Slashdot Mirror
A Delay in the Michigan Violent Games Law
TecnaDigit writes "The ESA and the VSDA have achieved a small victory in the case against Michigan Senate Bill 416. According to Game Daily Biz, Michigan Judge George Caram Steeh (who himself seems a bit skeptical of the bill) passed an injunction holding it for consideration. In other words, while the bill is under examination it won't be passed into law. Originally, the law was supposed to commence on December 1st, 2005. Though the battle for this case is far from over, it is a bit of silver lining."
By "silver lining" I think you meant "sliver of common sense". Someone please note the date and time for the record.
stop blaming your ping times for getting fragged, legislature!
These parental government initiatives seem to be something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind. Isn't bi-partishanship great?
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
So now kiddies will get to experience the magic of Christmas through violent games once again! Yay!
Seriously, stupid law.
Argh.
From TFA:
VSDA advised legislators and Governor Granholm that the law could not pass muster under our Constitution, and today's decision - while not a final determination - clearly indicates this law will be overturned.
OK, um no. I am not a lawyer, but the issuing of an injunction has nothing to do with the final verdict. It just means that the judge thinks there is a chance that it could do harm during the trial if it is unconstitutional.
What's the difference between preventing minors from getting M-rated games and preventing them from getting porn, cigarettes, or alcohol? It makes sense to have consistent standards about keeping questionable materials out of the hands of children.
My life's goal is to get a score of +3!
Obviously, "Space Invaders" is an ultra violent game! You're destrying thousands of space ships, presumably occupied by intelligent life forms. And what about Pac-Man, which deals with death and ghosts!
Best Buy can have you arrested
Now we need to stop all rock 'n roll and rap music stations from broadcasting where children can hear. Also, the local news broadcasts must be banned as well. In fact, we should lock children in a closet until they're old enough to be tried as an adult. That will keep them from killing later in life!
Reading the linked PDF, it strikes me that this law makes M and AO rated video games more of a controlled substance rather than outright banning them. That makes the case for a first amendment violation a tricky one.
That being said, I'm really not in favor of the government getting involved in these things. The rise in Ultra-Violent video games are a sign that the market is on the decline. Regulating such activities can have the opposite of the intended effect, as the government is basically okaying such products.
It's the same in the television industry. In the paper this morning they had a story about how 3/4 of TV shows today have strong sexual content in them. (Up from 56% in 2003.) The government is considering intervening. Again, I think the government should stay out. The ratings speak for themselves. The general populace won't buy their shock value crap for very long. Ratings will continue to decline until the shows are either fixed or television as we know it disappears. If the government involves themselves in it, they will only create controversy that will help the TV studios.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This judge needs to be careful with what he's doing. Before he knows it, a savvy opponent could latch onto the (obviously false) notion that he's not "for the children" and ride it right into his seat on the bench.
I propose we do something in advance to combat this ever-increasing problem. A new Godwin's law of sorts. You automatically lose any argument if you utter the phrase "Think of the children." If you say it while waving your arms around in apocalyptic chicken little fashion, you automatically get shot in the face.
Its the parent's fault.
I'll assume that I'm in the minority on this one.
The penalties may be a little stiff...
there is no good reason that the penalties would be worse for selling games.
(Texas came up first with a Google search, so that's what I'm going with.)
Sale of Alcohol to a Minor:
Class A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not to exceed $4000;
confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year;
or both fine and confinement.
Purchase of Alcohol for a Minor or Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor:
Class B misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2000;
confinement in jail for a term not to exceed 180 days;
or both fine and confinement.
I'm not sure if I'm missing the point here, or not...
I love my violent video games and don't believe they have the right to stop me, as an adult, from playing them.
If they can't punish stores that sell to minors, and people that help minors get their hands on the games, why have the games rated?
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
"For this Christmas, I want a game of Captain Slaughter and a death in Devil's Island..."
(thinks for a second)
"... and peace and good will for all people on Earth".
(Joke courtesy of Robotman by Jim Meddick)
so many of you are condemning this bill as if it will destroy video games, but you are so horribly mistaken i am blown away!
if "ultra-violent" (lol clockwork orange) video games are not allowed to be sold to kids, responsibility will be on the parents who buy games for their kids -- where the responsibility should be -- instead of on game developers.
this is just like the jack thompson case. we think it's funny that he is off his case now, but when another (less insane) lawyer does take the case, who knows what might happen.
-- lol pwned
I don't know if the constitution applies to this, though. We have the whole state's rights thing to be concerned about. The question is whether it is constitutional under the Michigan State Constitution.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
I read through the bill at the link provided, it's not that bad. My only problem is that they should define what the criteria for this is better, are they following the ESRB rating exclusively or are there other determining factors for what might be sexually-explicit or ultra-violent? It would seem to me the best choice would be to follow the ESRB ratings strictly, that's something you can cut and dry enforce, otherwise people selling these games can't make good decisions about whether they should sell a game or not.
They were talking about something similar here in Wisconsin several months ago, and I would fully support it, nothing wrong with saying a 10 year old shouldn't be able to buy games meant for 17-18+ year olds as long as there is strict criteria the seller can follow.
Judge Steeh seems more than just a bit skeptical, IMO. Here are some of his words: "the Act will likely have a chilling effect on adults' expression, as well as expression that is fully protected as to minors. The response to the Act's threat of criminal penalties will likely be responded to by self-censoring by game creators, distributors and retailers, including ultimately pulling 'T' and 'M'-rated games off stores shelves altogether." There's a very good article at Gamasutra on this.
Look! A real live redneck American!
you're all going to give slashdot a bad name if you keep reading articles BEFORE posting.
I realize that using a private rating system isn't currently legal. They might have to make an official rating system to get around this. I don't even want to get into what the costs of that would be. Beyond that, amending the state constituion seems the only alternative means of enforcing game rating through law. In the area I grew up in, the local stores would check IDs for mature games and CDs. I know in other areas some stores don't follow that policy. Really though, movies are enforced throughout the state. I flinch when I say this, but video games are little more than interactive movies. If movies are restricted, then video games should be too. If I had kids, I would most likely buy them the newest GTA game if they wanted it. That's my personal position. But it should be up to the parents to decide what they want for their children for themselves. If this were passed, nothing would stop the parents from buying the games for their children. I don't see why everyone is fighting it so much. The only problem I see is putting it into a form where it would be lawful.
Someone save me from this sanity.
will be the parents. Now, they must take more time out of their busy lives to monitor what their children are doing.
Who keeps troll modding the parent?! It is neither Offtopic or Redundant. He doesn't necessarily have a good point, but the moderator rules for that case state that mods should LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE.
Thank you, have a nice day. And don't mod this post up, mod parent up.
America - Land of Free (Provided there is no swearing or smut)
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Sex is bad unless the State teaches it, to 7 year olds: California school district administered a survey to children (ages 7 to 10) in the early grades with questions concerning "thinking about having sex"
Violence is bad unless the State teaches it, without parental intervention: believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired.
Prejudice is bad unless the State discriminates in order to generate more control and funding for itself.
There is no surprise here, folks. The law's delay is only to reduce its newsworthiness. In a few months we'll have forgotten (as a voting majority) and it'll still be enacted and enforced.
Do the right thing. Buy violent games for your kids if you think they can handle it. Bring you 15 year old adult with.
Your vote means nothing. Your safety means nothing. Your knowledge of your child isn't important, since you've given up responsibility to the teacher's unions long ago.
You made your bed? Out of shit? Don't make me sleep in it.
Shouldn't it be... America - Land of the Free* ---- *Patent Pending. Certain rules and regulations apply.
As a german, I've never quite understood why the hell most of you americans (apparently including the poster) are such a bunch of hypocrites, when it comes to content that's supposedly not "fit for the youth". Violence and gore everywhere, but god forbid you might see a nipple. Over here, we have laws that
- prevent games and movies that supposedly are too violent to be distributed to young children and adolescents
- prevent games and movies that supposedly have too much sexual content in it to be distributed to young children and adolescents
- prevent games (and not movies, because they are considered "art", while games are not...tzk....) that have nazi-symbolism in it to be distributed to anyone at all
You can argue about the latter one, but I think what's more important, that violence might have an effect on the youth, at least as strong as sexual content. Therefore, if you want to prohibit the second, there's little chance you can convince me that you don't need to prohibit the first.
Yes, I _know_ that some of you think that neither should be censored. Yes I _never_ did care about censored games myself, played doom when I was about 13, though you need to be 18 to play over here, and played wolfenstein, even though it's illegal...but that's beside the point. _IF_ you want to censor (apart from the effect it might or might not have), censor _both_ sexual and violent content.
There was this thing....I think it was called "The Civil War", and, when it was over, you know, they'd pretty much decided that while the states had rights, the federal government had more rights.
So no, the state constitution doesn't trump the federal constitution.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
It's more likey that violence in video games is a symptom not a cause. Right or wrong, America was founded on violence and violence is inherent within its culture and language.
It's too dificult for politicians to examine and change the root causes of violence. Much easier to go after the symtoms.
Why does that make me think of the Emperor's line "It's treason, then..."
Just try it, everybody! See how far you get before being labelled a "ter'ist"
The state just needs to expand it's definition of pronography from
nudity and sex acts up to including graphic violence and bloodshed
- Then every boodly movie rated R and up would be retroactively classified as 'Pornography'.
Boom, by law, then Best Buy, Circuit City and all the other retailers
would be violating obsenity laws selling bloody videogames - because they are selling pronos.
Expanding the definition of pornography to include violence is the
quickest way to clean up the media streams of video games, TV, movies, etc.
On a statewide level - violent video games and many movies rated 'R' would need a warning label:
I don't see why showing tits and ass is such a big deal,
(Especially in cartoon graphics like the SA 'hot coffee' sequence).
A woman's breasts have never jumped off her body,
run wild and killed a dozen people,
- but violence has run wild killing dozens of people.
It's time the government crack down on violent videogames.
The first amendment does not simply apply to a total ban of speech - but also to laws that make speech a "controlled substance". The actual language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Courts have consistently interpreted "abridging" to apply to situations where speech is controlled or made more difficult unless the state can show a "compelling state interest"
What are law makers thinking?
I'm all for computer game violence. I play Carmageddon [forerunner to GTA], and Unreal Tournament, and Doom, Wolf 3D, etc.
I think it's perfectly acceptable, and where the problem lies is in parents who don't supervise their kids, or buy them games inappropriate for their mental capacity. Some kids get whacked out on games, or are nuts to start with, and it's not game maker's fault for making their works of art, it's the parent's fault for not seeing the harm it's doing to their child.
They wouldn't buy their kids beer or cigs [ I hope ], why would they buy them an adult game if it will hurt their development?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
"Michigan Violent Games Law Shot Down"
That is an opinion and you state it as though it is fact. The same goes for TV shows with strong sexual content. Every market has up and down swings, a pendulum is often used to describe it. Your opinion implies that the center point for the pendulum in both the TV and Video Game industry is constant.
The problem with you opinion is that the center point does exist but it constantly moving. Our comfort, tolerance and acceptance of content changes. For instance, it was ground breaking in the show "All in the Family" in the episode where Edith was coping with menopause. This was something that just wasn't talked about in public forums like television. Now that very topic with references to "hot-flashes" and what not is quite acceptable.
While I can understand your opinion, it is not fact. All your opinion indicates is that the center of the pendulum is moving toward areas you personally do not like. I do not like sexual content or violence for no reason. I did and do appreciate series like Sex and the City, it has depth that can only be explained with sexual content. As for video games, I don't mind violence as long as there is a good story behind it. I'm playing Quake 4 and I like the story underneath it. But that's just me.
The problem with laws is this sensistive areas is that they, by their nature, are tools to draw a discrete and rigid line between right and wrong. The whole idea of a shifting center point for the pendulum concept runs contrary to this. The idea of line is good but it is line that has to be continually moved and unfortunately our legal system is not equipped to handle this in a reasonable manner.
Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
i wonder how this legislation would affect america's army -- the game that is promoted by the u.s. army for recruitment and training . . .
http://www.americasarmy.com/
mr c.
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
Sorry... the pun was to hard to resist.
Unreal Tournament 2007:
http://www.beyondunreal.com/main/ut2007/about.php
the bill defines a video game "Video game" would be defined in the bills to mean a computer or other device or computer program that stores or receives data or instructions generated by a person who used it, and, by processing that data or instruction, creates an interactive game capable of being played, viewed, or otherwise experienced by an individual." So the "Video game" need not be a game, it only needs to process data or instructions, and it doesn't need to be on a computer or console, but can be on an "other device." I know this is stretching a bit, but by this definition, an e-Book could be restricted. It responds to commands (e.g. turn the page) and if deemed inappropriate could by this law be restricted. By gum, so could an IM client or an e-mail service. While i am actually in favor of the spirit of the bill (i.e. keep violent games out of unsupervised children's hands) the wording is so vague that it could be stretched to cover almost anything. But maybe i just dont have enough faith in the American Justice system. Yeah, that must be it. -Squirrely
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Thanks to the 14th Amendment, nearly every statement in the Consitution that restricts 'Congress' also restricts state and local legislatures and officials.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
All this bill does is prevent kids from breaking the rules. It doesn't prohibit any video game creation or sale, which I would never support, no matter what the content is.
Freedom of speech is preserved while parents have more control over their kids. It's not even as restrictive as "carding" someone before they buy beer. Even parents cannot give their own minor children beer.
Why is the parent flaimbait?
Sorry,
If you expose a child to blood and gore you could be held responsible for contributing to the corruption of a minor.
Much like if you give a kid a beer you are contributing to the corruption of a minor.
Not really socially acceptable (which what law is -- it defines the norms and social behavior of our society).
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
You can't buy a Playboy if you're under age. Please, won't somebody think of the children's right to purchase airburshed boob shots without a parent or guardian present?
This law makes absolutely zero restriction on what an adult may buy, or what a parent may buy for their children. All it does is ask retailers to make a good-faith attempt to make sure kids don't buy sociopathic games, as determined by the best available criteria, without a parent (or reasonable facsimile thereof) to give the nod. BFD.
If anything, the video game industry should embrace this kind of legislation so they can point to it when somebody asks for something actually draconian. Going chicken-little about makes us look irrational, and only reinforces the notions the "opposition" is carrying around about the videogame industry.
Just another stupid law that will make getting those games a lot more interesting for the kids and more profitable for those who sell them at higher prices on the black market.
Why dont they just get the parent responsable for what they buy for their kids and that goes the same for the guy who sell them.
The warning that says "explicit material inside" is not written in a foreign language to my knowledge
Wait... Michigan is outlawing violent games?? To protect the kids?? Whatever will the Wolverines do every Saturday? To say nothing of all the college hockey teams....
You can't be with your kid 24/7, but if you're a parent of any sort, you've spent their early years teaching them some sort of values. If indeed they end up playing, say, Quake VI: OMG WTF BLOODBATH, if you were any sort of a parent at all, they won't proceed to go mow down a school full of their classmates.
It's nothing but bad parenting. "Waah, I don't know what to do with my kids, and uh, I'm so busy working overtime so I can pay for my gas-guzzling SUV, and, uh, uh, I uh, like money, uh, uh, I never have time to spend with my kids! Government, help!"
Bad parenting.
"even if you teach them well and they're respectful of your wishes and teaching 'don't do this,' by definition as human beings, they will do it."
Funny, my parents taught me that it wasn't quite right to go murder people. I'm a veteran of dozens of games that glorify the deaths of others.
I've yet to kill another human being.
If you mean, "But, if I tell my kid, don't play violent games because I say so...", well, once again - there's that bad parenting. Kids aren't stupid, and treating them like they are is the surest way to have them ignore you.
At any rate, I have no qualms with stores refusing to sell, say, M-rated games to minors. Sucks for the kids, but that sort of thing places responsibility square in the hands of the parents. (Or invites the kids to be creative and bribe, say, a college-age person. Which kind of helps the economy when you think about it, by adding plenty of job opportunities as middlemen.)
I do have a serious problem with the government defining what 'violence' and 'sex' are - more specifically, what 'limits' should be placed on those two things.
I will not be punished for the failings of others; nor will my children be. Governmental parenting, go home.
If government wanted to be a parental entity they'd make and enforce laws against you, not the retailer. Take a minute for a reality check, this has nothing to do with your responsibility, but with the retailer's.
Funny, if they really wanted to be paternal, they'd pass something that would be enforced on the parent or child, not the retailer.
Isn't misunderstanding your rights great?
Why doesn't the government tell us what we can and can't watch? I've made a Schedule system for video games, also known as illicit substances. Schedule I: for Adult games. Includes games with no proven or acceptable use and a high corruption potential - authorized research only. Schedule II: Includes Mature-rated video games with a high potential for corruption in kids but with currently accepted medical use in mental stimulation. Schedule III: Includes Teen-rated games with a high potential for use and possible corruption in children.
The laws do not define the norms and social behavior of "our" society. They define the social behaviors acceptable to the majority, or perhaps to the most powerful and/or vocal special-interest groups. Any laws claiming to define the norms and social behaviors of an entire society must be unanimously accepted by all the members of that society, not just the majority. Otherwise, the law covers two societies: the majority, who chose the law and would abide by it regardless, and the dissenters, who did not choose the law, but are enslaved to it anyway, under threat of force, by the majority. This is a classic example of the "might makes right" principle, which I find quite ironic given that the law in question was drafted to oppose video games predicated on just that principle.
Even if 99% of the members in any given society think a given behavior is unacceptable, they have no authority to coerce the remaining 1%. If you want a store to stop selling violent video games to your kids, then convince the operator of the store to stop voluntarily. Offer incentives; start a boycott. Convince the store owner that the community won't accept his behavior. But don't send in your protection racket ("government") to steal his property through fines, or send him to jail for refusing to comply.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
And it fucking sucks to be me...
Parent is a TROLL
You can be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor if you buy a kid a beer, because alcohol consumption is illegal for persons under 21. I believe the same goes for pornogrophy (someone wanna clue me in to if its actually illegal for minors to buy porn?). You can not be charged for selling to or buying an R rated movie or M rated video game for a minor, since these things are not illegal for them to posess like alcohol or tobacco. These are industry policies. The ratings are defined by private groups and sales policies are determined by the individual retailer. Some, like walmart, wont sell these to minors. Others will and its not against the law.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
n/t
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
C'mon. You're right you're not gonna be with little johnny 24/7, but lets say hes gonna play GTA somehow. Either you bought it for him and its you'r fault, or he goes over to little jimmys house after school and plays it. If he's playing it at jimmys house, whos fault is it? Jimmys parents who bought jimmy the game and are letting little johnny play it. When i was younger i had friends whos parents wouldnt let us watch rated R movies because they weren't ok with their kids watching them and assumed that nobody elses parents would be either.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
"Children" defined: depending on immediate adult convenience-some, all, or none of the people between zero and eighteen years of age. Expanded 1)In matters of accountability and responsibilty of one's actions, the definition seems to rely on a series of fluid variables about circumstances, individual knowledge and morals, as well as other random variables; 2)However, in matters of rights and privileges, the definition is absolute and not subject to any of the variables of (1), rather it is rigidly defined as a person under 18 years of age.
Use whichever definition is convenient at the moment or allows for the harshest treatment. 3.)In some rare cases, there is no definition of "children" unlike (1) and (2), there are no "children" taxpayers-people under 18 must pay the same taxes at the same rate as those people over 18.
Back to the topic at hand.
If the government can enact a law that doesn't allow "children" to be sold a "violent" video game without their parent standing next to them, why can't they do the same thing for churches? Why can't the government enact a law that says a person under 18 can't be present at a church or receive any form of preaching, communion, confessional services, etc. without their parents?
Some posters in here made the argument that the government barring "children" is not a violation of (the manufactured concept) parents' rights because it keeps kids form buying things their parents wouldn't want them to. In reality it prevents certain people's kid from buying anything on their own even if they have the permission of their parent, because other people don't want their own kids to buy it.
This sort of government-as-an-extension-of-parent concept IS a direct affront to the concept of parents rights. If I'm a parent and I'm (allegedly*) responsible for my kids behavior, why can't I just tell them, "Yes, you can buy that game" and that be all that is required? Why am I required to prove my permission to the store owner? Why does one group of parents get to step on another in the name or "parent's rights?
*I say allegedly because are NOT responsible for what their kids do, except in a limited financial sense. Parents do not go to juvenile halls, do not perform community service and are not tried as adults for their kids actions. The kid bears the bulk, usually the entirety, of the responsiblity for their actions. If parents were actually responsible for their kids action to the same degree of their legally protected influence over their kids actions, it would be the parents going to juvenile hall, sweating away in youth boot camps, performing roadside community service, and serving time in adult jails when their kid something wrong.
At best, what a kid does is between him and his parents. If you don't want your kid drinking beer, buying violent video games, smoking, watching sexual programming on TV, seeing porn on the internet, that's your problem. Not mine, not the government that subsists in part on my tax dollars. You can try education or idiotic filters, but in the end, your rules, your problem.
Don't like it? Tough! You should have thought of that before you decided to have kids. You don't get to force an entire society to bend around the whims and desires you've expressed under the banner of protecting your children.
The same people who support this twisted view or government being the parent away from the actual parent embrace the idea that "children" have no rights, that any restrictions imposed upon them are justified and constitutional. Generally these people will engage in discussions about how "children" are immature, rebellious, impulsive, etc. and that these traits (apparently unique to children(1)) justify heavy restrictions on their behavior.
However, should one of these "children" commit a crime where the punishment would be harsher by on-the-fly excluding the person from , these argument about impulsiveness, immaturity, irresponsibility all vanish and the only thing we hear is how this (now) hardened
We've got all sorts of real issues that need to be addressed here in Michigan. Too bad the politicians waste their time (our time actually, we pay for it) coming up with junk like this. These ill-thought 'protect the children' laws never accomplish anything apart from making a few politicians feel good about themselves.
Responsible parents will make sure their children do not have access to inappropriate materials, and will monitor their kids just to make sure. They do not require the state's help in meeting their parental responsibilities. Irresponsible parents will probably buy the stuff for their kids themselves, no matter what the state has to say on the matter.
No amount of legislation is going to turn a bad parent into a good one.
Half-witted dopes, (including penny arcade AND too feeble to mention swedish dorks) make POOR CASES against the pithy twatish remarks of the people who seek to make their money out of litigating the fuck out of the games industry, and at the same time restricting the themes we are allowed to be exposed to in the games we purchase.
Example: Fack Humpson (identity protected to keep his fucking name out of press) states that he wants more enforcement for age ratings on games. Rather than AGREE that enforcing them would be good, people from another too feeble to mention podcast quip, in their prepubescent voices, erm aaah uuh well, erm, that erm, yes, werm, no, but SHUT THE FUCK UP you asshats.
Rather than state that Fack Humpson also has a tumorous misconception (and ulterior motive) to censor the violence in games, and make assertions that freedom to simulate violence in games is no different from that of a movie (lest we not forget the fact that it is interactive is important, but so is our right to enjoy it...).
No, the 'voice' of the gaming public are ill-witted, clueless and being manipulated by these people, like bloggers who cry 'blogger rights', only to find that they have, in their acts of always mixing the word blogger with everything that people who gave away secrets were bloggers, not traitors, people who downloaded copyright material were torrent users, not thieves.
The very idiots who try to oppose these movements criminalise the common verbiage that represents them. Our brains work with string programming, and people aren't all that bright.
The fact that a move would be made to stop violent games in the future is purely the fault of those who vocally confused the media in their attempts to stop the people who seek to profit from litigating the asses off twat companies like Take Two, and the people who regulate the industry.
I feel every game should have the ability to remove swear words and blood, and even gratuitous violence. If moves were made to do this, then there would be an outlet for the crazed motivation of hundreds of time wasting people to try and parent everyone's children for them.
This would stop the only current option they see which is 'ban t3h violent gamez!' because they do not know what games are, how they are made, or what is possible, they are stupid. And so are we.
The fact that cartoon are more violent is a telling one, violence isn't bad, a can of soda can open VIOLENTLY. Fireworks are VIOLENCE. Acts and stories of inhumanity are damaging and disturbing.
I recall being quoted from a book a guy was reading, where, when a soldier was trying to rape a woman, he couldn't get it up, so he raped her with his bayonet.
The way the author wrote it was as dry and plain as possible, without dressing, to allow the full horror into the person's head. I still feel anger and sickness when I recall first hearing this read.
In a film, or a game, or a song, the impact may be more sickening or gruesome, but the concept of hate and malice and hurting an innocent person is truly dire.
If bugs or road runner ever were to get really hurt, that would be quite a shock, for all the fakes deaths that send the perpetrator into tears.
pssskt. pesky kids (is the etymology of pesky from a military gu
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Violence created contemporaneously with and containing elements of computer game play is not caused by the game or game content.
There is evidence, (scattered), in the record that the problem is one of a conflict of human physiology that was discovered in the 1960's.
Designers and engineers building the first close-spaced office workstations were surprised when knowledge workers using them began having mental breaks. The problem was that Subliminal Sight and Peripheral Vision Reflexes had operated in those "special circumstances" to cause the mental breaks. The Cubicle solved that problem beginning in 1968.
Those professionals thought they had caused the problem for the first time. The episodes, nervous breakdowns, pseudo psychosis, they saw were temporary and resolved without treatment. But "Cabin Fever," 1830's, Jumping Frenchmen of Maine Disease, 1880's, and an incident aboard the Belgica on the Belgian Polar Expedition of 1998/99 demonstrate the phenomenon can cause severe psychiatric problems and violence. In those cases there were no computers but many people living together in a single-room arrangement allows the "special circumstances" to be created and maintained long enough to cause exposure to Subliminal Distraction.
The suicide death of Shawn Woolley was another example of this. I have an email from Ben Stein that reveals there was a source of repeating detectable movement beside Tommy Stein as he played Everquest. Both game players were featured on a "48Hours Investigates" broadcast in 2002.
Placing a computer workstation in a location that has repeating detectable movement in Subliminal Peripheral Vision will cause exposure. Culture Bound Syndromes, from the DSM, track violent episodes around the world. They are called Amok in Malaysia, Iich'aa among the Navajo, and Going Postal in the US. These episodes happen where single-room living and working situations can cause the special circumstances to be created.
Legislators would be better served to demand Cubicle Level Protection information be included in school curriculums.
The Redlake school shooter left a journal entry describing an activity he had that would have caused exposure to Subliminal Distraction.
This phenomenon is the likely cause of sudden unexplained college suicides and disappearances.
Visit my site and start by performing the psychology demonstration.
Shouldn't Slashdot readers have this information and make their own decisions about simple changes to provide Cubicle Level Protection in their homes, dorms, and small business offices?
Warnings on game CD's should have this information instead of the current statements about seizure disorders.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/
What's he doing in Michigan's legislature? Doesn't he already have enough trouble in Texas?
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.