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.'"

Comments

Is it really effective?

[dusik]

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?

Re:Is it really effective?

[dc29A]

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?

Is it really effective? Absolutely! It's just as effective as "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror". I mean we won the "War on Drugs" right? And we are doing great in the "War on Terror"!

Sarcasm aside, you are absolutely right. People who will want to play these games even after a ban is in place, will be able. Someone has to explain these politicians what's the internet. What will stop people from downloading these games?

The Sims

[szembek]

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.

Not Just Another Bill...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not Just Another Bill...

[RobinH]

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.

Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.

The logic is like this. If I wanted to walk to the crack house, I have to go one block south, then one block east, so that means I shouldn't go to the blockbuster one block south because that just takes me half way to the crack house. That logic is invalid because it contains a slippery slope falacy - the idea that I shouldn't walk one block south because it is on the way to the crack house.

To discuss it in your terms, we have existed for many decades in a society that bans alcohol for minors, but allows alcohol for people over a certain age. At one point, alcohol was banned for everyone by democratic choice, and then by democratic choice (and practicality) it was overturned. But most people are ok with minors not being allowed to buy alcohol, even though it would be a step in the direction of banning it for everyone.

When we draw a line in the sand, we have to know exactly why we're drawing it at that spot. It has to be the right spot. To argue that we can't draw the line because someone in the future might move the line is an invalid argument.

Personally, I'm against censorship or bans, but think that rating games for their content and restricting sales to minors is the right way to go.

Re:Not Just Another Bill...

[CoughDropAddict]

Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.

You are relying on the assertion that passing "legislation such and such" does not create a political climate where similar legislation is more likely to pass. Without demonstrating this, you have no basis for calling the argument invalid. A slippery slope argument is not inherently a logical fallacy.

The people who wrote the slippery slope article on Wikipedia claim that "Use of the slippery slope can be valid or fallacious," and I agree with that characterization.

Re:Not Just Another Bill...

[JesusPancakes]

I do agree with you that it is a logical fallacy. However, there are times when "slippery slope" effects can actually be observed, e.g. when you give power to your government and they, tantalized by the power over people's lives, grab at more and more. Or (and I hate to use this, but I just discussed it in class) the gradual slide of harm inflicted on Jews in Nazi Germany. First stripped of jobs, then stripped of rights and humanity, and finally stripped of life... well, that's a real-life slippery slope.

Likewise, the slippery slope of presidental power grabs in the past 50 years (troops for 90 days, rubber-stamp approval of troops indefinitely, spying without issuing a warrant until afterward, spying and never seeking a warrant) demonstrates that there are cases when we slide down a slippery slope.

It has to do with a lot of silly mental tricks that people have. The overjustification effect causes the line of reasoning that "Well, I could have stopped the government spying, but I just didn't care... so maybe I really do like government spying for my safety!".

Slippery slope is a fallacy when it's used arbitrarily, but if you provide a real line of reasoning to believe in a slippery slope then it can be a valid fear. For instance, if you provide the reasoning that in a particular case, it has been shown that people are much less sensitive to small changes than large changes, you can empirically demonstrate that each successive choice on a slippery slope becomes more likely as the previous ones come true.

Re:Not Just Another Bill...

[tgibbs]

Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.

Your statement is logically equivalent to the assertion that "slippery slopes" do not exist--i.e. there are no circumstances such that change in one direction is much easier than the other. Considering that there are many physical circumstances in which such is the case--including a literal slippery slope, as well as innumerable examples of thermodynamically irreversible reactions in chemistry and physics, this is a fairly remarkable assertion. What empirical evidence can you provide to support the radical claim that this cannot occur in legal or social contexts?

Not just Violence, but sex too..

[crotherm]

Tennesse also is trying to ban sex toys.

Some people really need to mind their own business.....

Sigh.

[Perseid]

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.

Contradictions

[ClamIAm]

Guns? OK! Simulation of guns? NO!

Maybe they should visit Newport, TN

[zymurgy_cat]

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....

Anyone know what gun laws in Tennessee are like ?

[javaxman]

I don't know about today, but I seem to recall a friend of mine from Tennessee telling me that it was all the rage in his hometown to wear a holster with a gun in it... as it was perfectly legal to walk around with a loaded weapon, just so long as you weren't concealing it.

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...

Gotta Do Something!

[Chuckstar]

Guys, its really easy to argue free speech and all, but don't we need to take drastic measures to try to put a dent in this unprecedented crime wave we've been seeing since violent video games became epidemic.

Oh, wait ...

Re:Like the Miller test of "adult" works

[Qzukk]

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".