Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yet Another Violent Games Ban

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the don't-play-stuff-that's-bad-for-you dept.

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.'"

52 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. guess this means by corbettw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  2. Is it really effective? by dusik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Is it really effective? by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      What really gets me is that they arn't trying to ban violent movies. Other than the obvious first amendment problems I would understand if a state attempted to ban all media that had a certain amount of violence or sex or whatever. But aiming directly at video games shows you just don't get it. (Note: I would understand doesn't mean I would support)

    2. Re:Is it really effective? by dc29A · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Is it really effective? by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had heard that certain passges of the Bible can not be read in public in some states due to their Hate Crimes laws. I can't back it up, though. I didn't find anything right off the bat.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Is it really effective? by Ugly+American · · Score: 2

      I believe it refers to this case from Philadelphia. Charges against seven of the protestors were dropped, and hate crimes charges against the remaining four were thrown out on first amendment grounds. That was the only story I could turn up about Biblical passages leading to hate crimes charges in the U.S. IANAL, but somehow I doubt that Fred Phelps would still be a free man if it were possible to prosecute him under hate-crimes laws.

      I don't know that I would qualify "screaming Leviticus 20:13 through a bullhorn to disrupt a gay pride parade" as merely "reading the Bible in public," but that's just me.

      --
      For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
  3. Hah! by Tadrith · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Hah! by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if you're Steve Ballmer.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  4. Military applications by Threni · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

    1. Re:Military applications by interiot · · Score: 2, Funny

      And just behind the ATF will be the EPA, complaining that Joust advocates the injury and killing of endangered species.

    2. Re:Military applications by galonso · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes . . . Pac man . . . alert Gabe!;)

      Seriously, this points out the fundamental dichotomy that exists between our "violence is bad" cultural notions and our quickness to go to war, whatever the good or bad reasons might be (and I'm not making a stand on that today).

      The point about 'America's Army' is a good one, because this explains the 'Sibyl' in our national consciousness . . . we use so many psychological tactics to resolve these little cognitive dissonances, but are we sufficiently aware of it?

      I have yet to see a link proven between so called violent video games and real life violence, personally my WoW sessions do nothing to make me want to go out and gank a wandering priest;)

      --
      -[joke removed for your safety]-
    3. Re:Military applications by yashinka · · Score: 2, Funny
      Reminds me of a great quote:

      "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.)

      Althought it was funnier when raves were exploding with popularity.
      --
      "Haven't you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclaimation?"
      "I don't listen to Hip-Hop!"
  5. The Sims by szembek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:The Sims by yassax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Civilization, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations... pretty much any strategy game that involves humans and waging wars. How about MMORPGS. Killed plenty of humans in Ultima Online back in the day.

      You know, while their at it, why don't they just ban life?

      --
      The answer to your next question will be 'not likely'.
    2. Re:The Sims by enjo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You only had to read the SUMMARY to know that this statement is wrong, and yet there are like 5 replies all chiming in taking it to even further extremes.

      The bill (which I strongly disagree with) proposes to ban games which meet a test of objectionability (not unlike restrictions on hardcore adult films).. one of which is games which limit the player to a range of violent options. Clearly the Sims, final fantasy, and the ilk fall outside of this. What is more interesting are games like GTA, which are no more violent than your average rap video. They would likely fail the 'objectionability' test and even those games would be ok. There is a mountain of case law involved here, and it makes banning the sale of conent virtuall impossible, and regulation very difficult.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
  6. Not Just Another Bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by RobinH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's a very good explanation of why slippery slope arguments are inherently invalid. I do want to add that I think you're overstating how strongly these arguments should be dismissed.

      From a purely logical point of view, you are correct but most people aren't very logical. If it takes me saying that if this law passes, the next step is going to be to ban movies to someone who doesn't play video games but enjoys violent movies in order to get them on board and to take some action - I'll do it. Logically, it doesn't help my argument but oftentimes with people, it will. It's all a matter of knowing your audience.

    3. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by JesusPancakes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by sesshomaru · · Score: 2, Insightful
      People shouldn't talk in terms of "slippery slope," they should talk in terms of setting a precedent. Precedent is a very important concept in American law.

      If video games are found not to deserve First Amendment protection then laws can be made against them on a state level for any random reason. In this case, a law would be valid restricting video games because they incite violence in children but it would be just as valid if the argument is made that they incite violence in unstable adults.

      The First Amendment, as it is currently in the Bill of Rights does not make exceptions for age, either it applies or it doesn't. (For example, obscenity is assumed to not have constitutional protection, the Supreme Court has simply said that it is difficult to define. The video games under discussion, though, such as GTA don't fall anywhere near the obscenity catagory. A transcript of the San Andreas story line, for instance, would be 100% protected speech, no question, as would a movie based on events from the game. The reason why TV is restricted is because the limited number of broadcast channels are licensed by the FCC and the license can be revoked if a broadcaster doesn't toe the line. Yeah, that's a weaselly scam, but that's the rational.)

      In fact if this is the case, any state can make any law banning games, as they would no longer be assumed to have Constitutional protection. (For example, if games were considered a cause of obesity, low test scores, or ADD those would all be valid reasons for a ban as well. As would the reason, "we just don't like them in our state.")

      It's true that alcohol isn't banned everywhere in the United States anymore, but there are still dry areas, including in Tennessee, unsurprisingly:

      Lynchburg is located in Moore County, Tennessee which is officially a "dry county". That means, no alcoholic beverages may be sold within Moore County. Ironically, there are 48 warehouses with over 200 million liters of Jack Daniel's Sour Mash Whiskey stored in barrels on the hill outside of Lynchburg. The distillery is permitted to sell special collector bottles of whiskey only to tourists from outside the county. -- Lynchburg, Tennessee
      Alcohol has never been assumed to have constitutional protection, and the Amendment repealing Prohibition didn't change this, just made it no longer constitutionally banned.

      Rulings that have been made, and later overturned, against video games have argued that they are not speech or expression and therefore not entitled to First Amendment protection. However, so far, all such rulings have been over turned, so laws restricting video games are unconstitutional.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    6. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by Castar · · Score: 2

      The slippery slope *is* fallacious, but that doesn't indicate anything about the truth value of the resulting argument. All the fallacy part means is that it doesn't logically follow, in a rigorous sense. It may still be true, and sometimes slippery slopes are real.

      There's a big difference between logically sound and truthful.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    7. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by BluedemonX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what we are looking for here is "precedent" not slippery slope.

      I agree that arguing whether to do this or not to do this on slippery slope.... is not really that valid. Just because you allow same sex marraige doesn't mean you're going to legalize incest.

      However, what worries me more is the notion of precedent - that if they're allowed to get away with banning sales of a video game to adults with a violent context then the next thing down the pipe will be a ban on something else, and they'll hold up State vs Jenkins as proof positive that there's LEGAL PRECEDENT to carry on with the march towards the utopian society the usual suspects want to legislate into being.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    8. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The term "Slippery Slope" actually refers to two distinct types of argument: a "Semantice Slippery Slope" and a "Causal Slippery Slope".

      A semantic slippery slope is an argument where one argues that because the boundary between two sets is undefined, the two sets are actually identical.

      For example: people can have verying number of hairs on their head. People with few hairs are bald. People with many hairs aren't. However there is no number X for which we can say that all people with less than X hairs are bald and all people with X or more hairs aren't. Therefore there is actually no real difference between being bald and not being bald.

      A causal slippery slope is an argument where one makes a series of causal statements: A lead to B, B leads to C, etc. and then argues that therefore doing A will ultimately lead to some undesirable X.

      The distinction between the two is important because while the first type of argument is always a fallacy, the second type may or may not be one. The validity of the second argument depends on how strong the casuality in each of the steps making up the chain actually is. In your crackhouse example, for instance, the argument is a fallacy not because of the slippery slope, but because one of the subteps (going a block south necessarily leads to going a block east) isn't true.

    9. Re:Not Just Another Bill... by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  7. GTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did anyone else notice the GTA San Andreas ad on the right side of the page?

  8. Not just Violence, but sex too.. by crotherm · · Score: 5, Insightful



    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
    1. Re:Not just Violence, but sex too.. by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2, Funny
      Uh... the article you posted says Alabama. Did you get your backwards states mixed up? ;-)

      He must be a product of one of their education systems!

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  9. Like the Miller test of "adult" works by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Like the Miller test of "adult" works by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
  10. Sigh. by Perseid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Sigh. by Liberal+Mafia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're close. They know a judge will overturn these monstrosities as unconstitutional. Then they denounce the "activist judges" and look good to their constituents.

      It's a fun game for the wingnuts. The real victims are the judicial system and the country, and who cares about those?

  11. Are you a gambling man? by RyoShin · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  12. Contradictions by ClamIAm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guns? OK! Simulation of guns? NO!

  13. Choices by Xiroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. image of a human being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:image of a human being by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's already happened -- rape is an extremely common theme in hentai games, and more often than not, the main character is the one who does it. Although such games are predominantly made in Japan, they can be legally imported into North America, and plenty of kids download pirated versions. I used to know a guy in junior high who apparently (according to a friend of mine who claimed to have seen the games) had a quite impressive collection.

      There are reviews of some of 'em on Something Awful in case you're curious... they're pretty amusing actually, though certainly NSFW.

    2. Re:image of a human being by realmolo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  15. Killing Humans? by MaliciousSmurf · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess this means a game that focuses on killing kittens would be OK?

  16. Hah by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!
  17. Ban Toilet Paper by ApharmdB · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/03/09 /toilet_paper_dispute_overflows_into_fight/

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Man-charged-in -killing-over-toilet-paper/2006/02/23/114056388866 5.html

  18. it would be an ironic game to have to import by TheAxeMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I suspect that if this even had a chance of passing, the import market would grow to fill the gap.

  19. Maybe they should visit Newport, TN by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  20. Anyone know what gun laws in Tennessee are like ? by javaxman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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...

  21. Incredible, but expected. by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  22. If I can't kill people in video games... by ivanmarsh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  23. Gotta Do Something! by Chuckstar · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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 ...

  24. O rly? by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  25. I got an idea for a law... by Shihar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  26. Re:Not all regulation is bad by Big_Al_B · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  27. Speaking of Bill... by poptones · · Score: 2

    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...

  28. And to put a finer point on it... by tool462 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.