Slashdot Mirror
The People Vs. Common Sense
Mogg writes "GamerGod.com has a new article up entitled "The People Vs. Common Sense, A Citizen's View at Michigan's SB-0146 Law," commenting on the new Michigan state video game law. "Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths??" Very nicely written piece.
(links ommited)
The People Vs. Common Sense
by jkdove on 10/03/2005
Throughout much of the world today, mass media is prevalent to such a degree that it has become a cultural influence as deep as our languages and ethnic histories. The multifarious mediums through which human beings extend their inner being, their very sense of personal identity, are a teeming tangle of noise in the airwaves along which this "Age of Information" extends its influence into our homes, our minds, and our lives. Since the dawn of the human ability to create media as a means to communicate or simply to visualize the poignant tide of human thought, we have suffered the criticism of our fellow inhabitants within our communities. While endeavoring to bequeath our exclusive equities unto the world, we are often chagrined by remonstrations designed to terminate what many believe to be our God-given right to pursue. Parallel to the advent of society, there have been laws and law makers, empowered by militant services and the citizenry of which they are comprised, created and enforced to impose the will of the commonality. Parallel to that have been those who questioned whether or not those in power are in fact speaking for the commonalty and to what ends.
AND SO IT BEGINS
Allow me to present Michigan SB-0416, the latest attempt by the American government to protect the well being of its citizens from the cultural influence spawned from the very citizens which it seeks to protect. By the statute of ethical journalism, it should be duly stated that SB-0416 has been enacted to identify, protect against and subsequently prosecute those found in violation of committing willful acts of "dissemination of certain ultra-violent explicit matter to minors" [1]. While it is difficult for many to reasonably argue that the children of this country should be excluded from partaking in adult material, the State of Michigan, or more specifically, Senator Alan Cropsey, has found it necessary to deem these violations liable to civil and criminal penalties. The question is then raised as to why the video game industry has been singled out by both the States of Michigan and Illinois, to the point of spending the taxpayers money to combat an issue which is argued against by experts from both sides of the coin. California may soon become the third state to follow suit, though perhaps the inertia of such a decision is strengthened by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his close ties to the entertainment industry, particularly that of his body of work within the film industry.
The aspects of the Michigan law that are most demonstrative of the commutative nature of the American people are those that hold certain individuals liable under civil and criminal penalties. The question raised among analysts, lawyers, and journalists alike is why the movie theatres of America are not held to the same standards. A statement on the issue by Douglas Lowenstein, President of the Entertainment Software Association, brings to light the very heart of the issue:
"It is illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. How can you treat a video game based on James Bond any different than a book or movie based on the same subject matter?"
The ESA, operating with the full support of the gaming industry, will soon file suit against Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, on the basis that "similar laws were previously found unconstitutional and thrown out in St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Washington State, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees"[2]. Though we can only speculate that the decision to sue Michigan and not Illinois rests on the enactment of civil and criminal penalties, we cannot say for certain that a follow up lawsuit will not follow in the event of the law being overturned. The Governor's and Senator's Office could not be reached for questioning by their own constituents here at GamerGod
Apparently violent crime has done nothing but drop Since the release of the original Doom in 1994. (source)
(note, first saw this on http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/ but true nonetheless)
C17H21NO4
Ok, I have to chime in here. I have two teenage boys, one of which will play video games 23/7 (and hour in for the bathroom) if we were to allow it. Also, without very strict guidance, they would play ANYTHING they could get their hands on. The have friends (many whose parants let them buy and play any game they want. Their explanation, "it's only a game", without even looking at the content. Two of those boys are turning into little criminals becuase they have no concept of the consequences of thier actions. This scenario is becoming more common throughout this country. Two working parents and no supervision on kids with video games. The main difference between movies and the games is that the movies are viewed once or twice and that's it. The games are viewed for hours and days at a time so there is more concetrated effect on the minds of the players. Until parents can "get a clue" and have common sense about this, that leaves no other option but for the government to step in. I am not advocating the government as any solution to social problems (it never is) but it allways seems to fill the void when there is no other solution. Just my 2 cents worth.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 416
AN ACT to amend 1978 PA 33, entitled "An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter to minors; to provide penalties; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts," by amending the title and sections 1, 2, and 4 (MCL 722.671, 722.672, and 722.674), section 1 as amended by 2003 PA 192, and by adding section 12a, part II, and a heading for part I.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
TITLE
An act to prohibit the dissemination, exhibiting, or displaying of certain sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to prohibit certain misrepresentations facilitating the dissemination of sexually explicit matter and ultra-violent explicit video games to minors; to provide penalties and sanctions; to provide for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief in certain instances; to impose certain duties upon prosecuting attorneys and the circuit court; to preempt local units of government from proscribing certain conduct; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
PART I (snipped off-topic legislation)
PART II
ULTRA-VIOLENT EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES
Sec. 15. In light of section 51 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963, which directs that "The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.", and after hearing from expert witnesses and law enforcement officials, considering the testimony of expert witnesses before other legislative bodies, and reviewing dozens of studies and metastudies of hundreds of studies, the legislature finds all of the following:
(a) Published research overwhelmingly finds that ultra-violent explicit video games are harmful to minors because minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games are consistently more likely to exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior and have feelings of aggression.
(b) Spokespersons for not less than 6 major national health associations have concluded and testified that after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the studies "point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children", concluding that the effects of media violence on minors "are measurable and long-lasting".
(c) Law enforcement officers testified that recent statewide targeted enforcement efforts reveal that minors are capable of purchasing, and do purchase, ultra-violent explicit video games.
(d) Law enforcement officers testified about cases of minors acting out ultra-violent explicit video game behaviors by victimizing other citizens.
(e) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in safeguarding both the physical and psychological well-being of minors.
(f) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing violent, aggressive, and asocial behavior from manifesting itself in minors.
(g) The state has a legitimate and compelling interest in directly and substantially alleviating the real-life harms perpetrated by minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games.
Sec. 16. As used in this part:
(a) "Computer" means any connected, directly interoperable or interactive device, equipment, or facility that uses a computer program or other instructions to perform specific operations including logical, arithmetic, or memory functions with or on computer data or a computer program and that can store, retrieve, alter, or communicate the results of the operations to a person, computer program, computer, computer system, or
On the other hand, the youth of Socrates' time were suspicious of Democracy, and after the Peloponnesian War set up a fascist government that attempted to kill remnants of Democracy, as well as anybody who disagreed with their rule. Government head Critias was Socrates' associate and pupil and widely hated by Athenians, and his relation (and the entire movement's relation) to Socrates was probably the reason Socrates was later executed by the state. This relation to a much-hated movement would continue to be held against Socrates, much like (say) Mao's role in the Cultural Revolution would weigh negatively on anybody studying his writings or poetry.
Plato idolized Socrates, and was using the quote to disassosiate Socrates from a reign of terror that everybody hated. Without knowing your history you seem to interpret it as "ah shucks, even Socrates 2500 years ago could be an old codger!" which isn't at all the case, Plato wasn't one to tell gee-whiz anecdotes.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
When ever I see comments on this law and similar laws I see tow main arguments used.
1) The concept of "violence is bad for the kids".
2) We don't need the law because we have ESRB ratings.
I can't argue 1 as I'm not psychologist. I can discuss 2.
Everyone compares the ESRB rating to that MPAA ratings. In theory this is a valid argument. The problem is the ESRB rating is not enforced at sale. If a 9yo walks into Best Buy he can and will walk out with GTA or DOOM and nobody would stop him.
I see no problem saying that stores should enforce the ESRB [M] rating. If you read the actual law that's all this does it says that stores can not sell mature rated games to children under 17yo.
Whats the problem with that?
Hitler was not an atheist. He was a Christian. What denomination he was is a matter of debate, but he was a Christian. As an atheist, I am sick of people saying that Hitler was an atheist when he clearly wasn't.
You either don't know much about Hitler, or you don't know much about atheists.
Technoli
Wow. Do you live in north Jersey?
That was probably the best description of the biggest (family) problems northern New Jersey faces. Coincidentally, I was just having the same discussion with my wife last night about the "lock-in" people around here face, exactly as you describe.
With regard to the immigrant workers around here, many of them (at least the nanny types) have excellent value systems, but are afraid to impose them on the little imps they care for, fearing that the parents will disagree. From what I see of comments here, most of you would disagree with the generally Catholic upbringing and value systems of the hispanic immigrants, and so their timidity is well-founded.
As for the language thing, the upside is that a lot of kids know Spanish by the time they're 5, which is certainly nice.
I'm new to New Jersey (about a year and a half now), and the oddest thing I've seen is that many families hire regular babysitters to work while one of the parents, usually the mom, is home. They want to go to the mall, get their hair done, etc, without being bothered by their offspring. While any parent can attest to sometimes needing a little help, the policy of outsourcing the rearing of their child when one of the parents is readily available on a regular basis seems a bit odd to me.
I don't really have a point. I just wanted to validate your observations with some of my own.
You are full of it. If you read his writings, he planned on targeting non-Catholic Christians after dividing and conquering the rest of the religous folks. First the Jews, then Catholics, then other Christians. One of his quotes: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity..."
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
If you're looking to dismiss people of faith as simple-minded peons who have no understanding of logic and who rapidly embrace hypocrisy, then your understanding of that verse is sufficient.
It's true that the King James Version of the english Bible translates that passage "Thou shalt not kill" but the NIV, NKJV, NASB and others translate that passage "Thou shalt not murder."
There's a distinct difference between murder and killing. God ordered the Israelites to kill the people in the promosed land because they rejected God and did what was evil. There was no hope of their turning to doing what was right, and God knew that the only outcome of leaving them alive would be to draw many of the Israelites away from God.
You don't have to agree with what God ordered them to do, but there's no direct contradiction between Exodus 20:13 and God's orders to His people.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Ahem.
You, sir, only read certain parts of certain stories and did not find out to see how they ended.
God did test Abraham's faith and asked him to sacrifice his first born. But, just as Abraham was about to commit the act, God stopped him and instead gave him a ram to sacrifice instead.
Funny, I don't remember God "killing everything that breathes" by decending from heaven "in person." And...he killed all these people because they weren't Jewish? Hm. Apparently you have the newly updated copy of the Holy Bible. If you could please point that story out to me, I'd appreciate it. (Book, Chapter, Verses, please.)
Where again did a believer kill his family for God? Don't remember that one, either.
See, it's one thing to argue against Christianity (or any religion) and to know what you're speaking about. If you can do that, that's excellent. Good for you. You did your research. However, if you spout off this drivel and then get modded Insightful, not only are you fooling yourself, but you are spreading misiniformation to everybody else who also has not actually read and/or studied the Bible. Thus, you create more ignorance from your own ignorance. Good job.
This part I don't understand. Are you saying you don't believe the Jews were in Egypt? Secular history books and archeology can prove that one.
No they don't, there are some proofs of some troubles with some new tribes coming to the area about the 1200BC, but there is no proof of the Exodus, what, by the way, is nothing strange, since Egyptians are known to register only victories, and probably the Jews were a small group of people when they left Egypt.
I must say I agree with you that slavery is not the worst that can be done to a beaten foe, death being the first I can think off. That said, I fear there is many people that believes and follows the Bible without reading the huge cultural difference between the Old and New Testament, and to put it clear, puting enemies to death and enslaving their families should not be moral to people nowadays.
DON'T PANIC
The other ones are plain old socialists and hippies and other liberals. Violent games are bad because they go against the peace-and-love worldview.
WTF does socialists and liberals have to do with peace-and-love? I think you got your wires crossed...
Most "Socialist and liberal" countries have MUCH more relaxed sex and violence censhorship on entertainment.
Hitler was neither a Christian, nor an Atheist. He believed in Aryanism which is certainly not what Atheists believe - nor is it what Christians believe. His beliefs, the beliefs of the Nazi Party and the Thule Society were very strange and were certainly "religious" in the sense that they had no basis in scientific or historical fact.
I do not think his beliefs are relevent to arguments about Chrisitianity vs. Atheism.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I don't know whether he was atheist or not, but this quote would seem to suggest it:
"When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity..." - Hitler (taken from the GP)
That sounds like an atheist to me, it's a common catchcry, inaccurate though it is. The only other religion it brings to mind is Scientology... I think it's safe to say he wasn't one of that lot.
Yar.
I have heard this many times before, but have yet to see references from which these facts are gleaned. Simply put, could they leave? Did they have freedom to do or go as they pleased?
Not as they pleased so much. "Slaves" of the time were usually either too poor to support themselves, and instead worked for food and shelter, or debtors to rich landowners unable to pay back their debts, who instead work for the landowner.
However, the bible does make mention of slaves being dismissed from service, and makes clear that this was a bad thing for the slave. They'd be left without money, food, or shelter and likely still owing their former slaver money.
Biblical-era slaves could own property, as well. Jesus used this example in a number of his stories - a slaver forgiving the debt of a debted slave and relieving him from service, while the slave himself refuses to forgive the debt of a subordinate slave (Also raises the interesting point that slaves could have slaves). When it comes down to it, Biblical slaves were more like early-American indentured servants. They were effectively slaves, but were not owned, but worked without pay to clear a debt.
One could just as easily argue that american slaves were paid in food and shelter, that wouldn't make it any less repugnant.
However, as covered, a Biblical-era slave owned himself. All other things equal, they still had a good deal of their dignity.
In fact, if it was so desireable of a lifestyle, why were the jews so up and ready to get out of egypt (which I seriously doubt was ever the case anyway)?
Different situation. The Jews were prisoners taken by conquest and used as slave labor, and were probably treated as poorly as American slaves. The rules they imposed regarding the condition of their own slaves was partly a result of their ordeal in slavery.
At best, your argument illustrates more that we should be taking a serious look at how to make "border hoppers" less like slaves, than throwing up our hands and saying, "Sometimes, slavery just ain't that bad."
Well, that's an oversimplification. The word "slavery" just isn't always used in the same context. The first slaves used in North America were natives. They were litterally "harvested" in raids on villages and usually worked to death, either by exaustion, malnutrition, or disease. Black slaves were a big step up, and were kept healthy and alive. They were about equal to livestock - if you kept them healthy, you wouldn't have to buy more, you could make your own. Very different situations, but both still called slavery.
The slavery in the biblical era was another different thing. The Egyptians kept Jewish slaves in conditions comparable with black slaves, but they were taken more akin to the Indian slaves - captured as prisoners of war. The Jews had constraints on who and how you could take somebody as a slave. Some of them were probably comparable to black American slaves, but many of them (The ones the bible and other historical writings mention the most) were really only slaves by modern translation. The term doesn't apply in it's normal context.
Another type of slavery happened in Greece. In Sparta, slaves formed a part of the army, like disposable shock troops. In other Greek cities, the city would have a slave labor pool of sorts, and citizens could lease them for household work, and slaves were usually eligible for freedom and eventually citizenship, after a certain age or time in service.
In Rome, most Gladiators were slaves by name, but they were the biggest celebrities of the age. The most popular gladiators set the standards of sexiness and lived the fast life of wine and women you'd expect of a modern day rockstar.
Actually if you're going to talk about youth violent crime rates and speculate a connection to the availability of violent videogames, then you should be arguing to make violent video games MANDATORY for kids.
The youth violent crime rate has been in absolute FREEFALL for over a decade. It has pretty much fallen by a factor of 5 since such videogames became available.
I can pretty much sum up your post, and the current political nonsense, with the following FortuneCookie I have saved:
Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; and the end of the world is evidently approaching. -- "Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C"
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.