Slashdot Mirror
Game Makers Could Be Liable For Violent Games
Christopher Reimer writes "KOMO 4 News of Seattle, Washington, is reporting that state law makers are considering a bill that would make video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17 are responsible for. From the article: 'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?'"
Lets blame anyone and everyone but the kid and his parents... After all, why should the parents have any involvement in what their kids are doing? Blame it on those damn games!
Give me a break, just more stupid laws.
- AMW
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Of course, the things we see and do influence us, but to say that playing a violent video game makes someone violent is stretching it. I thought I had read that violent movies had a much stronger such effect? Why aren't movie makers being sued left and right, as video game makers are? Oh, of course, video games are "new", while the lawyers of today have grown up with movies, and are used to them!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Sweet! I'm going to Washington.
"What?? I only stole cars because I play [insert video game here]."
Too bad I'm not 17 anymore....
What happened to personal responsibility? Also, how do you determine if kids were going to break the law whether or not they played the video game? It's just ridiculous.
Try eMusic. DRM free, legal, MP3 downloads.
'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?' Yeah, because its obvious they committed the crime because of playing the game, right?
We can sue the government for cutting the # of police resulting in more crime, yeah.
If they clearly label a game "Mature" and some fool sells it to a kid. The one responsible should be the seller, because the company clearly made the game for an audience that was old enough to understand the implications of doing such things in real-life. Same thing can be said for kids who sneak into R-rated movies. Or kids that smoke underage, or drink, or get porn. Would you seek penalties against the movie production/tobacco/alcohol/porn company that made the material in those cases? No!
The problem here is that there is no strict enforcement on the game maturatiy rating system, not with the developers for making mature and violent games.
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
"Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?"
If you can PROVE that they committed the crime BECAUSE of playing the game, then yes. I'd be really impressed to see that proof though.
...so they can't be punished properly, or held responsible... why don't we just make the jump to anarchy and get it over with?
Should the author of _Johnny Trumane_ be held liable if a minor reads it and goes on to incite a revolution? What about the producers of violent and disturbing movies like Seven, or Psycho? I am sick of this discrimination towards anything with the silicon chips in it.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
From the article: 'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?'
k for the last time - no one commits a crime because of playing a video game. no one. not anywhere, ever, under any circumstances. if you commit a crime after playing a video game, you were going to commit a crime anyway. i've played a LOT of very, very violent video games and never once have i ever even considered reproducing the game in real life. if you do, you have issues beyond any video game or television program...
its basic psychology. you are either inclined to commit crime or you're not, and if you are, its usually because you were psychologically damaged as a child.
lets do something about parents who abuse their kids and raise murderers instead of trying to create a law that criminalizes a harmless video game.
Why not make:
- McDonalds liable for making me fat
- Fox network for making me stupid
- The sun for making me sunburned
etc.etc.
law makers are considering a bill that would make video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17
What happened to the parents??? I have a 4 year old, and I am involved in everything he does. I plan on that staying like that til he's 18~25 or whenever. I need to protect him from propaganda like this crap. (and, not the games, the lawmakers).
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
(sarcasm) ...but only if you can prove to a reasonable degree that the person has absolutely no control over their own life and if the gaming company misrepresented the game as a happy non-violent game.
Although, if a person proved they had no self-control, they should be locked in a sensory deprevation chamber in case something happens in the world to influence them. We wouldn't want them to think that things like advertisements, spam, or games had anything to do with real life.
A good test for easy-to-influence would be to force the person to play pac-man for 8 hours straight, place white pellets around the room, then observe.
(/sarcasm)
Maybe Nintendo and Microsoft should consider leaving the state? They could cite the hostile business climate...
[o]_O
I swear, there's something about being a legislator that rots the brain.
Parker Brothers being sued because their game led to many companies having Monopolies!
But, seriously: If you can prove a crime was commited because of a violent video game, I'll give you $1m. Prove it. Please. Because once you admit that you CANNOT prove such a thing, we'll be done with this whole "Violent Video Games r teh evil!" deal. I've been playing violent video games from Doom until Half Life 2. I've never killed anyone. I've never shot a cop. I've never stolen a car. If I had killed someone, shot a cop, or stolen a car I'm sure it would be because I'm fucked in the head, not because of GTA3.
Although, I just had an idea.. I could probably get away with it and get a bunch of money if I said my problems with Windows led me to kill..
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Blame TV, Movies, Video Games, Rock and Roll, baseball bat manufactures, or the Bible - anyone but the person who actually commits the crime.
If only there was a "-1 Troll" mod for proposed laws...
-- Should you believe authority without question?
When was the last time someone sued a movie studio for making violent movies - and won? Or HBO for the Sopranos? Or music studios for gangster rap? Or Simon and Scheuster for violence in their books?
I think it's time I sued Stephen King for making me into a homocidal maniac.
Pretty Pictures!
It's because there's not enough cops around to beat with my billy stick.
Can video game companies be held liable for marketing their M-rated games to kids?
Let's see, yes.. GTA MADE me go out and steal cars and smash into everything in sight.. and Marilyn Manson MADE me kill small animals... and Kill Bill MADE me run around with a samurai sword on a bloody killing spree.. and Seinfeld MADE me drop an air conditioner out a window onto a city street.. I'm not accountable for my actions, blame those evil folks in the entertainment industry! They're the one's who have so addled my brain that I can no longer tell the difference between reality and fiction!
Punish the store first, then the parents. I got carded going to see constantine, and I'm 22. If the store sells it to them, then it's the store's problem, if the parent's buy it for them, it's the parents problem. Game companies have nothing to do with it. How about punishing Dodge for making the mini-van that almost hit me because the chick was on her cell phone, enraging me enough to go on a God-Like Rampage... And punish both the cell manufacturer and her provider. And her parents, IT NEVER ENDS!
When will they start making producers, reporters and actors liable for the crime and deviant behavior they portray and sensationalize on their news and other programs?
When will they start making publishing companies and authors liable for the illegal activity they put in their books and magazines?
School of thought A:
Violent video games breed violent behavior
School of thought B:
Violent video games do not lead to violent tendencies, and/or are actually positive since they allow any such violent behaviors to be released in a non-violent way (read cathartic)
But in the end, if you are under 18 (depending on your area I suppose) you can't get these games, unless of course you parents/uncles and aunts/older brothers and sisters decide you are mature enough for them.
Personally I believe that the only leg that members of school of thought A have to stand on is that if you spent hours in a video arcade playing house of the dead you might have some sort of a feel for what it is like to use a gun. Pointing and clicking has never really made me more of a violent person, or for that matter given me an new sort of skills that might exacerbate a violent personality.
but after all's said and done, if you are too young to buy the game someone bought it for you. So whats next? A law holding the person who bought the game for you resposible for you actions? If indeed your actions came as a result of playing some game?
The Answer
Focusing on the parents responsability in keeping these games away from their kids is a distraction. These "violent" games will get in the hands of these kids regardless. The point is there is no proven connection between video games and violent personal behavior. It can't be proven in court be it civil or criminal court. To wit, I quote Kyle from HardOCP as he has said it better than I can, "said this 4 years ago, and I will say it again...if video games cause violence, how come Japan consumes 10x - 15x more video games than the U.S. even though they are only a fraction of our size and yet their violent crime rate is 1% of the U.S.? Shouldn't they be slashing everyone up with ninja swords and Karate chopping each other to death in Pokemon/Mortal Kombat style death duels by now?"
Lets blame the videogames cos afterall there's no violence in movies, music or books
I can't wait until a case arises that cites this law and sets a precedent that can be applied to all other forms of media, including television, movies, and music. After all, they are forms of entertainment that often show violence, right? They could possibly show/tell their audiences how to kill people in new and creative ways.
This law needs opposition and a counter-law, or an industry-wide EULA (people do read those, right?) amendment that says something to the effect of "we believe that violence belongs only in video games. we cannot be responsible for the actions of those who play our video games." Running with Scissors did that for the Postal series of games, and they are the most violent games that I have ever played.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
This has gotten out of hand , the scape goating and Buck passing mentality of these people is truely juvinile . ...). . ,Run around shooting each other and playing dead ,they have played these types of games in the plagrounds for years and will continue to , and these games simulat just as violent situations , yet we view them as more holesome.
First off , if you want to blame anyone for your children commiting crime , i would take a long hard look at yourself.
Sure they may immitate a game , but if it had not of been the game it would of been a movie , a cartoon or even a book.
I have played games like Grand theft auto , Counter strike, Manhunt , Eternal darkness and DOOM , I dont worship satan , i have a clean criminal record and have no urges to go out and car jack someone , paint Pentegrams on my forehead or blow people to bits(although if i had a rocket launcher and a clean sight at the RIAA offices
Infact non of my freinds have , Im well beyond that age range now , but even when i was 12 or so , i used to play games that were just as violent , they were fun and still are
Children still play cops and robbers , or cowboys and indians
nothing new here , just some politians trying to ride there way to greater office on the back of a whitch hunt
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Unless it's Sim Rob-a-Bank I don't see how it could be considered close to reality to even very young children.
Why does it seem that people see children as completely oblivous to how the world actually is? I think the problem is allowing children to get away with more by using the "I'm just a kid who doesn't understand" card are more likely they'll grow into young adults who are willing to risk doing stupid things because they got away with it in the past.
10. Gun makers could be be liable for guns used in shootings.
9. Match makers could be liable for starting fires.
8. Car makers could be liable for senior citizens driving through crowds of people.
7. *nix devleopers could be liable for accidential rm -f -r *
6. Mail client developers could be liable for every virus attachment opened.
5. Al Gore could be liable for all the webpages that do not follow w3c standards on the internet that he invented.
4. Christopher Walken could be liable for not using enough cowbell.
3. Slashdot could be liable for every webserver that goes down because of bandwidth issues.
2. Microsoft could be liable for everything that goes wrong with computers.
1. George Lucas could be liable for creating the greatest Star Wars character ever, Jar Jar Binks.
Awesome... so if I'm under 18 and commit a crime, I only have to own one of these games and say they corrupted my youth? wow, I can do anything I want now... yes I can see this bill limiting crime.
So if violent games are banned, does that mean that all of us who grew up with Mario engaging in hate crimes against goombas and other various forms of wildlife can seek reparation for past damage? Because you know, the guys who make violent games today grew up under the influence of these violent games of the past! They are victims of the videogame industry!
Does this also mean that every criminal who may have played a videogame during their life before they committed their crime can now appeal because they played a game in an arcade and it influenced them to do bad things?
I will only support this whole idea of making game companies responsible if every other form of media (book, tv, movie, music, etc) is held to the same standards.
Kids used to run around with cap guns and simulate shooting each other all the time. And of those who actually did shoot somebody later on in life, probably none of them ever blamed the Lone Ranger for it. It is clearly not violent media that makes people killers, much less videogames in particular.
I just don't understand why people think that in today's world, nobody should have to face the consequences of their own actions.
Sigh.
Why don't we just see who enjoys violent films or games, then we can go ahead and arrest them...at the rate our rights are being trampled, this makes perfect sense. No point in waiting until they actually commit a crime...save the potential victims the pain of the crime...Sorry...I used to get angry over this type of thing, but it has become so rampant in our society that sarcasm is all I can seem to manage any more...
The one responsible should be the seller, because the company clearly made the game for an audience that was old enough to understand the implications of doing such things in real-life.
Sorta. The seller of the game, I feel, would be resposible once-removed. The parent should be the first line of defense by teaching their kids right from wrong. Novel concept in this day and age, I know. However, morals and a sence of personal responsibility should be instilled in the child well before s/he even knows influences such as Grand Theft Auto even exist. And when child is exposed to the "negitive influences" of modern media, the perent needs to be able to explain, to a degree, why the game rewards you for being bad.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police officer over the head with a bat,"
I really wonder if this guy has ever talked to someone (like me) who is under 18 and plays a lot of the games in question? It's not as if I believe that just because in GTA I can kill innocent bystanders doesn't mean that I think it's ok to actually do it. I mean, has anybody ever bothered to look at the family background behind the people who commit these crimes? I'm willing to bet they had a history of violence from their parents, perhaps even sexual or mental abuse. Has anybody looked at the rate of violent youth crime versus the advent of violent video games and seen an actual, substantial trend? I'm just as revolted and horrified by violent crime as an adult is, even when playing "M" games all the time. It's not as if you can morally shift the blame the artist.
Thankfully, the Washington Software Association has a well thought out argument which will almost certainly stop the bill from becoming law: "There's a very strong video game industry in this state that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention to an area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's actually some good economic development in our state" Thank goodness for Microsoft making Halo there!
Even though video games are protected free speech they can't be protected from frivilous lawsuits or idiotic bills such as this. Putting a bill like this on the table does limit free speech to a point as the game manufacturers in that state and any distributor that pushes in that state will have to take extra steps to "baby-fy" idiots from doing things that they would probably have already done.
Video games might have an impact on someone's social life but it certainly doesn't have an established impact on violent actions. I don't play Grand Theft Auto 3 and then want to go out and shoot up New York City. I don't play Call Of Duty and then want to go shoot up Germany.
Bills like this are rediculous and a waste of tax-payers money. Politicians like this need to be taken out of office.
One man's opinion any way.
I say, sure. Let the game companies get slammed. The instant a conviction is reached, I'll be the first to start the lawsuit against the MPAA that Seven made me become a serial killer because the idea of have themed murders was nifty.
Might as well get the RIAA while I'm at it. Years of Slipknot and ICP added to the problem.
Wouldn't it be smarter to lobby these other industries with the idea of the legal precedent that this will cause. The entire entertainment industry will crumble as soon as one conviction is made.
I mean, the MPAA and the RIAA are already more then happy to throw money around for legal reason, let's give them a reason to put that money to some good use . . .
Let's extend this to all other potential influences any time someone does something bad. For example, next time a girl breaks up with me, I want to sue the authors and publishers of the magazines she reads.
_______
2B1ASK1
I agree with this law because video games actually *do* make children commit crimes.
I remember one time as a child a kid started throwing hammers at me from the top of a table. At first I didn't know what to do, but then I saw a bird in a turtle shell and jumped at the opportunity (no pun intended, I'm being serious here). I took the remaining shell and threw it at the other kid. He paused for a second and then continued to throw hammers at me. I found a second turtle-bird thing and repeated the process. The kid fell through the floor and was never heard from again. I, on the other hand, was hit by a hammer that was still flying through the air.
For the fifteen years after that event I have come to enjoy being a dwarf. It makes it easier to get under certain floating brick walls. I think I would like to one day be big again, but I still have not found the right mushroom, only the ones that make fire shoot out of my arse.
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
they don't do this with guns...
Consumers' attorneys across the nation have begun to target the alcoholic beverage industry, filing lawsuits that claim that some leading brewers and distillers are using slick advertising to sell products to underage drinkers.
It's regular people who are sueing, not the DAs. The feds and the states lawyers have nothing to do with this.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Can somebody explain to me why all these law makers are going after the gaming industry so much lately. I don't see why it's so different from other forms of entertainment like movies, books, comics and music. Is it due to the right wing christian groups? Or because it's an easy way to avoid facing the harder issues? Or maybe the game industry doesn't contribute enough to the political parties as opposed to other media. Seriously though, I'd really like to have a serious answer to their motivations.
Publishers of porn should be held responsible, too! After watching a XXX video I has sex with my wife and she got pregnant! They should pay child support.
I played an educational game and learned how to get a better job and now my paycheck is bigger. Unfortunately, I have to pay the publisher a cut because they are responsible my my increase in pay.
It gets worse...I played those shooting games FOREVER, got all of the high scores and could beat any game. So I bet this guy at the shooting range I could beat him with REAL guns. I lost $20! The publishers should pay up!
Yes. Yes, the video game makers should be responsible for acts caused by their video games.
Of course, that means you have to hold movie makers accountable, too. Also television producers. Also performers. Also writers.
Oh, wait, you mean video games let kids ACT OUT the fantasy, instead of just silently watch and absorb it? Well, that's all the difference in the world!
Of course, you'll still need to make paintball gun makers responsible. And parents who teach their kids to hunt.
Oh, but wait, it's not using guns that does it; the video games let them actually pretend to KILL people. Oh, okay, that does make a difference. I can see that. I guess you can go ahead.
Hmm. I wonder how someone is going to prove that a video game caused the violence. That's a tricky one, yes? I mean, it might be troubles at home. Or a mental deficiency. Or something else that we just don't understand. Or maybe the kid was born a sadist. Or perhaps an antidepressant was the cause! I bet you'll need lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of lawyers for that.
So, who's sponsoring this bill, anyway? Doesn't say in the article. I'm gonna bet there's a lawyer or two involved in there somewhere, yes?
Just sayin'.
This makes me wonder how Seanbaby's suit against Sony for turning him into a champion snowboarder is panning out...
Lou: Another case of Monopoly related violence, chief.
Wiggum: How do those Parker Brothers sleep at night?
English is easier said than done.
As a Washingtonian, I can tell your our state is majorly fucked up when it comes to personal rights.
When it comes to children, the state would rather you put your kids on drugs than spank. Put them into counseling, and get them a probation officer.
Men's rights are HORRIBLE, if you meet a girl with a kid, you date her for a few months, you could be made to pay child support, even though the kid is not yours.
Then we have State ran liquor stores, where they choose what liquor you can have. They are closed on Sundays, the weekend when you normally do your shopping.
Gay rights is having tough times passing when most of the states believe gays are sinners and shouldn't be allowed near children.
Medical use of marijuana is believed to be morally wrong, so it doesn't pass every time it comes up to vote.
If you have been following the news here, we just had a Police officer under investigation for kissing his girlfriend, while he was in uniform. Her job? A stripper, so it must be something illegal going on. If it was a teacher, nobody would have said anything.
And speaking of Strip clubs, they don't serve food or alcohol, due to zoning laws. WTF?! In Texas, you can go to a nice place, order a big steak, drink a beer, and watch hot women on stage that are of super model quality. Nothing lewd going on, its what mens clubs should be like.
People are even considering splitting up the state into Western and Eastern Washington, so the Seattle side can get some stop having the moral majority pass this RELIGOUS that censor everything we do.
I love my state, I just wish we could get our heads out of our asses and start working on real issues, like roads, schools and internet access in rural areas. We don't need more censorship, all TV's come with Vchips, and Video games have warnings.
Nanny nation is right, stop trying to protect everyone. Freedom has risks, and the risks are worth it.
I think alot of this double standard type legislation has to do with the lawmakers not knowing WTF they are talking about.
... hell even judges) about what computers are and are not.
For instance, most lawmakers know about cars and guns. It follows that they know better than to hold car and gun manufacturers responsible for what people do with their products. Most lawmakers have not the slightest clue how a computer works. And as we have seen these days, people lash out at things they don't understand.
Its high time some nerds start running for office and educate people (especially legislators
Only if we can hold law makers accountable for citizens committing crimes because of the lawmakers making such acts illegal.
Seriously, though - causation is such an ill defined concept.
Because of playing them? or After playing them?
There is a big diffrence. If playing a game somehow forces them to break a law then perhaps the game company should be held liable. (although I see no way that a video game could force someone to break a law)
After playing the game or saying that they were influinced by the game, now come on don't be silly.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
No wonder the rest of the world think we're idiots: let's blame everyone else and take absolutely no responsibility for our own actions. I'm fat, it must be McDonalds fault. I stuck my hand in a running snow-blower, it must be the manufacturers fault. My kid is an asshat and shot 10 random strangers, it must be the videogames fault.
Hopefully the coming pandemic will actually be engineered just for these kinds of people...
Stop pummeling me, it's really painful...
So if I'm outside by chance and I hit a baseball through my neighbors window, I can blame it on Sega and get away with it? That's the best news I've heard all day. Now if you'll excuse me, my gang territory is being attacked.
Well, now, you don't expect to get OUT of anything by simply pleading that, now do you ?
Because under the provisions of this bill, whoever did anything wrong is still judged the same as he used to.
First time I read the headlines and the article there, my reaction was the same - "what a load of BS". But then...
" video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17 are responsible for "
All that I understood from that phrase initially, and whatever legalese I got when I read the bill (http://washingtonvotes.org/2005-HB-2178) was that:
- there is no CRIMINAL liability for the developer or retailer, there is only financial liability
- the state does not file charges, individuals that have been directly or indirectly damaged may file civil suits
- the developer/retailer MUST be proven to have knowingly (or by negligence) have sold, rented or distributed the game to a person under the age of 17 that subsequently engaged in a criminal activity
***
Under these conditions, you pretty much force any game developer/retailer *with offices in the USA* that has any "violent games" on their roster to rate them all 17+ (and specify that under no circumstances should these games be sold to anybody under 17 years of age) and also NEVER release any demo/freeware/shareware versions of their game - nothing more, nothing less.
***
Problem is, most developers of such "violent" games heavily rely on the "teen" demographic for purchase, and close their eyes to their own responsability to NOT do that anymore. This way you can finally dangle a threat of great financial losses if they don't cut down on the exploitation of weaker minds. At least, that's my point of view.
On the same logic, you could then bring up bills that (indirectly) force news channels to only broadcast non-violent news during daytime, you could (indirectly) force book publishers to only sell some books to adults, and so on and so forth. The abuses of such a precedence law would be mind-boggling.
An "old gamer" might argue "but I killed thousands of [insert here name of something you killed] in [insert here name of really old game you used to play a lot] and it hasn't made me a criminal". Well, duuh, of course you didn't.
There's a big difference between pixelated/cartoonish characters and photo-realstic ones - even a moron can distinguish between the game and reality in the first case, yet it takes a stronger mind to do the same in today's games.
Face it, some kids don't have that strength. Some might, but there's always that odd exception.
Also, you can argue that those weak minds would eventually crack anyway.
Yeah, sure... that's why they call minors "not responsable", because they'd never grow up ? Get a grip on reality.
It's not about who is responsable ultimately for something wrong that has been done, it's about decreasing the odds that something bad WILL happend by forcing some irresponsable and greedy grown-ups to think twice before they ship something out.
Also, you could argue that this is the death of free and/or open-source (arguably) violent games.
Sadly, this is also the case.
And this specific point is the only one that bothers me about the bill's formulation.
But, let's be frank... how many "free" games out there (and I just said GAMES, not GAME MODS) are truly violent in the first place ?
Anyway, the discution is still open, and this bill is not the load of crock it seems to be at the first glimpse. But it's treading on mined terrain between rights and responsabilities.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
Lawmakers should go back to doing stuff like worrying about the war or something.
Now that you mention it, I bet they (lawmakers) played a lot of Risk back in the day. If so, quite a paradox we have, no?
Could they not cite the Betamax decision? If Sony can't be held responsible for people taping a show with their VCR, how can a game maker be responsible for someone killing someone else? Although while we are on the topic, why does this not apply to film? Do they have to many powerful lobbyists for it to be worth going after them for?
Fascists should be responsible for passing freedom crushing laws!
Oh wait...
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Okay... so next time a 17 year old gets drunk and wrecks daddy's car lets have parents sue Budweiser.
Next time a kid shoots someone at school let the city sue Marylin Manson, no no we used him, sue Puffy.
Parents, its time to wake up. If your child does not have the common sense to differentiate between reality and a computer game... you fucked up somewhere. If your child does something based on 'what the music told him to' or 'what that guy with the gun in that game did' there are fundamental issues at work here unrelated to outside influences such as a computer game.
There IS a real world, your job as parents is to teach your children how to navigate it. Take some fucking responsibility... you know... Face the real world your own damned selves.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
I also think that we should hold directors, producers, and actors responsible when people who have seen their movies commit acts of violence.
I also think we should hold authors responsible when people who have seen their books commit acts of violence. (The guy who wrote The Turner Diaries should be executed. He's obviously responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.)
Most of all, I think we should hold politicians responsible if people who have witnessed them start wars commit acts of violence. They, more than anyone else in this country, are responsible for teaching our children that violence is a good way to solve problems.
Basic psychology would also suggest that violent video games can prevent violent crimes, by giving kids an outlet for their aggression and anger.
I think you were asleep when that lecture came up. Psychological researcher Albert Bandura found out in his studies of aggression in children that catharsis (getting a feeling of relaxation after an act of violence) doesn't work.
Say when you feel angry at something, you decide to punch a pillow. When you get more angry, you hit the pillow harder. But eventually, you build up a tolerance and you need to do more to get the same effect (kind of like being on drugs). Eventually you get from punching a pillow to stabbing it. Bandura (and other psychologists) hypothesize that some people (in particular, very young children) might move from imitating that behavior in a video game to imitating that behavior at play, and then in real life. (See his "Bobo Doll" Study).
Now the difference between children and (most) adults is that adults have learned somewhere along the line that committing violent acts does not a)have a big reward at the end of it, and b)there is a consequence to committing those violent acts.
While I might agree with you that violent video games do not cause adults (without a previous history of violence) to act violently, I don't think I can say the same about children. And I definately disagree with you that "basic psychology" says that violent video games reduces violent urges.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
The bill is still in the comitee stage, where it will die, but it will never go through like it is described in the article. It is unconstitutional, but more than that is utterly ridicuolous. The state courts would turn the law over in seconds. Don't freak out. The first company to face that law in court would immediately find flaws in the statute. We always hear about horrible new bills and the damage they are going to do, but usually they are radically changed, to be more logical and sensible, or die before ever seeing a vote. btw there are too many economic considerations holding this back. kinda like tort reform. There is a lot of money on one side of the issue that will make enough noise to kill such a ridiculous proposal quickly.
Under this law, you would have to charge a 9-year old and a bunch of 25-50 year-olds that he has never met under conspiracy statutes.
If this law passes, we can throw rocks painted red and white at people and finally get rid of Pokemon!
This would definitely set an interesting precident. HOW could you prove that they were marketing M-rated games to kids? Is there a marketing standard as to what is appealing only to kids, kids+adults (which may or may not be coincidental) or just adults which could have a side effect of being influential to kids. We all know how kids want to be grown up without being grown up... we were all there and some still are (ie: personal responsibility)
Just a question.
http://tinyurl.com/6vq2z/
My roommate's mother came over one day, and she found out that I was a professional software tester in the video game industry. She wanted to know how I could sleep at night by working on products that keeps kids glued to the TV instead of playing outside and doing violent acts outside of the home.
I told her it was the parent's responsibility to kick their kids outside to play, and, if they failed that as parents, they are entirely responsible for how their kids turned out. She got mad since it turns out that was the kind of parent she was. Go figure.
So then what if my kid plays a Healer in his video games, then starts running around healing people who are in need... Or! Worse! becomes a Doctor! Do the makers and sellers of video games get a stipend for all his good deeds?
Washington is clearly too close to Canada, which is why blame it for everything.
Morons.
This will allow the government to imprison and fine people who have nothing to do with a crime, so I'm willing to bet it'll pass. Plus, this way parents can keep beating their kids and banning their games and rest assured that someone else is taking the fall.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
...which, might I add, comes entirely from the movie Runaway Jury...
The only way game makers could be held at least partially culpable for a violent crime committed by young users of their products (barring the silly "violent games directly incite otherwise normal children into doing crimes" idea) is if it was illegal to sell violent games to minors, and either (a) the makers knowingly did it anyway (or at least didn't care if their games were sold to minors), or (b) the makers specifically marketed their violent games to minors. AFAIK, none of those things are true in any case--at least, not yet.
It should be noted that the same thing applies to everything that previous posters have mentioned: movies, books, the news, etc.
Rob
violent games practice wrong thought.
wrong thought leads to wrong action.
Does that include Americas Army by the US Army?!?
:O
That should be interesting for a lawsuit
Besides nothing can be worse than showing a generation watching The A-Team that machine guns dont hurt people no matter how many bullets you use.....I even had that thought then as a teenager... Whoever thought non-violent meant firing 1000 bullets and noone gets seriously hurt had more mental problems than any gamer!
My secret? Parental Involvment. Every now and then, a parent would pop their head in the room and see what I was doing. If I had been playing for 3 hours, they would encourage me to pause / save and do something else. As years past, they slowly reduced their control.
Violence is a part of this world, no need to shield the little kiddies from it forever. If parents do their job, kids probably will turn out fine. There are exceptions, of course, but blaming video games won't help.
SAILING MISHAP
Right on the money. Game Makers, such as RPG Maker, and Game Maker 6.0, are allowing utter idiots to convert their ideas into playable, distributable games! These programs should be banned immediately! Only hard coding is safe for our children.
Should gun companies be held responsible for the murders people commit with them?
'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?'
FUCK no.
Next stop, Hollywood.
It's an amazingly midwestern proposal, based on concepts of morality that involve blaming people completely seperate from any alleged incident. My local (Oklahoma) Fox news affiliate has stories about the horrors of video games running on a weekly basis this year, but no new laws have come up yet.
I imagine juvinile offenders (if 17-year olds in Washington are considered juvinile) will be offered reduced sentences to claim video games inspired their respective crimes, but would it be moral to encourage falsehoods from others in order to pass an ideological law?
Ladies and gentlemen, we can make this argument more interesting. Find small game studios willing to design bloodthirsty games and ask them to use strong religious themes. Contact local media outlets and condemn the game. Act surprised that the book people most love to quote out of context has depictions of murder, rape, adultery, etc. If you are reenacting violence from a sacred text, is it the game or the scripture provoking children? Let the chaos ensue.
These are proably the same politicians who go around saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." But video games, nooo those are the root of all that is evil in modern society. Gimme a break.
How many cases do we have of kids hitting police officers over the head with bats, again? I forget.
(Get ready, kids. Here comes the sarcastic part of my post!)
Booooo! Here come the faceless opponents who use big words like "responsibility". They aren't members of the Washington Police and Sheriff's Association like good ol' Bill Hanson. Why should we trust them, whoever they are? It's harder than you think, Lew. Completely removed? Are you nuts? If I play with a kid pretending that we're sword fighting and then that kid goes off and stabs someone with a real sword how far removed am I? Huh!? Answer that, Lew! Now's the part were we construct a false dichotomy with the health of the software industry job market on one side and the vulnerability of police officers to children armed with bats on the other.The assumption seems to be that the game industry is filled with evil warlocks and sorcerers bent on turning "kids" into violent lunatics. I think that the people who propose and support this kind of legislation aren't paying enough attention, "undo" or otherwise. If they were actually paying attention they might notice the big empty hole where all of the solid evidence linking violent behavior in children to violent video games is supposed to be.
Legislate this.Guns don't kill people,
stupid laws get people killed.
Anyone else get the feeling that a good old fashioned cultural cleansing is needed right about now?
Damn polititians. George Bush is making children into gay bashing biggots, and nobody is holding him liable.
"Video games don't affect kids. If Pac-Man affected us as kids we'd all be walking around in dark rooms eating magic pills while listening to repetitive electronic music." -Karen Price, Nintendo Representative
Who's gonna fess up responibility for the Crusades?
Is the only part that anyone really sees outside of, and pretty much inside of too, is the cosmopolaten greater Puget Sound region. Most of the state is hicks. The same kind of hicks that live in Podunk Arkansas. Including some who are state legislators and think creationism is a science and should be taught in schools.
What's worse is the kind of liberalism prevailent in the more urban parts of western washington resonates with some elements of looney conservativism. Namely, "Won't someone think of the children!"
It will die, it won't be close, and if by some fluke of magic or Providence it did somehow pass, it'd be struck down swiftly.
Ultimately, this kind of thing is really a economic argument. "Raising kids is expensive, it takes time and resources which makes me feel less wealthy. I think my kids should be at least partly someone else's responsability so that I might be richer. But I do not think they should have to suffer for my prediliction towards the ennuie of manufactured existential crises brought on by comparitive, and undeserved wealth."
Quite frankly, if you don't want your kids, just go ahead and murder them. If they escape they'll become prostitutes, strippers, drug dealers, porn stars/producers, politicians, or some other quasi-necessary evil. If they don't they were only going to grow up to replicate their parents failings in their own children. None of them will go on to unite quantum mechanics and relativity, or cure cancer. In the mean time the news will have something noteworthy to sell ads with. So for the children, kill them.
In german there are signs at construction sites and such that state 'parents liable for their childrens'. Liable here in the legal sense. This should be the corner stone of every legislation concerning a kids actions.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
You forgot to mention the TV news stations who beam lurid descriptions of crimes and violence into our homes. Surely they must be responsible for putting ideas into the heads of criminals, right.
;-)
The existance of copycat crimes proves this, so lets sue KOMO.
Maybe they will stop this fearmongering and "save the children" hysteria.
How likely is that?
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
'Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?'"
This phrase takes for granted that the person commited the crime because of the video game.
hmm. can anyone think of a game that involves going around the US, beating lawmakers repeatedly with a clue-by-four?
i just need a scapegoat before i set out
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
It says "appear modeled after". The tobaco lawsuits were run by the State Attorney Generals, these are still run by the Consumer's Attorneys. Just because they are using the same legal strategy does not mean the Consumer's Attorneys are working for the states.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I used to be one of those people who said, "maybe the parents should watch their children!!!" and then I came to the following realization: it's the children's fault if they kill someone! I downloaded M-rated games from the 'net since I was about 8 years old, and I've been playing GTA (3,VC,SA) since I was 14. I got Halo on the release day with my XBOX, when I was either 12 or 13. My favorite director is Tarantino, and I watch all of his movies regularly. Guess what? I have managed to not kill anyone! Astounding, isn't it? On the other hand, I know a guy at school who's parents shelter the living fuck out of him, and he's completely fucking insane. If he killed someone, you would seriously think, "it was just a matter of time". Manhunt is the only game I'm not allowed to play, and, to be honest, I don't really want to play it. Perhaps we should stop making excuses for kids that are really just insane. Why must there be a reason?
Does that mean I can sue the government for the violent actions they've created in Iraq?
Maybe I could sue CNN - they're always glorifying violence with all that coverage.
Soooo... if I hear a sermon about the 'eradication of evil', can I sue the Church for that same motivation? Hypothetically, if I play GTA, grab a gun, steal a car and kill someone, shouldn't I also be able to sue Smith & Wesson and Ford for aiding my desire to commit such crimes. I mean, surely video games contribute to crime in the same vein as car availability and weapon availability, no? I can also sue EB for selling it. I can sue the whole damn world for my problems.
I probably should have spent a little longer finding articles more on point -- the USAToday piece was, IIRC, the second hit on Google. My point was the tobacco lawsuits rather than the alcohol, although both indicate a climate in which a wholesaler may well be held responsible for the actions of their retailers.
How much did Bushmaster pay out for not riding herd on the gun dealer whose inventory was apparently stolen to arm the DC snipers?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
No, but it does mean that state attorneys general have spent the last few years suing tobacco companies for, among other things, the retail sales of cigarettes to minors.
Sorry, thought you were implying that teh state AGs were behind the lawsuit, not suppliers being held liable for what retailers are doing. This makes more sense now.
How much did Bushmaster pay out for not riding herd on the gun dealer whose inventory was apparently stolen to arm the DC snipers?
Couple million, very good point.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
They did the same thing for broadcasters and TV and radio, and also for bands that sing morally questionable lyrics.
In other words...
Never.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Well, you see -- The reason I beat up 7 hookers and ran them over with my car after killing two police officers and driving through the city at madcap speeds while drinking and driving on amphetamines was because I played a video game earlier today. The fact that I was allowed to do it in a video game MUST make it right. It's not that I'm a looney to begin with, I promise. I was 100% sane before I played that game. These ideas never came to me before, honest.
/me moves to any country other than the United States of Blamerica.
On a side note, the fact that my parents spend absolutely no time effectively teaching me how to be a respectful and respectable person, also never spending any time watching me and prohibiting me, at 15 years old, from playing a game that is designated 17+ -- has NOTHING to do with this.
Thank Buddha for Personal Responsibility.
To the darkened skies once more, and ever onward.
One question that htis bill opens for me is, what is the burden of proof? If for example a 16 year-old steals a car and runs over some pedestrian with it, how does one "prove" that this is due to playing GTA. You cannot, or should not, rest this argument soley on the question of whether or not he/she posesses the game and has played it. That would, of course fly in the face of the staggering number of people who posess the game, and similar games and *do not* commit the same crime. Such a weak standard of proof would fly in the face of court standards and open the U.S. court system up to a boatload of other spurious claims.
Assuming that the simplistic possession-based proof is out that leaves open two other avenues; direct testemony ("I did it because") which is the most likely; and "Expert Testemony" (note the quotes) in which supposed experts on the effect of violent games appear in court to tell the defendent what caused it. In that sense this seems to me to be much like an insanity defense.
This is problematic for two reasons; a) If the burden is actually 'shifted' that is if I can lessen my sentence by claiming that your game caused it, then any and all juveniles sentenced will blame someone else; and b) there exists no consensus among "experts" on how these games actually effect people. This suggest to me, not that they have no effect but that any such case would become a battle of "experts" with each side bringing in their own and it being up to the jury to decide based upon competing conjectures more than anything else.
I am not arguing that video game violence does not prompt actual violence or that any such assertions are mere conjecture. Rather, I am arguing that making those assertions on a case-by-case basis in the courtroom will be a difficult thing.
I fear that it might become something like the "Recovered Memory" fad of the 80's when scores of convictions were handed out for child abuse due to "recovered memories" where psychologiests trained kids to remember the horrors that they had "blocked out". In some cases actual horrors were uncovered that had remained hidden. In other cases innocent people were convicted. For a while there it was a common line of prosecution in court. Science at the moment remains divided on the issue but recovered memories are used much less than they once were.
If video games are declared specially dangerous in this way it would not actullly be the first time that this has happened. For a period of time American law included the concept of an "Inherently Dangerous thing", that is, an object such as a loaded gun, Poison, Rented Carraige, Automobile or, yes, high-pressure coffiepot that in it's natural state poses a danger and must therefore be handled specially. If it causes injury then secondary liability allows the person who sold the object or otherwize made it available to face claims. The class no longer exists but, for a time objects that fell into it carried an automatic secondary liability like this. Now that is applied to the objects in question in some cases.
One open question is, who really faces the claim, is it the company who makes the games (and markets them soley to adults) or the vendor who sells the game to kids, or the parents who let them have it.?
and I have read some bad ones posted here.
Is it because I'm a violent person I play excessively violent vidoe games?
Because I play violent vidoe games I commit violent crimes?
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
HOW could you prove that they were marketing M-rated games to kids?
The same way they proved camel was marketing cigarettes to kids.
No one commits a crime "because of playing them"!
They might commit a crime after playing them, they might commit a crime that is easthetically similar to the game, but the game isn't a magic mind-bending game making people do things against their will.
You do the crime: YOU do the time.
You can't take the sky from me...
come on ladies and gents! ever read Plato's Republic? Thats were they're coming from.