Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana Politicos Defend Game Bill
GameDaily reports on comments by LA Senators and politicians defending the Louisiana violent games law. The vigorous defense now has backing from the state's Attorney General, who has vowed to go to the SCOTUS if need be. From the article: "[Assistant Attorney General Burton] Guidry added that the law is 'not going to curtail the free speech of anybody,' but then he used the old 'games are training kids to kill' argument. 'This is more than speech. This is truly training for violence," he said. 'You assume the character of a mass murderer. You go out and kill people as violently as you can because you score more points.'"
... welcome their doomed attempt to challenge the Supreme Court on this issue. Bring it on.
I hate all the stupid laws that get proposed and sometimes passed and the attack commercials that we have to endure every election year.
I doubt the law in LA will last any longer then the others.
I hate election years.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
Man, I love the kind of things this guy says.
"The last thing we need is some video game promoting violent and illegal behavior. I understand where they[video game industry] are coming from. They feel like we are trying to stop the sale of these videos and in fact we are."
"Now if this is overturned, I think you'll see the legislature address it again in the next session," he noted. "We can't legislate morality but certainly we can stop these games from being sold in Louisiana, getting into the hands of our children. It's the least we could do."
I guess they aren't not doing what they are accused of doing.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Don't like violent video games? Don't buy them. Don't want your kids to play violent video games? Don't buy them (why is your kid carrying around $60 in cash and alone at the mall, by the way?). Afraid of your kids playing violent games at a friend's house? Check with the friend's parents -- you should be, anyway.
Even if there is a correlation between violent video games and violence, removing the video games is not the answer. There's a correlation between driving cars and car accidents, too, but we don't ban cars. Education and parental involvement is the best solution, even if it is not the most direct or time efficient.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were a Louisiana senator, I'd be more concerned about global warming than violent videogames. The comment about Tom and Jerry in the article is spot on. Since when has America been upset by violence? I have a gut feeling that this is more about the sexual content of these games (hot coffee, prostitutes, etc) than their violent nature. But then again, what do I know. I'm just a student.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
They must be mad that they lost to Zangief . . .
http://zangla.ytmnd.com/
Since serial killers usually have a history of abusing animals, we should also ban Whack-a-Mole. After all, the more you beat them the more points you get. Someone call PETA!
"You know, once I killed my girlfriend for cheating on me by shooting her in the face, and I got 20,000 points!
Then I killed my next girlfriend for cheating on me -- with the same dude -- by slicing open her stomach and making her choke on her own guts, and I got SO MANY MORE POINTS!! It seriously had to be like 2,000,000. No joke."
C'mon, Louisiana. That's what you're worried about?!
There is no need for a Nanny State, if anything we need more laws making parents responsible for their children.
Did you know that you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...
have an adorable amount of faith in our legal system.
Ok so, they'll ban violent video games but real guns are a God given right? Are these the same people who talk about personal responsibility and holding the individual accountable?
"Adorable"? As in, cute? A "pink-ponies-with-red-polka-dots" level of trust in ol' Supremes?
Ooookay, whatever...
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Ok so from your post one can ascertain that there's:
Learned violence (virtual) that exists in games
and
Taught violence (movies music etc.) that shows violence to the influential in an often positive and often romaticized light.
Why try and ban one version while embracing the other?
Then why don't we detain theatre actors that ever had a role as a criminal or ban any plays that may include those? And why don't we make sure to do something about that organization that teaches our kids to kill, you know, the "US Army". Let's arrest all soldiers that get released from the army because they are potential killers! Ban bootcamps! Ban martial arts training! Ban firing ranges!
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
You go out and kill people as violently as you can because you score more points.
It's easy to tell when a person talking about video games has no idea what they're talking about. They talk about "scoring points." The 1980's called. They want their game and joke format back.
Property is theft.
Wait, you mean, they do!?
Hmm... maybe this isn't as stupid a law as most knee-jerk Slashdotters want to think it is.
Written books with diagrams and pictures aren't like word-of-mouth. They're visual. You don't listen about how a character beats up a hooker - you internally visualize the character and watch them to beat up a hooker with your own hands.
These book-burning laws aren't as ridiculous as most Slashdotters want to believe.
((I *do* hope the moderators pick up on the sarcasm here...))
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Did you ever notice that the Christian extremist nutjobs, who are constantly talking about how video games are 'training kids to kill' and 'making a new generation of serial killers', are the exact same ones who think being in the military is the best thing any person, regardless of potential, can do?
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
> These laws aren't as ridiculous as most Slashdotters want to believe.
They're pretty ridiculous, I'm afraid. The fact is, the vast majority of people who've beaten up hookers - to use your example - haven't played Grand Theft Auto, and the vast majority of people who've played Grand Theft Auto haven't beaten up hookers. While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, the lack of a clear causal link in this case makes the assertions of those supporting this legislation spurious.
John Stewart's comments following Lee Terry's remarks are by far the most cogent I've heard on the subject. The solution to problems involving children is not, by and large, the interference of an impersonal government, but the involvement of a loving parent. Unfortunately, we can't legislate that, so politicos whose goals are more style than substance cast about for unreal solutions to real problems, to present the appearance of solving problems which are momentarily insoluable.
Yeah, video games don't really make people into killer! I mean, if they did, then the Army would be using them to train soliders to kill people!
Yes and the Army uses books and blackboards, too!
The "games" the military uses are gun range simulators and situational drills aimed specifically at breaking down the natural resistance to killing. These are nothing like the stuff you can get in a store for 50$. Never mind that you don't learn how to kill in a game. Plenty of videogamers can't even hit a barn when they are handed their assault rifle and told to shoot at the targets on the screen.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
You can't legislate aesthetics. However, I have come to accept utility as distinct from either one, though it appears to be a mixture of both. But that begs the question. which is some variant of "What can/should be legislated?"
DAMMIT PEOPLE, stop trying to parent for us and just tell the parents to do it themselves! This is NOT what we pay you taxes for!
Someone call Tiger Woods and let him know that he'd be better if he played more videogames and spent less time on the course..
Looks like the next Eddie VanHalen will come from the 'Guitar Hero' playing basements and not the garage.
Have enough faith that the speech portion of the 1st amendment, which is fairly clear and defended pretty damn consistantly even by the 'conservative' members of SCOTUS, that things will work out alright...that is, if they don't fall for that 'games aren't expression' crap. Oh wait: tech issue, new medium, crotchedy old justices. Damn, maybe we are screwed all along.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Actually they do use very big expensive fancy video games. I've been in them. Tank driving simulator and complete tank simulator with movement simulation and whatnot, graphics are rudimentary by todays standards though. The building looked neat as hell though on the inside!
And what about sports? Take american football. Is having kids putting on helmets and slamming into each better than playing a violent video game? You don't control or visualize a character beating up hookers, but you actually...oh wait, you don't.
But it's still more violent.
And then there are all of those future slashdotters. What do they do when the football players join the army and kill people or start asking for tech support? Why, they play violent video games. As you can see, people who play violent video games become harmless, but a little pathetic, a rather sad situation.
GAMES DO NOT TRAIN YOU TO KILL. Firing a gun by pressing 'Circle' on a controller and pulling the trigger on a heavy rifle with recoil are not and will never be the same thing. Hell, even 'Sniper Scope' in the arcades is total bullshit because there's more to firing a weapon than just pointing it in the right direction.
The best a game can do is desensitize a person, and I've yet to meet anyone who compares snapping an animal's neck (or similiar method of execution) akin to completing a video game's mission. People 'die' in games to reduce the polygon count, not because they want to teach how to kill (and the last time I checked, whacking someone with an ottsel was not life-threatening).
This may all seem a bit silly, but it is worth putting into context. Of course, rebuilding shattered economies, school systems and fixing levees is just too boring for these goons. In addition to this ridiculous game legislation, in the recent session, they also considered implementing a ban on cockfighting. This is still legal in Louisiana, as chickens are not animals under State law, as a matter of definition. However, in the end it was decided that cockfighting could remain legal, because to ban it would be too much of a hardship on rural economies. Then, towards the end of the session they passed a bill that made abortion illegal in Louisiana, under almost any circumstances (including rape and incest). Needless to say, this law has no effect, due to Roe vs. Wade, but clearly this legislation was a good use of their time. In the light of these other legislative initiatives, the game legislation is small beer by comparison. As we say in Louisiana, "we have the best politicians money can buy"!
The Army uses video games as training tools to reduce reaction times. Play Doom3, have demons jump out at you, shoot them to survive. Your shock-reaction time will drop significantly.
Hello! Hello! Paging Mr. Katz! This is your cue ...
(flamebait)
. . . . that rising ocean levels will wipe out the majority of Louisiana. Hopefully, the majority of these politicos & bible bangers will remain on the coast to pray against the next category 5 hurricane. To bad we have to lose Nawlins (great town), but after all, gotta break a few eggs (free speech? free market? freedom of expression? sane lawmaking?) to make an omlet (bans on harsh video games, ridiculous abortion laws that are unconstitutional before they are signed into law, an apalling tax structure, and the most evil police force in the 50 states.)
Good fucking riddance. You're not welcome any where else, either, because on the whole (and I'm guessing the people responsible for the idiotic law making are the following demographic) you are lazy, stupid, and abuse your children, financially and developmentally.
(/flamebait)
I understand I'm generalizing, but, statistically, I've found that good old Louisiana's "stupid motherfucker quotient" is higher than just about anywhere else in the world.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Their rationalizations are as follows:
It is trivial to rip apart these points blindfolded. The video games he is referring to aren't available on the market, period. In the mean time, it nets in the Rainbow Six series as collateral damage since supressing terrorism is considered violent.
If he is instead attempting to refer to GTA3, then he's obviously attempting something shady - especially since killing enough officers causes the SWAT and National Guard to get involved, and especially since there is no rape in the game at all.
"[Assistant Attorney General Burton] Guidry added that the law is 'not going to curtail the free speech of anybody,' but then he used the old 'games are training kids to kill' argument. 'This is more than speech. This is truly training for violence," he said. 'You assume the character of a mass murderer. You go out and kill people as violently as you can because you score more points."
So it's not alright to play a virtual good/bad guy and kill people, but it IS alright to watch movies and TV shows that portray the same thing? Whether we're playing as a car thief murdering hookers (ah, the good times), or playing an actual portrayal of a World War 2 soldier killing Germans, it's still violent.
I, for one, grew up playing games like NARCs and Double Dragon, eventually GTA and Manhunt. The only thing that has trained me to kill is my volunteering for military service. Video games had no negative bearing on my development, in fact I'd say that letting out some aggression in a virtual manner benefitted me (and potentially others whom I may have lashed out against had I not diverted myself) in certain times of anger or depression.
Gaming is an outlet, a diversion. Some people write journals, some people drink, some people turn to other methods of distraction. Point being: everyone's got their vice. Young or old, male or female, we all need something to get away from the realities that we can't always handle head-on. Why should these politicians have a say in things that should be taken care of at the parental level? Teach kids the difference between fictional violence and real world right and wrong. Instill them with proper morals and ethics and they'll be much better off that if we just make some stupid laws prohibiting them from ever making their own decisions. Educate them. People need to stop pawning off their bad parenting to what is in video games and other media.
That raises my final question. Have any of these lawmakers actually played the games they so fervently stand against? They might actually enjoy it if they gave it a chance.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Different?
Oh yes, sorry, my mistake...no-one gets hurts playing video games...bad games...Oh, games allow you to think for yourself and how you do things for yourself...Yes, very bad...
Army ok, games not? Huh? You keep doing what your told and shooting who we tell you too...That's right...good boys...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
If we don't train the soldiers of tomorrow to kill, the terrorists will win. Guidry, are you on Osama bin Laden's payroll? You sir, are a traitor. I am disgusted and outraged. You should be put on trial for your traitorous actions.