Slashdot Mirror
Yet Another Violent Games Ban
Gamespot reports on a proposed Tennessee bill banning extremely violent games. From the article: "The bill defines the phrase 'extremely violent video game' as 'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being," with a number of clauses specifying that a game would have to be patently offensive to prevailing community standards, among other things, to be considered extremely violent.'"
Guess this means these guys can't peddle their wares in the volunteer state anymore. Pity.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I would hazard a guess that the rare, deranged people who are actually incited to commit violent acts by games and movies will probably play these games regardless if they are legally sold in their state/prefecture/whatever.
For the rest of us... people need to grow up. We do all agree that it's a game, right?
I suppose sending them a death threat with the words "Take my video games away and I'll f****** kill you!" would not be helpful to the cause?
I suppose the US Military *could* stop using Doom etc for training (as has been reported) and instead try Pacman or something. It would have certain advantages, I guess...
If you can demonstrate violent behaviour *before* you play the game, then doesn't it clear the game of all charges?
Let's start a petition!
X_____________ (sign here)
I think there are a lot of unintended games that this proposed bill would affect. Take for instance if you are playing The Sims and put your character in the swimming pool and remove the ladder... they will eventually drown. Wouldn't this fall under killing an image of a human being? Off the top of my head I can't think of any other examples like this, but I'm sure there are plenty.
nothing
This bill wouldn't just ban minors from purchasing these games, it bans ANYONE from purchasing them. Since less restrictive bans have been struck down, this bill doesn't stand a chance of taking effect. Still, the fact they're no longer doing this just "for the children", lends weight to the slippery slope arguments that said a ban for minors would lead to a ban affecting adults as well. Scary stuff actually.
Did anyone else notice the GTA San Andreas ad on the right side of the page?
Tennesse also is trying to ban sex toys.
Some people really need to mind their own business.....
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Don't worry, I'm sure the Army will just turn the foe into space aliens, or say the Iraqis being killed are actually Meat Popscicles, or Vulcans. I'd like to see them enforce this law.
Oh You POS
This has been tried in several states and it always ends up like this.
I know alot of this is just feel good legislation, but when will they find these politicians start finding the next big thing that is "harming our children."
Guess this means [the developers of America's Army] can't peddle their wares in the volunteer state anymore.
Is America's Army any more violent than the 1998 film Saving Private Ryan? The patent offensiveness and lack of artistic value requirements of the bill as I understand it are similar to those developed in the Miller test, making the regulation more aligned with that of hardcore pornography than that of mere R- or M-rated fare.
I don't think these bills are even intended to be passed anymore, much less enforced. I think these politicians are merely pandering to the religious fringe by creating these laws so that they can later say, "I tried. Vote for me so I can try again."
There's no way these people can be as stupid as they seem.
You must have played a different Doom than everyone else, because I remember killing humans when I played it.
According to the descriptions in the manual, the "former human soldiers" of The Ultimate Doom and Doom II were more like zombies than living, breathing, thinking humans.
You know, if they're calling people killed in video games "victims" (with a real world notion), then why stop there? There are real people behind the avatars being robbed in many a MMORPG. Where is their retribution? Where is their justice? DO THEY NOT PAY A MONTHLY FEE?!
Ahem.
In any case, I think I'll start a pool taking dates when
A) The bill fails
B) Some court shoots down the bill as unconstitutional, or
C) Lizard men invade
Guns? OK! Simulation of guns? NO!
What about when the player can choose whether or not to be highly violent? For example, a Star Wars game where you can go to the Light or Dark side, and could have a pivotal moment involving "helplessness of the victim". The game does not encourage the player to be excessively violent, but gives them the option to be.
So if they make Furry Theft Auto, it will be ok, since you'll be killing, maiming and raping catgirls and dogpeople instead of human beings?
I guess this means a game that focuses on killing kittens would be OK?
Trying to enforce a violent video game ban on America is a lot like trying to block out Porn in Germany.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
If they are trying to ban things that cause violence then they should start with toilet paper. Check this out - a murder and an assult - both in the US and over toilet paper within a month of each other.
9 /toilet_paper_dispute_overflows_into_fight/
n -killing-over-toilet-paper/2006/02/23/114056388866 5.html
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/03/0
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Man-charged-i
And I suspect that if this even had a chance of passing, the import market would grow to fill the gap.
Next year we'll have GTA:Nashville where your objective is to shoot the crap out of... zombies! Because zombies arn't human, so it's okay to kill them in a video game.
YaVGB
Hmm....
does this count for the undead? there are ways around this stuff. :)
R.I.P.
Well, there goes' America's Army if this were passed in San Francisco. It involves killing people, and current "community standards" are very anti-military so it would likely be found offensive.
Just showing the idocy of these laws.
"with a number of clauses specifying that a game would have to be patently offensive to prevailing community standards, among other things, to be considered extremely violent.'"
Under the constitution non-legislative bodies are not allowed legislative power, so how exactly will "the prevailing community standards" body work, without it being non-constitutional?
Not only that, but in NetHack I can't kill anymore @'s.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Before you TN residents/lovers start bashing me, I have to say I like the state. Very beautiful and the mountains/hills are great. I've got some real neat photographs of thunderstorms running through valleys.
That said, if these guys want to make laws, maybe they should look at Newport, TN. They had a big cock fighting ring busted down there. They even snagged cops and judges in the bust. Before cock fighting, it was stolen cars. Before that, drugs. Before that, moonshine. Although I'm fairly libertarian, I'd say if they want to work on eradicating "bad" behavior, maybe they should work on other things....
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head, ask the obvious questions, and try to make the best choice you're allowed to at the ballot box...
Does this mean that if they sexually assult a sheep or horse, that makes it ok? What about maiming/killing animals? Does that count as well? I can see a loop hole brewing here.
...games in which you marry close relatives are still wholeheartedly approved!
I guess this new bill is probably a pretty good idea considering that when I read the following:
'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being...'
I though to myself, "Wow, that sounds like fun!"
Sounds like the typical reaction to one or two isolated cases of game-induced violence.
When will people realize that kids don't need to be protected? When I was younger, it was normal to go around playing with (toy) guns, and most parents let their kids run around wherever they wished. Now parents lock their kids away, and they aren't allowed to be kids. Kids need to be desensitzied to things at an early age so that they don't turn out soft. Video game violence isn't going to hurt anyone other than the extremely stupid or mentally handicapped kids who can't separate reality from fantasy.
..where you're a politician. It would totally mirror real life, where the game higly encourages you to make a complete prick out of yourself in order to get a few social conservative votes. Bonus level to see how many fragile child minds you save through wiping your ass with the constitution... Maybe a hack the voting machine mini-game. Grand Theft Election?
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Yet again we have another case of the gov't involving themselves in decisions we are perfectly capable of handling on our own. If parents think a particular game is too hard-core for a child of a certain age, then it's up to them to BE A PARENT and not buy it! Kids beyond a certain young age should be desensitized to certain things, I agree. And for getting out anger on a game, I think is much more health than taking it out on the real world.
=*^.^*=
The Miller test only concerns prurient/sexual speech. Violence doesn't pass the test, so isn't fair game for censorship.
...those of us in tennessee can still us video games to kill, maim, dismember and (best of all) sexually assault images of small puppies and kitties! or religious icons! the american flag!
hurrah for free speech!
go get it
I guess Tennessee will have no video games except Pokemon and Barbie games.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
I may just start killing people in real life.
There's nothing more relaxing after a long frustrating day dealing with morons than going home and shooting Nazi's in the head and watching their little helmets pop off.
I don't think it would be a very good idea to take away the one safe outlet I have for my anger.
Oh, wait ...
we need MORE! How about those of you who find these colossally stupid acts of the government you pay for offensive rise up and act on your primal impulses and go wreck havoc on the government buildings, paying special attention to the throats of the officiates thereof. Then we can pass legislation that bans the use of stupid government, on the grounds that it makes people commit violent acts.
let's ban videogames because they are violent. Let's send our children to fight in Iraq instead.
where characters are mentally and physically tortured but tennesee proposes that I can not write a video game where the same exact thing happens.
I guess that means no video game adaptions of any kind of film or book involving horror, terrorism, state goons torturing victims, etc.
yea.. this is unconstitutional on the face of it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The Miller test only concerns prurient/sexual speech.
The Miller test, used to interpret federal and state obscenity statutes, says "prurient + offensive + not art = bannable". The test of Tennessee SB3981 says "specific types of violence + offensive + not art = bannable". Because the tests share the element of "category + offensive + not art = bannable", I reasoned that the Supremes might view them the same way.
Well, we could always play A tale in the desert. This telling, you can't even kill yourself! :) (And it's pretty fun to play)
Well, I'm off finishing my beer brewing :)
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I have an idea for a new law. Lets call this the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution rule".
The way this bill would work is that any politician that votes for three bills that are later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and are prevented from coming into effect is kicked out of office. Any politician that blatantly fails to do their duty to uphold the constitution of the US three times in a row should have their ass thrown from office. End of story. They have violated the trust of the people far too many times and failed to uphold their oath to the constitution.
This is a non-story. This stupid bill, even if it is passed will be promptly struck down by the courts. What pisses me off is that I keep having to read about these stupid bills being passed and struck down. Someone needs to smack some sense into these dumb fuckers heads.
Why does repression in one area make respression in another area OK? Just because Tennessee has implemented a backwards and repressive policy restricting videogames, doesn't mean that they need to implement a backwards and respressive policy aimed at citizen disarmament. Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.
Don't use images of human beings.
When do you see video games on the news? Aside from the system launches and Halo 2 it's mostly violence bans and other negative things. That's why my parents think all video games are bad.
> a game would have to be patently offensive to prevailing community standards, among other things, to be considered extremely violent.
So just put the main character in a Uniform, and call it "Grand Theft Iraqi".
I think you are not considering though how these controversies work.
When you have a small (or not so small) core of very determined people who want an outcome that most people would not like -- in this case, the banning of everything contrary to their "Christian" values, not just videogames, but books, television, and movies as well -- there is a very real 'slippery slope.' It may not be a logical argument, but it's a human one.
To use your example, it would be as if you had a friend who really wanted, for reasons all their own, to get you addicted to crack cocaine. They're being pretty sly about it, but more than anything they'd like to get you to go down to that crack house, walk inside, and buy yourself a couple of nice rocks to smoke. They're pretty persuasive -- but when you're sitting in your house, it's pretty easy to come up with reasons why you don't want to go there. It's a long walk, it's cold outside, I've got better things to do, etc.
When your friend is with you, constantly arguing with you and wearing you down, trying to convince you to go into the crack house, it might be a really bad idea for you to walk down the street to the Blockbuster. If your route took you right past the crack house, suddenly a lot of your arguments would be undermined. If you had a moment of weakness -- just a single moment -- you might just find yourself in there, smoking some rocks.
Therefore, knowing that you're prone to bouts of stupidity, you'd be wise not to go anywhere near the crack house while in the company of your friend.
Bringing it back to the issue at hand, banning violent video games might be an act similar to going down to Blockbuster. Most people might not even consider it to be censorship per se, however it does move us a little closer to a position from which censorship would be possible. So therefore, if you find the ultimate aim of some of the pro-videogame-regulation folks unacceptable (and, of course, if you believe that the ultimate aim of many people pushing video-game censorship is more than just getting rid of violent games), it makes sense to oppose them at every opportunity.
The body politic in the US does not move calmly in one direction or the other. It stumbles, lurches, and occasionally runs and backpedals. Over any short period of time, it's motion might be described as chaotic -- diving in one direction, then the opposite. The "slippery slope" argument simply states that given these short-term unpredictabilities, it doesn't pay to put the entire country in a position where one temporary bout of insanity would put it over a precipice. In fact, the whole idea is to keep it as far away from that precipice as possible, giving you more opportunities to stop things if it starts moving in that direction.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I believe thats been the case at various times all over the country (and may still be). Its basically the 2nd amendment at work. The only thing illegal about carrying a weapon is usually it being unregistered, or it being concealed; after all, if we can't carry a weapon, whats the point of being allowed to own them? (Not a frequent poster - whats the abbreviation? IANAL?)
However, the fact is that reality would intrude on anyone wishing to exercise that particular right in a public place under ordinary circumstances. IE, walking around NYC with a shotgun strapped to your back or a pistol in a holster like an old west cowboy is going to result in at best a lot of strange looks and at worst a quick arrest by the police. Granted you may have the right to carry a weapon, but they'd almost certainly charge you with "disturbing the peace" or "inciting a riot" or some other applicable law relating to public safety.
Now in a hick town in the middle of tennessee, you might just get away with it.
On the original topic... A better look at the hypocrisy of this proposed law would be to ask the simple question: of people who own guns, how many use images of people as targets? After all, shooting a real gun at a simulated person is just as bad as shooting a video game gun at a video game person, right?
This is definitely censorship.
What's wrong with simply banning the sale of games labeled for certain age groups to those not of those agre groups? Adults can play whatever they want. Adults can think for themselves.
I live in Georgia, and you can wear a loaded weapon here as well as long as it's not concealed. If you have a license (which I do) you can carry them concealed.
It's not the people that have their guns on display or the people who get a license to carry concealed legally that you should worry about.
You and pretty much everyone you know drive a lethal weapon that can kill more people, and do more physical damage, than any simple gun could every day. How many people could you run down in a car on a tank of gas? How many could you kill with a hand gun before reloading?
The point is anything can be used as a weapon. Blaming guns is like blaming the car when some moron drives the wrong way down the freeway and kills 20 people.
The person that abuses or uses it irresponsibly is to blame. Not the tool.
I remember playing a game called carmageddon.
I live in Alabama. Unlike most surrounding states, fireworks are legal here (yeehaw!)
/runs off to look into some property near the state line...
I guess this means we'll see game stores next to the fireworks stands at the state line.
Hey, this business plan has an actual item #2!
"an image of a human being"
Sure, but does it mention anything about images of *zombie* human beings? I mean, nobody likes zombies, and everybody knows that A) you can't kill them (they're already dead), B) just about the only way to stop them is by dismembering them. What are we supposed to do now when we're trapped by a swarm of zombies? Use harsh language or try to stun them by hitting them repeatedly with a pillow?
There's no excuse. For once, legislators should be knowledgable about this topic, what some candidates winning elections even after dying and such. Any legislation that doesn't deal with the undead is going to be woefully inadequate. Game makers will use the "zombie defense", and this legislation simply won't apply.
Did I say it did ?
Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.
That's much closer to the point I was trying to make, actually...
Of course, the reality is that this is just the result of some politician grandstanding with the old "think of the children" bit... the dark side is that they clearly don't care about 1st Amendment freedoms, or public good, or anything else, really, as long as they can create a wedge issue to drive votes their way.
You mean we can't have video games that depict "penetration" of a human being!?!
Okay, everyone be like Superman, bullets bounce off.
That is very, very much indeed the spirit of the point I was trying to make. How does outlawing a book, movie, or other representation of violence make any sense when you have legal access to everything needed to create that same imagery in real life ( even, for example, using a paper target outline of a person ) ?
Although I think it's a little crazy from a public safety perspective to have everyone in town walking around with a possibly loaded gun at their hips, I don't *fundamentally* think there's anything wrong with letting folks carry around weapons... but to do so and restrict their entertainment options for public safety reasons ? That's just crazy.
First things first, I haven't read the bill and thus I am not commenting on it specifically. I have, however, read many of the comments here and I believe that there is something here worth being discussed that so far has not.
Should games encourage actions (within the game) that in real life would be heinous? I'm not talking about "shooting the bad guy" or the other typical FPS type games. For argument's sake, let's limit it to the user committing rape. Should free speech allow gamers to "choose" to perform this type of act within the confines of a game? If so, should it be available to all gamers, or should it be age-restricted?
In my opinion, the answer is no. There are some things that should be off limits. My reasoning is this: Games allow us to simulate life (not necessarily reality) in a consequence free atmosphere. While they are just games, they do reflect life and they do affect those playing them. The military has proven this and is using that effect to help train its soldiers. So to me, there is a difference between "fighting an enemy" (ie, shooting the bad guy) and raping a bystander. I personally do not want the general public to find entertainment in simulating the rape of another individual. The effect on the individual is not something that I find acceptable.
I understand that many disagree with this, but I do not understand why. What is the argument for including this type of choice into games? Do you believe it will enhance the gaming experience? Is it simply a matter of principle and free speech?
For those that agree that there should be a line somewhere, where should that line be?
If you would like to be a leader with a large following...drive slowly down a windy two-lane road
They just reprint the manual to say, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, these NON-HUMAN creatures that look just like us....
The 'slippery slope' argument is not a logical fallacy; in fact, it doesn't rely on logic for its forcefulness, but rather on empirical observations. Put another way, it is inductive rather than deductive -- there is no logical connection between drawing a line in the sand somewhere, and the likelihood that having done so will lead to moving that line in the future. There is, however, substantial empirical evidence to support the warning that making small concessions might lead to more substantial concessions in the future (or whatever the context); once a particular issue is converted into a non-binary format, it becomes much easier for people to move their preference another step or two along the spectrum -- or 'slippery slope.' As an example, once people grow comfortable letting the government listen in on certain phone conversations for certain limited purposes, they tend to become more likely to grow comfortable allowing the government to expand its ability to intrude in that way in the future.
To bring it back to the deductive/inductive distinction, it's like the classic example in logic class, that seeing 100 white swans doesn't make it logically any more likely that the next swan you see will be white. Of course, this is correct, as far as it goes. But that doesn't negate the usefulness of induction altogether; it merely distinguishes it from deduction. As a matter of fact, induction can be quite instructive -- I can assure you that if I observe 100 swans and observe that all of them are white, and have a chance to bet on the color of the next random swan that I will see, I will eagerly put my money on white. The likelihood that I'm going to be right may not be grounded in logic, but that doesn't make it irrational to expect to be right. Rather than logic, I am, instead, relying on the likelihood that my observation of the repetition of some fact is the result of some underlying principle that I haven't yet uncovered. Or in the case of the slippery slope, I am relying on past observations of human behavior, and the likelihood that it will continue to be as I have observed it to be in the past -- namely, that once people give a little on an issue, they will be more likely to give a little more in the future, than they would be if they held firm from the start.
In summary, the slippery slope argument is not logical, but neither is it fallacious.
madclamor.com
Would that be The Sims - PETA edition or Chinese Restaurant Tycoon? I'm up for either!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
If this bill is anything like our ol' "obscene" laws then it's basically worthless. What's obscene is considered not to have any value in politics, art, educational, this, that, and has to be just really gross. Now, since "politics," and "art" are both very personal opinions and very subjective, it's basically impossible to claim anything as obscene. There is almost nothing that's not obscene, except for shock sites like [NOT SAFE FOR WORK] eelgirl.com and lemonparty.org and the legendary goatse.cx and tubgirl, both now defunct.
Not just *can*, but statistically, *does*. Cars kill more people in the US than just about any other type of accident ( by *far), and *many* fewer people die as a result of homicide than accidents ( and not all homicides are a result of gunplay ).
No fair on the tank of gas == reloading comparison, though. How much ammo can you carry ? That's a better comparison. The type of weapon makes a big difference, then... your car is easily more dangerous than a handgun ( although... I can see your car coming, there's a big difference )... but a semiautomatic pistol or rifle ? Those might be as dangerous or more dangerous than a car. But the point is... things are dangerous, and always will be, that doesn't matter. There need to be reasonable limits to the regulations we face or we won't have this "freedom" thing that people like to talk about but don't seem to understand.
I doubt this will make it very far. There are plenty of mature adults in Tennessee, I'm sure, that enjoy sitting down to a game of GTA or something. I could see them making it a state-law that you must be over 18 to purchase a game like that, but banning them completely? I'd have to see it to believe it. That would be enough reason for me to move out of state, if I lived there (I like my video games!).
everyone hazards to guess, but we need studies. We no longer play games were the charaters have square heads, and fire is just a few square of pixals stack on top of each other.
The mind adaptes and behaviours are created based based on the minds input. The more realistic games get, the harder it becomes for the mind to know the difference.
That is of course an incredibly simplistic statement, but the point is correct.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hudson: "Game over man... Game over!"
The bill defines the phrase 'extremely violent video game' as 'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.
Easy.
GTA becomes GTU. Grand Theft UFO. Now everyone's an alien!
This is just another example of a legislator pandering to an electorate that he imagines to be too stupid to understand that such a law, even if it were somehow to be passed, would immediately be invalidated by the courts.
To have even a prayer of getting the courts to accept such a drastic restriction of the constitutional rights of adults, it would be necessary to prove that such games pose some grave threat. This would be pretty difficult, considering that as violent video games have gotten more popular and realistic, the incidence of real-world violence has steadily DECREASED--particularly among young males, who are the demographic that most plays such games.
Real live babies are killed each day, and there is no law to protect them...but yet we have laws which are apparently meant to protect "virtual victims".
This country is losing it.
It was under his administration that many bans came into place - the most relevant example being, in this case, child pornography. The thesis was banning child pornography was permissible, among other similar reasons, because such speech helped "normalize behavior" and that it could be use to coerce other children into similar behaviors. The fallacy is that ADULT pornography can (and sometimes will) be used to exactly those same ends regarding indoctrination. The other fallacy is that such regulations serve to limit "normalizing" such behavior - the fact there is children are naturally curious about their bodies and will often coerce one another, and even explore privately, these very same behaviors - in other words, it's already normal behavior. Additionally, the ban does not prevent anyone from making speech using NON children or images of children that addresses this very same goal - not to mention I can write all the dirty stories I want and even attempt to organize all the pedophiles of the nation in much the same way as any other "minority rights" organization. So banning certain forms of the speech does not, in fact, address these goals at all - all it does is make it illegal for me to take a picture of a child engaging in normal developmental behavior even if that child does so of his or her own volition.
MEANWHILE, that exact same non-logic is increasingly being applied to other forms of speech "in the name of the children." This legislation has legitimized a witch hunt wherein anyone even admiring a hot looking SIXTEEN year old is deemed a "pedophile" and a danger to society. This legislation has given social creed to narrow black and white views of an issue that leave almost no room for reason.
It's not a matter of drawing a line in the sand and arguing someone might move the line - in fact, the legislative line is drawn in the sand and the social winds will move it no matter what.
This is why we must always be careful to avoid drawing such lines entirely without first looking at the roads ahead. The ban on child pornography has led to a social climate wherein everyone essentially "thinks like a pedophile" because they are so incredibly fearful of being declared one themselves. That "line in the sand" is essentially causing a greater perversion of our society and an increasingly paternalistic climate of legislation which inevitably leads to yet more reactionary nonsense like this.
Maybe we should just ban all images of human beings in any creative expressions and be done with it. Seemed to work well for protecting "human rights" in many muslim cultures, didn't it?
Oh, wait...
Every state that has tried this has the law struck down as unconstitutional because the can't prove the games are actually harmful. If the impression I got from the Gamespot article is correct, unlike other states that attempted this, Tennessee's law bans "extremely violent" games for adults and minors a like. If they had just extremely violent games to adults they'd have a very slim chance, but now it appears this law hasn't a chance.
The "confirm you're not a script" word I got was oppress, oddly apporiate considering the subject.
"an image of a human being"
Just change all the things you kill to animals/monsters for any games released there.
Although it would have a rather Disney feel to it, atleast you can kill the talking animals.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Sounds like the kind of thing a Skaven clan leader would say...
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Those "images of humans" are unborn. When will Tennessee finally protect the unborn from these sensless murders?
--
make install -not war
You know what people say that these games cause violence but so does every other thing in this world. Just because some people have there own twisted minds does not mean they should try to ban a simple video game from everyone. You would have to ban all the classic war movies. What about a history class you learn about war in that. What are they going to do ban history and movies too.
is the bad guys and prostitutes will start being animals. I can't wait to start bludgening whore cows to death and running over drug dealing manatees while I shoot and blow up the top 10 endangered species list.
First, it should be clear that this law would apply to most games.
Action, FPS, RTS, Strategy, some adventure games, and platforming games.
Planes, cars and tie fighters contain humans but for now they can't be seen to well.
If these are gone then what is left? It will make a big impact on gaming.
Ok, why is this legislation being proposed? Social Behavior.
Social behavior consists of alphas (leaders of packs or herds) controlling and manipulating its constituency (the betas).
For the alphas, this provides benefits but this controlling behavior also becomes a part of the alphas' identity. Furthermore, this behavior becomes a goal and a reward within the alpha.
An established alpha thoroughly believes and insists that all others in the group are betas. They also believe that other groups and those otherwise outside the group are harmful and a danger. There aren't many alphas that have escaped this idea.
This social behavior causes discomfort for many of us. The ability we have to understand, think, and make decision for ourselves places us at odds with those that need to control to maintain their sense of identity.
People with the desire to control others have adapted to democracy. They manipulate the process so enforced laws are written. Once laws are written, they are rarely taken off the books. Many laws are written without the citizens actually calling for them. Further, opinion manipulation can cause a low majority to allow laws to be written (and/or be generally agreed with) that infringe and restrict the actions of others that are in a minority or do don't have a lobbying operation in place. They bank on the instilled idea that a majority always has the right to do anything to anyone. The result is that laws are inflicted based not on real need but on feelings of people that often have little involvement with the issue. The trick is to generate a vauge but strong feeling that something needs be done.
Vagueness is often needed because be they don't want to argue the facts -- they want their generated opinions counted and to see an effect on you.
We can affect you. We can force you. You must pay attention to us. You have to respond. We won't be ignored.
They will never be satisfied with a response like "If you don't like violent video games or movies or television dont buy or watch them," because that doesnt let them be who they are.
When one manipulation has completed, they will be one to the next. They need satisfaction. Keep tightening the ropes on the same issue or switch to another issue -- maybe with a different minority. Hell, maybe you'll agree with them this time.
Additionally, I think that violence is something they feel a little uncomfortable with because they realize many don't want to be controlled and will be frustrated. They don't you to develop a "Give me liberty or give you death" policy. They know they aren't going to.
I would also guess that the rare, deranged people who commit violent acts based on what they see in games and movies are just that: rare and deranged. These people wouldn't magically be happy, healthy, well adjusted people if there were no violent imagery in the media. Violence predates violence in the media by a couple hundred thousand years (or 5000 years, depending on who you ask). The only credence I give to the "the video game made me do it" claim is that the particular violence the person commits may be influenced by what they saw. An example of which was the kids who cut off their parents' heads after seeing something like that on The Sopranos. They might have only beat their parents to death instead of decapitating them if they hadn't seen that episode.
well... can't do it to images of humans eh? At least there's still goats!
includes killing, [...] an image of a human being
why only human being?
The article says that if the victim is conscious of the violence it would nudge it into the extremely violent category. What if the victim is of the undead and you blow its limbs off one at a time?
That's a very good explanation of why slippery slope arguments are inherently invalid
They are not inherently invalid. A slippery slope argument can either be valid or invalid. It depends on the usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Is whether or not the ban is just of sales or posession and sales.
More simply put, can you break a law by simply owning or purchasing a violent game - or is it stores only that this affects.
Something I didn't get from the article.
Sounds like protectionism bullshit to me though, no matter how it's put.
Put ratings on games, sure. Okay. Put age restrictions on violent games, okay, sure. Remove my ability to make judgements in what my child can and can not view/play? Methinks that would be a poor precident to set.
I live in Nashville, and I'm not too surprised. The same legislature is also considering a ban on dildos. So much for freedom. I don't even know why we're paying these people, to be honest. All they're doing is taking away our rights. Things like this really make me want to use my second amendment rights to protect my first amendment rights. If it keeps going the way it's going, such a scenario might just play out. I don't think the People are going to sit by and twiddle their thumbs while the government screws them over again and again and again.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Political strategy aside, why are video games the sole target for this ban on violent material? There is a lot of music out there, for example, that does not just have violence. It glorifies violence. There are plenty of films out there which do the same thing. Heck, even television programming is stooping down to that level. Is there really a difference between controlling the action of the main character and seeing it happen anyway?
There is already a perfectly good system of ratings.
What is needed is greater policing of the ratings. Sure, its not actually illegal to allow minors into R-rated movies but cinema owners dont generally do it (because of what the movie studios would do to them and because of the threat of legal enforcement)
As usual the politicians are pointing at the mouse in the corner while an elephant is in middle of the room. Seems to be the method of politics these days.
"The bill defines the phrase 'extremely violent video game' as 'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being,"
Does this mean that my plan to release a game involving killing, maiming, dismembering, and sexually assaulting images of furry woodland creatures will successfully bypass their ban?
People ARE influenced by what they see.
That's why advertising works. Are they going to say advertising does not work? No one would believe you.
To say that violent video does not effect kids is really dumb.
"The bill defines the phrase 'extremely violent video game' as 'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being,"
I've never played a video game in which I could do any of the above. The most I could do was press buttons, see colorful images on screen and hear sounds (well, and dance around like a dork for one particular game). The only violence was when I threw the controller out of frustration. Anyone who claims that video games involve anything more than this is confusing fantasy with reality.
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 and, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 and they shall amerce him in a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Deut. 22, 13-21
The Bible is clearly at *least* as much trouble as, say, Carmegeddon, which you can theoretically play and avoid any killing at all.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
You know what would really shut these a**holes up: A cute fussy Care Bears video game. However, three months after it is released, a cheat code is leaked out onto the Internet where the Care Bears collectively engage in an explict group orgy that ends in wanton violence!
/They're coming to take me away! Ha! Ha! They're coming to take me away! Ha! Ha! Ho! Ho! He! He!
And just to make it so very explict, it will be marketed by Jack Thomspon and include a videogame reinactment of the Columbine Massacre combined with the movie Deep Throat.
I am one can short of a six pack! LOL!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
why not ban violent movies too?
oohhh because the video game market is taking over hollywooooddd oooohhhh yyeeaahhhh THAT thing....
thats all this is, a retaliation for declining movie ticket sales...
damn old farts..
Dont forget this is the state that banned evolution and had the famous monkey trial in the 1920s. Read "Inherit the Wind" to get a good idea of the wackos vs the rational. Community standards? Whose community? Some crazy right-wing church group, or all of us citizens. Who said censorship only exists in totalitarian countries?
Majority opinion written by Kennedy; he's the swing vote, so he gets to decide the terms and flesh-out the thought process behind the opinion (something that'll be happening a LOT more often now that we have new fascists on the court). Other justices in the majority: Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens.
:P
Minority members: Thomas, Roberts, Alito, & (ha-ha!) Scalia.
This is assuming that it (or a similar case) reaches this level of of the court system.
My guess on the logic behind the majority opinion? Unconstitutionally vague.
My guess on the "logic" behind the minority opinion? A state has the right to set rules regarding its "moral values." (it helps to imaging Scalia angrily reading it from the bench, spittle dripping from his chin..)
Funny coincidence: My word to type is "robotic" - and Bender is on my television right now!
Not really.
You can see my car coming -- you can see that I'm openly carrying a weapon.
You don't know I'm going to swerve 10 feet from you. You don't know I'm going to shoot you.
True, a car is harder to conceal, but I could always be running at night, with the lights off, or simply "conceal" myself in traffic, being the one car that happens to run onto the sidewalk randomly. In the same way, you could look at a lot of people wearing shirts and never know which shirt has the gun under it.
And as a person who's played a significant number of FPS'es, I can tell you that "deadliness" is very relative. What's the "deadliest" gun in Counter-Strike? If neither of us have great aim, and we meet in a hallway at close range, you with a sniper and me with a shotgun, I bet my shotgun wins. Way across a courtyard, however, the shotgun's weak as hell -- even if I get three or four shots in while you're aiming for me, I'll probably just ding you down to 50 health, and you'll probably kill me.
Similarly, cars are "deadlier" than any gun in some situations, while guns are "deadlier" than any car in others. After all, the car will never fit in the narrow hallway, and even in a courtyard, there's plenty of places to dodge to, even if someone was stupid enough to be in the open enough to get run over in the first place. However, given an alley just wide enough for a car to fit through, and a bunch of people walking up and down it, the car is insanely deadly -- you're not getting away from that unless you can jump right over the car.
Anyway, the point stands. Deal with the real problem, the people. Gun control is not the answer.
But, people control is not the answer either. We are not cattle.
Is there an answer? I don't really know.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
stupid stupjid gamers and young folks.. if u voted u wouldn't be run over by the f***ing geezers on moral crusades. goddamned politicians
Eh, they are voting, the other guy won.
NOT. I lived in that rancid backwater shithole for 11 years. 11 years of my miserable life. The state is essentially controlled by the baptist church. That's why we had to go to kentucky for the lottery and Arkansas for gambling (west memphis, avoid the rest as much as possible) So it isnt shocking they'd create a blanket law like this. This essentially means you cant play 90% of FPS games in TN. Does this include military sim games used by the military itself? What about police training sims? In murfreesboro, I liked the faux-law the police had on skateboarding, which made skateboarding illegal everywhere because skateboarding was only for gay pot smoking surfer hippies from california. (as a californian, this is why I got a lot of shit from authorities there) a friend of mine who skateboarded got harrassed by cops every time he was on a skateboard.
You got that mentality going for you. So this doesnt shock me. They also allow cousin marriages.
in other words: move along, nothing to see here. Also ignore states like utah and colorado, as they dont believe much in common sense or reality or those annoying civil rights laws either.
In real life, the deadliest gun is a handgun. No contest. It's the one that's easy to conceal. It's the one you can get close to someone with. It's the "Satuday Night Special" that "ain't good for nothing, but puttin' a man six feet in a hole". It's the one that the vast majority of homicides are committed with.
Anyway, the point stands. Deal with the real problem, the people. Gun control is not the answer. But, people control is not the answer either. We are not cattle. Is there an answer? I don't really know.
My point as well... media control isn't the answer, either. On the other hand... I'm not saying it'd work, or be the right thing to do, but if you're going to have gun control, the *first* weapon you should ban is the handgun. Is there an answer ? Not a simple one, that's for sure... there's an entire culture of violence that we'd need to re-direct into a culture of respect... maybe role-playing games, coupled with some decent economic opportunity and punishments for violent crimes that are actually longer than those for non-violent crimes would help ?
I don't know, either... but it does seem extra-stupid to ban a game but allow a gun... keeping in mind that I'm saying banning a gun is stupid, too... it's just that banning a game is even more stupid.