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.'"
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 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.
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
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.
Guns? OK! Simulation of guns? NO!
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!
And I suspect that if this even had a chance of passing, the import market would grow to fill the gap.
Yeah, that's going too far, but so what? It's just a game. No one gets hurt. Nobody *can* get hurt, because there are no real people involved.
If we let our government start banning things that might give us "impure thoughts", then we're fucked.
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...
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 ...
let's ban videogames because they are violent. Let's send our children to fight in Iraq instead.
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
God, our country needs yet another "Miller test" like I need a hole in my head.
The Miller test has long been a club for the government to threaten whoever it doesn't like at the time. So lets look at it in terms of games: Do you think your game is not "too violent"? The government thinks it is. So you trot out an average person who thinks its not too violent. The government trots out their well paid expert "more average than you" witness to claim it is. Uhoh, there goes part 1. If you've come this far, your game probably already has people being killed or wounded or maybe just gets a papercut. So, part 2. So now you start trotting out the expensive expert witnesses for part 3. Ebert and Kojima say games aren't art. Who do you have to convince the jury that games are, some kid with a website?
All of this... only after your game ships because it's impossible to know if something will offend someone until after you've offended them. The only safe thing to do in a world of Miller tests is "nothing".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
Like a book. Or a movie. Or a play. Or a TV show. Or a song. Or a poem. Or a campfire story...
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.
Fine. Just as long as you're intellectually consistent enough to suggest we ban much of the entire literary genres of pulp crime fiction, thrillers and horror. And many dramatic films, and popular television dramas, perhaps some plays.
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?
I guess the argument is that games are just one form that may portray dramatic antagonism, violent conflicts and mature themes, and it's confusing to some folks why people single them out from the bulk of fictional entertainment.
A video game is no more engaging to the imagination than reading a book. In fact, I'd argue they're much less engaging.