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.'"

11 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?

  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?

  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...

  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
  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
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.