 Mass. 543 [62 N.E.2d 840, 844], or People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal.App.2d Supp. 959, free reg req'd).

      There are other classes of speech that typified by GTA, for instance which may also have a substantial tendency to corrupt. Let's identify one such class as 'depictions of violence' for the moment. Now, depictions of violence may have a substantial tendency to corrupt, but because they are often used as vehicles of social or political commentary, are protected under the First Amendment. That's what this case (Video Software Dealers Assoc. v. Maleng, PDF) is about.

      Obscenity, by legal definition, is "utterly without redeeming social importance" (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)). The full context of that quote is as follows:

      All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

      Because the obscenity has "a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt", it is considered to be bad for society. Now, were obscenity used for social change, then it would be protected under the First Amendment. But it's not, so it isn't. From Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942):

      "....There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene.... It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality...."

      Now, let's get back to VSDA v Maleng, since that's what this article is about. In the case of depictions of violence, it also may be considered to be bad for society. However, these are frequently works which contain vehicles for social opinion. That means that they merit First Amendment protection. The judge in this case said:

      Sexually-explicit materials were originally excluded from the protections of the First Amendment because the prevention and punishment of lewd speech has very little, if any, impact on the free expression of ideas and government regulation of the sexually obscene has never been though to raise constitutional problems. The same cannot be said for depictions of violence: such depictions have been used in literature, art, and the media to convey important messages throughout our history, and there is no indication that such expressions have ever been excluded from the protections of the First Amendment or subject to government regulation.

      Contrary to apparent popular opinion, the government doesn't feel that violence is "less profane" than sexual content (which is distinct from obscenity, Roth v. US).

  14. Video Game Demographic by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr by mcb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  16. Download them from DC? by Eudial · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  17. Violent, ok... sexually explicit ,no? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 |
  18. Doom III by filtur · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  19. You reminded me of by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Austria. When I was there in 2000. There was some advertizing compaign that had naked people in shop windows. Yes, the woman was topless and you could see her boobs (no pubic areas though ). Ya know what? After a while, I didn't notice them (boobs). Mind you - she was hot!

    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?

  20. This is ridiculous by Dehumanizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  21. new headline by prockcore · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I the only one who thinks the headline to this story should be "Violent Video Game Law Fragged"

  22. Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Just to clarify, there is quite a bit of evidence that drug laws came about because of race and class issues. Look at which drugs were originally criminalized, and what kind of penalties are currently enforced, not to mention how they are enforced. Also look at licensing issues on types of alcohol

    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
  23. Re:Why is that... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Offtopic, but ontopic later...

    Erm... that's been a long standing arguement here in the USA, so I hope you didn't get the feeling you'd come up with something original ;)

    When the founders of this county added the second amendment, they knew that the only way to remove an oppressive government (which they'd just been under) was with force. Protecting the right to own arms was essential to being able to use such force.

    We have laws banning such substances as cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth, etc... None of these laws stop criminals from being in possession of those substances. The long standing arguement against banning guns is it means only the criminals will have them.

    ontopic

    The idea behind laws such as this one is that children/teens are desensitized by violence in games and on tv. I don't agree with that, but it's what these pretentious lawmakers think. These same people seem to think that, in the 1950's, the world really was like Leave it to Beaver portrayed.

    The simple solution is for parents to become parents again. We (I have 3), collectively, need to quit blaming other people for our shortcomings as parents and own up to the fact that kids turn out pretty much how we raise them (and who we let them hang out with). We, not laws, should be the filters that sort out what our kids watch and do.

    My 11 year old boy is a big fan of Will Smith, and we own (lease?) the Bad Boyz DVD's, and he's allowed to watch both of them. Why? Because we speak with our children all the time about how people should act and how they should treat other people. He understands that what he's watching is purely for entertainment, and stuffing people in trunks, while funny on tv, isn't funny in real life.

    The idea of having more laws on the books infuriates me, wether it be banning violent games or guns. We just need to stop blaming other people when our ignored child turns out rotten.

    --
    Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  24. Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  25. Reminds me of when I was a young lad... by John+Courtland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.
    1. Re:Reminds me of when I was a young lad... by kooshvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, and they need to be held responsible more often.

      I agree with you but I would disagree with this statement. SOME kids are smarter than people give them credit for. Children develop at different rates. The choice should be totally up to the parents to decide if their child is able to handle and understand the differences between real life and video games. There are some adults that don't even seem to grasp the difference yet. It is not the job of the government to tell parents what their child is capable of understanding.

    2. Re:Reminds me of when I was a young lad... by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Fucking stupid Tipper Gore bullshit, and my ma bought into it like a sucker.

      Huh... My parents raised me on James Bond films and those cool 1970's martial arts flicks. I knew how to break a spine in three places or seduce a sexy Soviet double agent before I could tie my shoes.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
  26. Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr by pyro_dude · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    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
  27. My take by KillaForTheScrilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)
  28. Of course they struck it down by Whyzzi · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)
  29. Will it never end? by Tekime · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  30. "Depicts" versus "allows" by mr_luc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  31. Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr by RatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  32. The important thing that everyone missed... by Samari711 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  33. Woulda Coulda Shoulda by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Woulda Coulda Shoulda by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      Yup. An addict is an addict is an addict.

      Of course all things being equal, I'd much rather hang out with a stoner than an alcoholic. Nobody ever gets stoned and tries to kick your ass.

  34. Study vs. Study by lakeesis · · Score: 3, Informative
    For those following the "your study is better than my study" debate, the Seattle PI ran this article in early July giving a general run-down of several of the well known, and often quoted, studies on both sides of the fence.

    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.
  35. Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr by abb3w · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...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.
  36. Amen by JJahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:Amen by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      You're overlooking free public education, a massive government-supported public health/immunization initiatave, child protective services and a foster care system should you need them, government oversight of employed minors to ensure safe working conditions, the entire transportation infrastructure (along with its regulatory arm) that you gain access to around age 16, and all the other stuff the government does for kids.

      Yes, you can't vote. Yes, you can have certain of your rights waived by parents/schools. But "government oppression" is a wee bit heavy-handed.

  37. I could not agree more by mr_luc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I could not agree more.

    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. :P

    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.

  38. You want it banned, pip some T&A and a BJ by crovira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  39. Re:Useful metaphor for this kind of reactionism:dr by Kainaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  40. Err by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...would such a game not already carry a Mature rating and hence be illegal for the kids to buy anyway?

  41. Where can I get a game like that!? by Pii · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I mean, seriously, I have always been somewhat disappointed by the fact that after I've killed someone online, their suffering has ended...

    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.
  42. Doubt anyone will read this at this point, but... by Mmm+coffee · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  43. Accountability by dgagley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  44. Because parents... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  45. Re:You serious? All Under 18 laws? by Eru-sama · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any sort of age laws are completely arbitrary. On voting laws, it'd better to whip up a simple test that would require you to demonstrate literacy, knowledge of country's political system and some critical thinking. If you can pass, then you can vote.

  46. Re:Kinda like pr0n in that regards ... by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    It's funny how many people buy ridiculous statements like this without asking the obvious questions: "Who measured their shot accuracy? How did they measure it?" Just a moment's consideration should tell you how implausible it is. Think about what would have to be be involved to actually be able to honestly make such a claim. Did somebody really go around and try to figure out where every shot was fired from, guess what the kid was aiming at, and calculate how close the shot came to the target? And then somehow work out an appropriate metric to compare it to police accuracy? That would be quite an accomplishment indeed! Where is this tour de force study published?

  47. Re:...But I don't like unfavorable depictions... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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."

    If they actually DID their job of controlling the unnecessarily violent in society, they might get some respect.

    Instead, they enforce "institutional morality" like anti-drug laws which are totally irrelevant to preventing coercion. Then they start acting out "us vrs. them" fantasies. They end up sodomizing people with broomsticks in back rooms.

    They've been doing this for GENERATIONS now (read any description of 19th Century and early 20th Century police tactics). Until public outrage in the '60's forced a (slight) rollback in those tactics, they were doing it. (Of course, the recent beating in LA shows that nothing's really changed.) THAT's why they don't get any respect.

    Christ, they've been showing police TV shows and movies now for FIFTY YEARS which show the police REGULARLY violating people's civil rights in order to apprehend "evil bad guys". If you think video games influence the respect police get, what about the thousands of police-positive movies and TV shows that are everywhere?

    If they're not having an effect on generating respect for cops, there must be a reason. Same one as violent video games. People have to deal with reality on the street. Games and TV are not yet indistinguishable from reality - despite the corporat media and the state's efforts to blur that distinction so as to better control this brain-dead population.

    The Situationists talked about the "Society of the Spectacle". Well, it's not seamless yet.

    I spent eight years in the Federal joint seeing cops (and wannabe cops, which is what correctional officers ARE) on a daily basis. There are only three kinds of cops: morons, assholes, and both.

    Get in a cop's way one of these days and see how much respect you have after he takes you down several pegs. Try complaining at an airport check-in - that'll do it.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  48. This is awesome! by transient · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson wrote this law and said, "While we may have lost this one battle in the sale of violent games against children, the war is far from over."

    What kind of idiot uses violent metaphors to describe their initiatives against violence?

    --

    irb(main):001:0>
  49. Rapists Eat Bread *FACT* by Psymunn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  50. I don't think the judge likes Grand Theft Auto III by rfc1394 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In short, the regulation of speech at issue here is not limited to the ultra-violent or the patently offensive and is far broader than what would be necessary to keep filth like Grand Theft Auto III and Postal II out of the hands of children.

    - Judge Robert P. Lasnik, Video Software Dealers Association et. al. v. Maleng et. al. , Page 12

    I kind of thought GTA III was more of a parody and funny as hell than anything serious. I never thought it was "filth." Neither did the neighbor kids we allowed to play it. Most of them were too young to understand what a hooker does, anyway. My sister told one of the 9-year-olds who comes by to visit that she is not to kill anybody when a certain 6-year-old was around because his mother doesn't like the idea.
    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  51. Re:Rapists Eat Bread *FACT* by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    .

  52. The video game industry needs to get serious by shidoshi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  53. Violence Begets Violence by rinkjustice · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  54. I am uncertain. by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.