Slashdot Mirror


Ban On Louisiana Video Game Law Now Permanent

Carl Carlson writes "A Louisiana judge has issued a permanent injunction against a Louisiana law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The law was crafted by video game dilettante Jack Thompson and took a slightly different approach to the issue of regulating video game sales. Rep. Roy Burrell (R) and Jack Thompson had research that purported to show a causative link between playing violent video games and real-world violence entered into the legislative record in an attempt to buttress the legislation's shaky credentials. In addition, the law adapted the Miller obscenity test to the realm of violent video games."

186 comments

  1. Woot! by Kingrames · · Score: 5, Funny

    We win!

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And by "we", you of course mean the organization whose lawyers got the bill struck down, namely the Entertainment Software Association, whose members include Vivendi/Universal (hello RIAA), Microsoft (Who do you want to screw today?), Sony (this rootkit might sting a little), and Electronic Arts (nuff sed).

      Mmmmmm, ironyburger.

    2. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Joke about it all you like, but the causal link between violent videogames and violent crime is well proven.

    3. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that site was good tiems
      back in the day

      tu bad all the quoids are
      either dead or in prison

    4. Re:Woot! by aardvark007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What do you mean 'we win'? Who wins? I don't understand why so many people are hell-bent on violence in this (American) culture. What makes a violent video game incomparable to an 'R' rated movie or sexually explicit material (which both cannot be sold to minors)? The only entities winning here are the corporations making money by selling to a larger audience. Meanwhile another generation of violence-exposed-to kids will turn into violence-loving adults. But anyway, the whole 'violent video games make people violent' argument aside, I fail to see why video games are placed in an untouchable category regarding law when other media and substances like alcohol have strict age limits. I fail to see how anyone 'wins' either.

      If the law went into place or stood in place the games could still be sold to parents who can choose what to expose their children to. That seems like a winning situation to me. Giving kids rights to buy all kinds of explicitly violent games before they may be old enough to understand the implications (whatever you think they may or may not be) seems like a losing situation to me.

    5. Re:Woot! by Admiral+Frosty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its the parents responsibility, first and foremost. The idea of using the government as a crutch will only encourage people not to think on their own.

    6. Re:Woot! by CrashPoint · · Score: 1
      What makes a violent video game incomparable to an 'R' rated movie or sexually explicit material (which both cannot be sold to minors)?

      I fail to see why video games are placed in an untouchable category regarding law when other media and substances like alcohol have strict age limits.

      You are wrong. An R-rated movie can in fact be legally sold to minors. Most stores have policies against doing so (just as they do against selling M-rated games to minors), but no law forbids it.

    7. Re:Woot! by SQLz · · Score: 2, Funny
      and Electronic Arts (nuff sed).

      What does sed has to do with EA?

    8. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      well u see sed can be used
      to substitute

      kind of like how EA
      changes good game
      companys into shitty ones

    9. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Its the parents responsibility, first and foremost."

      It'd be nice if this were only true.

      Pretty much if you live in the states, your parents work. I don't have all my stats here (I have them in chart from from census data at work), but around 90% of all kids have at least one parent working. More than half have two parents in the force. Most of these are not folks that just want to work, but have to. Since the mid80s, the 40 hour work week has expanded to 45+, and not just for yuppie middle managers. If you can't get the job done in 40 hours, you stay until its done. Walmart was just sued for requiring many employees to clock out at 39hrs, but were working these folks up to 60hrs. The employees won the suit...everything I hear from folks in this field state that the practices haven't stopped -- Walmart already paid the overtime fee and don't expect the gov't to do anything about it again for another 10 years, in which time, they will have made their money back in whatever fine / lawsuit came up (the lawsuit ended up with a fraction of what was truly owed to these people).

      Parents don't / can't spend the time needed with their children. When they have the time, they are worn out / exhausted. I hate the idea of a nanny state as much as the next guy, and I don't believe in censorship for adults, but given that a government's entire role is to mandate the areas of society that need to be regulated but are not self-regulating, someone had to take the responsibility. Children that are not taken care of by their parents, either by negligence or because they are in a catch-22 (you stay home to take care of them, but can't because you don't have a job, or have a job and spend no time), but those children that are not taken care of by their parents become societies problems. Society created the situation in the first place. Gov't is a mirror of society.

      Beyond this, psychology shows without a doubt that male children exposed to either violent tv or violent videogames seem to be deeply influenced by this entertainment. For some reason, females exposed to the same media are not as influenced and those that are, the effects are fleeting. There is some believe that there is a gender difference that us men are hardwired to react to violence because it is a self-preservation technique. We know the developing mind stays active until between 18 and 21. Also a reason the anecdotal reasoning behind the drinking laws work -- your brain doesn't start to start working correctly until after this. Before that, it is in acquisition mode. It is being shaped. The experiences it picks up are how the brain expects it will have to deal with the rest of its life. If the kids are being exposed to violence, either simulated or real, that directly affects their brain and future life.

      Given the overwhelming evidence -- and yes, the evidence is in mostly 'theories', but the theories are as strong as those 'theories' people discount on items such as 'evolution' (and seemingly discounted by the people that think the far right are idiots for adhering to their religious dogma). But given this, I strongly support a ban on violent media that has no educational or otherwise redeeming value for those under 18. No, this isn't as strict as the Miller test but I think the bar should be lowered more than this when talking about children. For instance, I like pornography and I like some of the more deviant aspects of it. Hell, I don't even care if there is not a single redeeming piece to it as long as its done by legal adults.

      Parents want to buy this stuff for the kids? Cool. I can deal with that. But all in all, I'm glad their is public policy in this area. Jack Thompson is an idiot, he makes a mockery of lawyers, he needs to be disbarred. That doesn't make him wrong about these games being bad for children.

      Posted anonymously because I do work in public policy (and play GTA and recently CoD -- which to me is actually more disturbing, even if it comes off as a more 'patriotic' game). My opinions are my own, and not my employers. I disagree with my employer quite often, but I agree with them more than I disagree.

    10. Re:Woot! by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you mean 'we win'? Who wins? I don't understand why so many people are hell-bent on violence in this (American) culture. What makes a violent video game incomparable to an 'R' rated movie or sexually explicit material (which both cannot be sold to minors)? The only entities winning here are the corporations making money by selling to a larger audience. Meanwhile another generation of violence-exposed-to kids will turn into violence-loving adults. But anyway, the whole 'violent video games make people violent' argument aside, I fail to see why video games are placed in an untouchable category regarding law when other media and substances like alcohol have strict age limits. I fail to see how anyone 'wins' either.R rated movies can be sold to children. There is no law preventing this. There are conventions preventing this, adopted voluntarily by the stores.
      Other media are not in a different category. Substances are. And I think most people can observe a difference between chemical ingestion and media exposure. If the law went into place or stood in place the games could still be sold to parents who can choose what to expose their children to. That seems like a winning situation to me. Giving kids rights to buy all kinds of explicitly violent games before they may be old enough to understand the implications (whatever you think they may or may not be) seems like a losing situation to me.Those of us on the other side just prefer not to have free speech rights eroded. Parents still have plenty of control over what media their children are exposed to. If their ability to purchase the games is the gating factor on their exposure, you have a serious problem with how you're raising your children.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    11. Re:Woot! by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its the parents responsibility, first and foremost.
      Right! This law would require that parents (or some other adult) purchase the game if they think their kid should be allowed to play it. With this law, the parents had just a little bit more control of what kind of sludge gets fed into their kid's mind. Now that control has been handed over to a minimum wage, zit-faced 18-yr old at EB Games who could not care less about you or your children.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    12. Re:Woot! by wanion · · Score: 1

      Realistically, this is already the case. Children don't earn money, they are given it, usually by their parents.

      You could argue that other people could give the children money, but if you're going to go there then other people could just give them the games you're restricting in that case as well.

      Parents should have to take some responsibility for educating their children about what they believe is suitable for them. The idea that the government to take such a direct role in raising your children through legislation seems bizarre to me.

    13. Re:Woot! by houghi · · Score: 1
      The idea of using the government as a crutch will only encourage people not to think on their own.


      So can they buy porn? Can they buy cigarettes? Can they buy beer?
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Woot! by bwd234 · · Score: 0

      I started working at the age of 14. Yes, I was earning my own money and even paying taxes...of course I still wasn't allowed to vote.

    15. Re:Woot! by Duds · · Score: 1

      I disagree, I think it's very difficult to argue against a ban on sales TO MINORS. That's not censorship, that's just letting parents do their job.

      Of course the flip side to allowing this is that you need to allow anything in an adult rated game.

      People think the current American games law protects them from censorship when in fact it has the opposite affect. Fahrenheit (Indigo Propherchy) and Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas are just two of the games you can only buy in cut down form in America whereas in Britain, where *some* adult games are given legal ratings, both are available in their original forms.

    16. Re:Woot! by ynohoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well I never used to have too much trouble getting ahold of them when I was 14. Is it any different today?

      When I hear some politician whining about "our kids are being corrupted!", I want to ask them "how old were you when you had your first beer?".

      I worry more about how deeply embedded hypocrisy is in our society.

    17. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Restricting "R" rated movies is done entirely by the movie industry. It's not illegal for a 15 year old to go to an "R" rated movie, but the movie theatre people won't let them.

      Drugs and alcohol are legally restricted to people over 18 or 21 because there's a very real physical effect for using them. If you let a 12 year old drink and smoke cigarettes every day until they turn 18 there will be a negative effect every single time. If you let them play violent video games every day, they'll turn out fine 99.99999% of the time.

      If the law went into place or stood in place the games could still be sold to parents who can choose what to expose their children to. Giving kids rights to buy all kinds of explicitly violent games before they may be old enough to understand the implications (whatever you think they may or may not be) seems like a losing situation to me.

      Are you kidding me? Just because a kid is legally able to buy something, that doesn't dismiss the parents of any responsibility. If somebody doesn't want their kids playing violent video games, it's their responsibility, as parents, to take an active role in their kid's life, and make sure they don't play them. It's not the government's job to babysit.

      Has it occured to you that maybe that's the real problem? Not violent video games, movies, and music, but idiots hoping the government will raise their kids for them? But of course, that can't be the real problem, because that would actually require people to take responsible for their actions. And that would just be fucking terrible.

    18. Re:Woot! by Mindzai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was going to post in disagreement to this until I remembered that Hitler completed GTA in 12 hours, Charles Manson sat at #1 in the BF2 leaderboard for the best part of a year and Geoffery Dharma would play Doom 3 for days breaking only to chew on a foot. Or maybe that's bollocks and people were killing each other in a variety of gruesome ways for thousands of years before Computer Games and Cannibal Corpse came along.

    19. Re:Woot! by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Why should video games have more government restriction and regulation then movies? Oh thats right, because the who-screwed-up-the-kids? flavor of the month is video games.

    20. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's legal to sell porn movies to minors?

    21. Re:Woot! by Roogna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is. It IS true. Parents need to start taking responsibility for the children they have. And the government needs to not be passing laws designed to "make up" for parents who don't take responsibility, instead perhaps they should be holding parents responsible along with the children for their actions.

      Say what you will about parents being too busy, but I was raised by my Mom, who worked >40 hours a week (IT staff) my entire childhood. She also was always aware of what I was up to and took her role as parent very seriously. She knew what I was watching, she knew who I was spending time with, she knew what games I'd bought and was playing (because she made sure she was the one that bought them). She also did something that I see lacking from most parents these days, including families where one parent IS home with the children... she COMMUNICATED with me. She made sure to keep the dialog open at all times and to listen to what I was saying too.

      Meanwhile the friends I had with the most screwed up childhoods? One parent was always home, parents still married, parents completely self absorbed and ignoring their kids. Go figure.

    22. Re:Woot! by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      No we didn't!

      Did they lift the taboo surrounding tits yet?

    23. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Or maybe that's bollocks and people were killing each other in a variety of gruesome ways for thousands of years before Computer Games and Cannibal Corpse came along."

      Yes they have.

      And those that were a part of the culture of violence were sucked into it readily. Each one of those that you mentioned was influenced by violence in some way, be it media or direct participation with others.

      When Thompson calls GTA a 'murder simulator', he is entirely right. I'm personally glad it is cartoonie in nature because it pulls me out of the reality and into a puzzle that needs to be solved by the available rules (kill someone, steal their car, whatever...)

      That and some people will be antisocial for no visible reason what so ever...I had a friend that was a liberal christian that decided to run to Montana and join a militia. He dated outside his race in high school...one of our close circle of friends was African (Nigeria, not African-American). And now he belongs to a hateful separatist group and no one knows why.

      People find way of becoming evil and violent with no help what so ever. However, direct clinical studies have 'proven' that these games will bring out latent tendencies that seem to lurk in all of us. All in know is that the most visual violent game I had to deal with came out when I was 19 and it had an affect on me. Fortunately, the fact that you could only run around in a 2d world that simulated 3d meant that I could only kill people on the first floor (-: Most of us in our 30s were first introduced to realistic gaming like this with Doom and we quickly forget that we didn't have games this graphic as a youth (Mortal Combat with the pull the beating heart out finishing, not withstanding...and even that was so over the top cartoon violence that most of us laughed...) The younger crowd that has had these all their lives...there is a reason youth violence and the level of severity is increasing over the last 10 years.

      You think there is a reason the US Army is putting out propaganda gaming where you have a definite advantage over the enemies that follow strict rules? Its to get folks indoctrinated into the idea that killing is easy, though they wrap it in the 'patriotic', killing for your country is easy. They wouldn't have spent the 100+ Million so far to study this area if there wasn't a direct correlation.

      If you study this area, it is entirely easy to see the research is correct. But again, getting gamers to believe this is like getting Christians to believe evolution exists.

      Again, I love games like this...sometimes I'll play this stuff to avoid going into work and beating the shit out of rightwing 'christians' that want to spew their hate (note the christian is in quotes). Makes for a better workplace. However, if these games didn't exist, I think I would have simply found a better place to work without the idiots.

      As for Cannibal Corpse, yeah, personally I think they are so bad that they can't influence anyone except the most unstable. I've seen them at least once...I'm thinking I might have seen them opening for Sloppy Seconds at one point as well (or the other way around)...they are so bad they actually bore me...kind like Gwar is starting to do with the same act played over and over and over for 20 years...

      Anonymous for the reasons shown above. And again, I'm not anti-video games, or anti-violence. I just don't think the youth should be allowed to determine their level of involvement without parental interaction. This isn't the government regulating that kids can't play this stuff, its regulating that they must involve their parents to some extent first.

    24. Re:Woot! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What do you mean 'we win'? Who wins?

      Those of us who value our freedom win.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    25. Re:Woot! by Mindzai · · Score: 1

      You make some interesting points, however I take the basic theme of your argument to be "certain people will exhibit violent tendancies when influenced in some form". (Please forgive me if i'm misinterpreting what you're saying).

      I would certainly agree with that, however I would still argue that this is no basis banning these cultural influences. Taking that argument to the extreme would lead to practically everything being banned. In my mind it would be like uniformly banning cars because some people drive dangerously.

      There is a limit to how much we can censor because the huge HUGE minority are negatively influenced. Even if we were to go down this route, there are far more dangerous influences (imo) likely to encourage unwarranted violence than games and heavy metal. George Bush for one.

      Btw, I hate Cannibal Corpse too, I just mention them as they pretty much embody what most people consider 'Evil, Satan-worshipping Death Metal'.

    26. Re:Woot! by bhalter80 · · Score: 1

      If the parents buy the game or not they should be aware of what their kids are playing. When I was in elementary school I used to trade Nintendo cartridges with my friends all the time, play the game for a week and move on. I assume the same thing happens today so even if a parent has to buy a game for their kid it doesn't mean that my kid (who I won't buy the game for) can't simply borrow it from a friend who has more permissive parents. So while I can see some benefit to parents having to make the initial purchase I think its negledgable compared to parents being aware of what their kids are playing and finding enough diversion for them so that they can separate video games from reality.

    27. Re:Woot! by amuro98 · · Score: 1

      Wah wah wah. Parents are too busy to take care of their children now a days.

      THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING KIDS.

      My dad worked 2 jobs. My mom was working on her masters degree (which in itself is more than a 40hr/week job)

      They had 3 kids.

      We had to get permission before going to see a movie or buying any video game (parents wouldn't buy us games - we had to buy them ourselves) - but first, we had to have finished our homework.

      Spending too much time playing games or watching TV wasn't normally an issue as our parents made sure we were involved with a number of extra-curricular activities, as well as going to camp 2-3 weeks each summer.

      Stop sticking up for the screw-ups. If people aren't willing to take an interest in their child's upbringing by spending TIME and ENERGY on them, they should do the rest of society a favor and get sterilized. No one said raising a kid was going to be easy, but simply blaming others is a habit I really wish our country learn to break.

    28. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parents don't / can't spend the time needed with their children.

      Parents who can't spent the time needed with their children are unfit parents.

      The point of being a parent is to put the interests of the children first, and to ensure, regardless of personal cost, that your children have a good upbringing and grow up to be healthy, responsible, law abiding citizens.

      If these people can't or won't do that, they shouldn't raise children at all. Child-raising is a responsiblity not to be entered into lightly, nor without adequate resources, nor without adedquate commitment.

      Society created the situation in the first place. Gov't is a mirror of society.

      And often, vice-versa.

      Instead of demonizing nudity or depictions of violence, perhaps the government should spend more tax dollars dealing with the real problem: unfit parents. If there were greater consequences to being bad parents, perhaps people would take good parenting more seriously. Currently, it's very difficult to have custody rights revoked, and parents have such wide latitude over their children that abuses are easy to get away with; over 95% of all cases of child abuse involve parents or close relatives.

      Given the overwhelming evidence -- and yes, the evidence is in mostly 'theories', but the theories are as strong as those 'theories' people discount on items such as 'evolution'

      Please don't even try to suggest that such psychological studies are done with the same level of scientific rigour that the physical or biological sciences are subject to. They're simply not comparable. Psychology has little more scientific credibility than astrology; and equal numbers of blind supporters.

      I strongly support a ban on violent media that has no educational or otherwise redeeming value for those under 18

      Why don't we just agree to ban everything that has "no redeeming value"? Or, you know, we could support free speech; not just personal bias.

    29. Re:Woot! by joystickgenie · · Score: 1

      No you can't. However you would be very hard presses to find any game that has the content of pornographic movies in stores anywhere in the US. Even if you could those games would already fall under preexisting pornography laws based on their content.

    30. Re:Woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(Please forgive me if i'm misinterpreting what you're saying)"

      Actually, I'm not stating a minority of the people exhibit violent tendencies, I'm saying a large majority of people are influenced negatively by these games.

      Do they go out and kill someone? No, but they might be more willing to push someone that gets in their way, cut someone of in traffic, punch a bully on the playground as opposed to finding an adult and having them stop the escalation of violence.

      And again, this is going towards a restriction within youth. I don't believe in a nanny state where adults are effected. Once you are an adult, you are on your own...I'm sick of these individuals that claim they did one act or another because they were raised wrong. Sure, it is most likely true, but it this point, you've got to take responsibility over your own actions.

      Banning cars would have a negative impact on society...it might have a positive effect on the environment and otherwise, but our society demands it. I live 3 miles from where I work. It costs more to live in a downtown metropolitan area, but I do so because I don't want to drive any more than I have to. My religious 'christian' idiot co-workers have no problem driving their SUVs into work, regardless of the distance. I have a 15 year old car that gets great mileage, yet you'll see my bike in my office most days. Society is a culturally relative norm, and as such, banning cars would have an impact of the negative sorts...where as banning the sales of violent games to minors would have no negative impact. Yes, there will be an impact, but it would be almost a null sum because those hindered by the law are balanced by the parents that gain from it (i.e., if the parents want their kids to have this stuff, they can just buy it for them...the law doesn't, nor shouldn't stop them...my dad dropped a stack of playboys on my bed when I was 13 and said theres yer birds and bees...there'll be a test, so start reading...no law against that either, even if I couldn't buy it myself at the time).

      But there is a measurable impact on most people that enjoy this media, and as such, there should be something regulating it.

      As for Bushie...you are right. I find it immensely immoral that a large percentage of our citizens coming home in body bags are under the age of 21. If I had it my way, the only people fighting wars would be old white men forced out of their offices. Their the ones that overwhelming support it, so why not. Vote for someone that gives a strong indication that they will go to war, you get to fight it yourself.

      All in all, I study this stuff. I look at numbers, charts and otherwise. Had to sit through boring classes learning things like Life Span Development. Not very fun. Get to sit there listen to police chiefs tell their side of the story, citizens in the community telling the other side, and then I get to look at stats and help people understand it from a less biased, and less emotional point of view. Almost never does anyone agree with the scientist in the room, and I get shit on by both ends. And thats when I know I'm doing my job.

      As I said, I like these games, and understand why the youth are attracted to them. Fine, they can speak to their parents, or sneak over to homes of friends whose parents don't care. Part of growing up is breaking the rules, but more importantly, figuring out which rules you want to break. I disagreed with my parents quite a bit, but there were certain core values that I didn't break simply because I loved them.

      BTW -- my mother was a videogame freak herself...she probably would have bought me these games herself, with the understanding that they get put away every so often. Then again, her idea of fun was sitting there with a pocket full of quarters in the arcade monitoring the kids while she played pacman and digdug. I also remember her slapping my best friend upside the head (and his mom did the same after he complained to her) for using the term "Beat That N*gger Down" while

    31. Re:Woot! by joystickgenie · · Score: 1

      No children can not buy pornographic material. However you would be very hard presses to find any game that has the content of pornographic movies in stores anywhere in the US. Even if you could those games would already fall under preexisting pornography laws based on their content.

      And comparing video games to alcohol and tobacco is a ridiculous argument. Video games are pieces of media and lumping them together with a controlled addictive substance that is being regulated due to physical health concerns is absurd. They are fundamental different things

    32. Re:Woot! by Surt · · Score: 1

      Certainly, if your porn is r-rated, and not obscene.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    33. Re:Woot! by JCota · · Score: 1
      I work in an Electronics store so I see a lot of thngs happen. I see kids attempting to buy a mature rated game only to be stopped at the register by a store policy, not a law. When ever we attempt to legislate morality we break a persons right to free speech and I am one of those people that I strongly motivated by this quote:

      "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it" - Voltiare So to me i believe that if someone wants to play a video game and they have the money let them play, video games leading to violence is not true, however a proper education can solve a lot of problems. maybe those legislators should fix that before they worry about games.
  2. Maybe I'm missing something... by AcidArrow · · Score: 1

    ...but isn't there already a system that makes it so that minors can't play some games? I'm not sure how it's in the US but the eruopean PEGI system works just fine here.

    1. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      We have a rating system in Australia I guess, but is it enforced? If you go to the games wizards or the EB, I dont know whether they'll refuse to sell you the game if you don't meet the age requirements.

    2. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      For our international readers, no the USA has no enforcement of the ESRB ratings system. Some stores on their own have an ID checking policy, and some stores that market to kids just altogether refuse to sell M-rated or AO-rated games, but there is no uniform standard.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...but isn't there already a system that makes it so that minors can't play some games?

      Yes. Here in the United States, parents have say over their children's disposable income, and are able to veto what they spend it on. Furthermore, they can limit their children's access to the television and to the gaming system, and have to power to check to see what games their kids are playing and to take it away, or even punish the child in other ways if they're playing a game that the parent doesn't approve of.

      Heehee. I'm kidding, of course. No, there's no system.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    4. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by AcidArrow · · Score: 1

      The PEGI ratings are not really enforced here either, but usually a kid buys something with their parent, so it's their responsibility to check on the rating. Furthermore how many 12 year olds have enough allowance to buy a game on their own? Sure a 16 year old, can and will be able to buy a 18+ game, but.... big deal.

    5. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ESRB in the States is a completely industry-run endeavor. So far the government has done very little (if anything) in relation to it, but stores try to inforce it with ID measures, etc. For the most part, it works fairly well (even though some people would want you to believe otherwise), and if the kids' parents actually cared to monitor what their kids were playing, then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

    6. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Whether or not they do I believe is unimportant. Is there a law forcing EB or games wizards to enforce the ratings?

    7. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by mordors9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man was I glad you added that last paragraph. I was on my way to the phone to make a child abuse complaint to child protective services in your area.....

    8. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 3, Funny
      ...but isn't there already a system that makes it so that minors can't play some games? I'm not sure how it's in the US but the eruopean PEGI system works just fine here.


      yes, except here we call it parenting. unfortunately, that system doesn't seem to work too well. or at least, its awfully inconvenient.
      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    9. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      hey, wait a second... that sounds like it would require effort

    10. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by alshithead · · Score: 1

      I understand your sarcasm but you do of course actually have it right. IF more parents were doing a better job then it would be a moot issue.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    11. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason the system you speak of appears so ineffective is because parents these days could care less what video games their children play and how it may affect their children's lifestyles. Otherwise, this system is completely flawless.

    12. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've bought my 12 year old son loads of *18* games. Counterstrike was 18, so was BF2142 I think. Quake 4 was too old for him too apparently, but he has no problems.

      On the other hand I rejected the GTA series as soon as I saw it.

      It's called being sensible, it's not hard.

    13. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 1

      The 12 year olds quickly discover that they just need to beg their parents long enough to get GTA. I've seen plenty of parents get 17+ (M rated) games for their young children. Their rationale seems to be that their kids have seen it all before from television.

    14. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only reason the system you speak of appears so ineffective is because parents these days could care less what video games their children play and how it may affect their children's lifestyles.

      Then the system is working exactly as intended. The whole point is for the parents to apply whatever standards matter enough to them. It isn't a failure or "ineffective" just because they have different priorities to the ones that you would like to enforce.
    15. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      usually a kid buys something with their parent, so it's their responsibility to check on the rating.

      You can be pretty damn sure that a kid won't buy the game when his parents are around and likely won't agree with the purchase.

      Furthermore how many 12 year olds have enough allowance to buy a game on their own?

      Games can get pretty damn cheap if you wait for them to pop up in the bargain bin. When I was at that age I bought very few full price games.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    16. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think simply telling the kids they aren't allowed to play those games is the right approach. Banning something only increases their desire to get it (remember, kids ALWAYS try to rebell against their parents). The kids need to understand WHY you don't want them playing those games*. And better yet, they should be able to tell right from wrong and real from virtual by the time they actually encounter videogames.

      *=Randomly reminds me of when my parents told me not to play a game called Zaxxon because I pronounced that like Sexxon and they thought that's what the game is about as they've never seen the game itself. It's a simple isometric shmup, actually.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny
      The 12 year olds quickly discover that they just need to beg their parents long enough to get GTA.
      My 12 year old will get GTA only when he proves he can handle it by bringing me a stolen car with the corpse of a prostitute in the boot.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    18. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.

      Yeah, I know. My backspace and C-w keys are broken, so all typos are the dog's fault, not mine!

      --
      My other car is first.
    19. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about C-u? Some browsers let you delete the whole line with them. ;) (And there's of course, select-and-type-whatever to delete the selection.)

    20. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CounterStrike & BF for a 12 year old?
      Nice, in 6 years your son will be ready for Iraq...

    21. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it was called being responsible, which apparently some parents have a problem with...

    22. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by amuro98 · · Score: 1

      There is a rating system (ESRB.org) but apparentally too many folks don't know about it, and don't bother reading the package.

      I can't tell you how many times I've seen some excited youngster clearly under the age of 10 (much less 16) hand his mom or dad a game like GTA3, DOOM3, COD2, etc., only to have said parent put it into their basket without even looking at it.

      In fact, I remember hearing about some idiotic grandmother wanting to sue Rockstar over the 'hot coffee' incident because she bought what she thought was a "wholesome" game for her 12 year old grandson. Did grandma ever stop to wonder what that large "RATED "M" FOR MATURE" sticker meant? Or how a game called "Grand Theft Auto" was somehow a good game for a 12 year old?

      The stores in California are required - by law - to now have large ESRB signs posted prominenantly in their game ailses. This includes at least one 5 foot tall carboard display illustrating what each rating means, as well as countless smaller signs/stickers stuck to the shelves, and other information.

      Despite this, the stores, just like movie theaters, are not required to enforce the ratings. There are some exceptions, but for the most part, so long as the kid has the pay, he'll get to play. Oh, I know chains like WalMart and Toys R Us say they try not to sell the more violent games, but you'll still find violent Teen and Mature rated games on their shelves.

    23. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by amuro98 · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised actually... The 10 year old daughter of one of my wife's friends doesn't get an allowance, but basically can her parents to buy her anything she wants. I think it's a small miracle that she hasn't become a totally spoiled brat. According to the daughter, her classmates get around $50/mo in allowance! (remember these are 10 year olds and not from particularly rich families either!)

    24. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Why the difference for GTA? Just curious.. I don't see any difference in the GTA compared to the other games and i've played all of them... they all have graphic violence and level of sexual scenes/images (if you've seen some of the "wall sprays" in CS you'll know what I mean)?

    25. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      you can't generally snipe at hookers and drug dealers in counterstrike.....

    26. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      No you can just snipe at SAS and SEAL team members. Difference?

      Or is it something about killing Special forces officers is more noble than hookers or drug dealers?

    27. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      Alert! We have a nit-picker! Stand back, he's gonna blow!!!!

    28. Re:Maybe I'm missing something... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      So you are making decisions about what's right for your kid when the difference is akin to "picking nits". Good luck with that...

  3. So... by zigziggityzoo · · Score: 1

    So...kids have rights now? How long before they get cell phones in high schools, drink when they go to war (18), etc.?

    --
    Zing!
    1. Re:So... by aaza · · Score: 5, Informative
      drink when they go to war (18), etc

      Back when Australia had a war-draft, and the drinking age was 21, a number of people complained. The complaint was that young men could be asked by their country to go to a different country, and be shot at, yet when they got home, they couldn't go and have a beer with their mates. The proposition was to raise the draft age to 21, or lower the drinking age to 18.

      Young men in Australia have been drinking in pubs from age 18 for a good long while now...

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    2. Re:So... by Braino420 · · Score: 1
      drink when they go to war (18), etc.?
      You know, I keep hearing this same argument. "If you are able to die for your country you should be able to drink." Well, the truth is, if you are in the service, the drinking age is 18. So long as you are on the military base. They actually have tried to bump it down to 18 several times, but kids kept driving drunk. It's not so much that they can't make the right decisions, which obviously they can't, it's more a safety issue for everyone else.
      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    3. Re:So... by Swift(void) · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason to praise and remember the Anzacs!

    4. Re:So... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 0

      The proposition was to raise the draft age to 21, or lower the drinking age to 18.
      Young men in Australia have been drinking in pubs from age 18 for a good long while now...


      Looks like the wrong choice was made.

    5. Re:So... by bogjobber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the exact same thing happened in most US states in the 60's and 70's. The problem was in the 80's our Greatest President Ever and the wonderful fascists over at MADD decided that alcohol was a terrible, terrible thing. They then proceeded to push a hideous, horrible, and all around despicable law that blackmailed states into accepting a 21 year old drinking age (and also conveniently skirted around that whole Constitution thing). This was of course accompanied by talk of "blood borders" between states with different drinking ages and many cries of "think of the children."

    6. Re:So... by eyeball · · Score: 3, Funny

      Back when Australia had a war-draft, and the drinking age was 21, a number of people complained. The complaint was that young men could be asked by their country to go to a different country, and be shot at, yet when they got home, they couldn't go and have a beer with their mates. The proposition was to raise the draft age to 21, or lower the drinking age to 18.

      Young men in Australia have been drinking in pubs from age 18 for a good long while now...


      So Fosters won the war I take it?

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    7. Re:So... by vought · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And now MADD wants breathinterlock on every car.

      Enjoy the pain, America.

    8. Re:So... by louisadkins · · Score: 1

      From my experience, and memory, the legal drinking age had very little to nothing to do with whether a kid drove drunk, if they were the type of person to actually get behind the wheel of a car/truck/SUV while still under the influence. I wish they would focus more on enforcing/encouraging a sense of responsibility and maturity where alcohol (among other things) is concerned. The USA tends to find this a difficult task, though, usually falling back to an attempt to control the situation through legislation, and hoping that age (or religion) will temper a person.. These are not sure things by any stretch.

    9. Re:So... by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Really? Well, that might have been true back in the 70's or early 80's. However now, post commander have to abide by USC Title 10 Section 2683 which requires the minimum drinking age on a military installation to be at least equal to the drinking age of the state in which the installation resides. This was further codified in DoD Directive 1015.2,

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In the US, the complaint was solved by allowing soldiers to drink and smoke when off duty but at the base.

      Didn't really make anyone happy, but it put an end to the complaint :p

    11. Re:So... by jagdish · · Score: 1

      Was this during the Australian-American war?

    12. Re:So... by Kirth · · Score: 1

      My goddess, ist that anal. Drinking age 18. Here in Europe its mostly 16 (for beer and wine, 18 for spirits).

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    13. Re:So... by micpp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fosters: Australian for the kangaroo piss we export to Yanks.

    14. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So...kids have rights now? How long before they get cell phones in high schools, drink when they go to war (18), etc.?


      18 year olds who go to war can drink. If you are 18 and in the military, you can drink on post legally. Unless things have changed in the six months since I left the military...

      So, if you are 18 and you want to drink, go see your recruiter, or are your rights not worth fighting for?

    15. Re:So... by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      The Dutch had to deal with (in chronological order, but not exclusively):
      - The Romans
      - The Franks
      - The Spanish (not just the Inquisition)
      - The French
      - The Germans

      Since then we've made it legal for 16 year old kids to drink, so that when a war comes around when they are 18, they are too legless to refuse to shoot.

    16. Re:So... by toxicity69 · · Score: 1

      IIRC there was a similar issue in the USA during Vietnam; the drinking age as a result for the duration of the war was lowered to 18. After the war it was put back up to 21 because of a "mountain of evidence" that American teenagers loved to drink and drive and get in crashes. Not totally unbelievable I suppose....most of my American friends have driven drunk at least once, whereas when I was in the UK everyone would get a taxi home....and there, of course. I had a friend who's dad was fortunate to have turned 18 at the time of the age going to 18, then 21 when it turned back to 21.

  4. Why? by alexjohnc3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact that it became a law in the first place is kind of disturbing. Why should a judge even have to bother stopping this? Well, at least everything turned out good in the end, especially since Jack Thompson is probably pissed off that his attempts at stopping people from accessing anything that is at all violent have failed once again.

    1. Re:Why? by eonlabs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At this point Jack Thompson is making such a public ass of himself that its pushing the government to build some interesting techie legislation. I bet that the laws that are passed or banned now in response to Yack are going to provide some interesting obstacles for future laws that actually could have meant something.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    2. Re:Why? by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why should a judge even have to bother stopping this?Because your politicians have bought into Thompson's propaganda.

    3. Re:Why? by donaldm · · Score: 1

      Even though I am not an American I do sympathise because other countries do have lawmakers continually trying to bring in laws for what they perceive as the "public good" (I am being nice here) even though to the average person the new or proposed law is stupid, unworkable or just another step in reducing basic human rights.

      There is a saying which in many ways is even more relevant today. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", since the motto for some lawmakers or lobbyists is, "if at first you don't succeed then try, try again".

      You are right this is very disturbing and I only think it will get worse.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    4. Re:Why? by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I bet that the laws that are passed or banned by the non technical legislature and non technical judiciary will not interfere with them passing other laws that can and probably will contradict the earlier ones. See the Constitution vs. the Government for more on that one. The problem with laws in general is not that the Hammuribian system of codification is flawed, but that the people who want to be in control and make the laws are by definition greedy and power hungry, and therefore are the least qualified to do so.

      As for your sig, many cyborgs, actually. Half my family has electronic implants of some kind which work in conjunction with their natural body (e.g. pacemakers, artificial cornea lenses, artificial limbs (they do gtaft them on sometimes) etc.) How many where the modifications enhance an existing faculty? None.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    5. Re:Why? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Modern American politics -- and presumably in other countries -- is at least partly predicated on the idea that politicians propose stupid laws that sound attractive to stupid people, to get elected, and then when those stupid laws are overturned on constitutional ground by the judges, the politicians are freed of any responsibility, so retain their popularity with the stupid people.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  5. Put down the hay-lo and pick up a real gun, son by Brill · · Score: 5, Funny

    Too young to buy a game, but old enough to join the army?

    1. Re:Put down the hay-lo and pick up a real gun, son by Brill · · Score: 1

      err, I mean now kids can train before they join the army

    2. Re:Put down the hay-lo and pick up a real gun, son by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Actually, you would need to be 18 to buy the game or have your parent's permission (they buy it for you), just as you have to be 18 to join the army without your parents permission.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  6. A Lawyer's Title by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow, that's a confusing title, a ban on a law made permanent. At first I read it as the law banning [certain] video games was now perminent. Then, after I cleaned up after the spit-take, I read it as a permanent video game law [as in constitutional amendment] being banned. Took three tries to read it as a video game law being banned permanently.

    Did they pull that thing out of a software licence or am I just sleep deprived?

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:A Lawyer's Title by RsG · · Score: 1

      What? It doesn't not make sense to me. :-)

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:A Lawyer's Title by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      I read it as, "Ban on Louisiana Video Game; Law Now Permanent."

    3. Re:A Lawyer's Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I never heard of a law being "banned" .. maybe blocked or repealed or ammended or something.

      I can imagine a little piece of paper or certificate with the word "LAW" across the top, on train out of the city, a single tear falling from its eye.. "I've been BANNED from Louisiana for LIFE!!"

      Or does that mean they can just change one word in the law, now it's a different law, and start all over again? Is it like an MD5 hash? b113a585f179b742421fa4cd42e00b8e is banned, but 0f898db33202155d8f6b852b75ded439 can squeak by?

    4. Re:A Lawyer's Title by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Not "Ban on Louisiana; Video Game Law Now Permanent"? :-)

  7. Nobody every "wins". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One can never "win" when it comes to situations like these. It takes eternal vigilance to ensure that future legislation is not passed that has many of the same restrictions as this struck-down law has.

    The moment you think you've "won", that's the moment you're most vulnerable.

    1. Re:Nobody every "wins". by Kingrames · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean, like at the end of Return of the Jedi, when the rebels and ewoks were all celebrating and dancing and whatnot while the wreckage of the Death Star II was burning up in the atmosphere, destroying the entire supply of breathable air? ...crap.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    2. Re:Nobody every "wins". by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      That would have killed all the Ewoks. We still win.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:Nobody every "wins". by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      It takes eternal vigilance to ensure that future legislation is not passed that has many of the same restrictions as this struck-down law has.

      yeah, but the more these laws get struck down in various states, the easier it is to strike them down elsewhere because the precedent is set.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  8. Title Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not only is the Slashdot article misleading, but so is the Ars Technica article!

    They make it sound like the ban was legit.

    1. Re:Title Misleading by ouroboros1827 · · Score: 1

      Too bad most readers see 'video game law' and 'permanent' together in the same sentence to mean 'bad'.

      In short, Louisiana Judge told down Jack Thompson. Similar to what the Illinois judge did.

      Video Games - 1
      Jack Thompson - 0

  9. Forget the hurricanes and flooding..... by dt_aybabtu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Way to go for Louisiana yet again...why worry about protecting the state from flooding when you can "protect the kids" and pass bad legislation.

    1. Re:Forget the hurricanes and flooding..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, just because they spend time trying to draft this law doesn't mean they can't also work on more important things. Or to rephrase without the double-negative, they can focus on "protecting the kids" and flooding at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive. (Yes, the video game law is probably not the most important thing to spend time on, but lets be reasonable here.)

  10. Miller obscenity test?! by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 5, Informative
    Holy shit! What the fuck is that? Jesus...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

    --
    52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    1. Re:Miller obscenity test?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Hicks:
      'Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes
      sexual thoughts, that's their definition, essentially. No artistic merit,
      causes sexual thoughts. Hmm... Sounds like...every commercial on television,
      doesn't it? You know, when I see those two twins on that Doublemint commercial?
      I'm not thinking of gum. I am thinking of chewing, so maybe that's the
      connection they're trying to make.'

    2. Re:Miller obscenity test?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail this fucking thing every god damn time.

  11. Tired... by lazycam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is anyone else tired of people attacking our freedom of speech and expression? I for one am glad the courts are still on our side. Separation of powers at work.

    --
    my mom posts on slashdot.
    1. Re:Tired... by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 1

      The courts are on the side of whichever party has more money. In this case, the Video Games industry is worth $7 billion US, though sales in Louisiana are I imagine only a small fraction of that.

    2. Re:Tired... by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

      How does requiring kids to have their parent's buy a video game limit their expression? It may limit the purchasing power of the minors, but the freedom to buy is not the freedom of speech. There is no law forbidding these kids from dressing up in women's clothes and protesting on the steps of their capitol building.

      Remember, this didn't ban the game. It banned 10 year olds from buying Postal2 or GTA. If they could talk their parents (or any other adult for that matter) into buying the game, no problem. It gave parents just a bit more control over what kids do. It is their responsibility, after all

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  12. Let's go after the really damaging stuff! by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Vegitales and Barney do far more damage than violent video games. I've never been disturbed by any video game ever but Barney freaks they hell out of me. Could you imagine the damage Vegitales could do if the viewer happened to have just dropped acid? We just need to ban the right things. Overly religious vegitables and purple blob dinosaurs would be at the top of my list. Drunks used to see pink elephants. What do you have to take to see purple dinosaurs? These are dangerous people producing dangerous and disturbing products. They must be stopped!

    1. Re:Let's go after the really damaging stuff! by popeye44 · · Score: 1

      thanks for the idea.. I never thought of watching veggitales while frying.. hehe

      --
      Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
    2. Re:Let's go after the really damaging stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Could you imagine the damage Vegitales could do if the viewer happened to have just dropped acid?

      For a similar experience without actually dropping acid, try watching the teletubbies.

  13. Accept Responsibility! by wolf_lord2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet another attempt to stop young people from buying violent video games. And why? Because it is making them violent... What a load of garbage, GAMES are for entertainment purposes and granted some take them too seriously... like my Neverwinter Nights addiction. BUT the point is that you can't keep blaming violence in society on games, and if a child buys a game that their parents deem 'too violent' why don't the parents take it away from them?? There are too many violent influences, but in the end it is the responsibility of the individual to decide if they are going to shoot someone in real life or not. So, let's stop passing the buck and take responsibility for our own actions. Next thing we will hear is someone wanting control of games such as 'World Poker Tournament' because it MADE them have a gambling problem.

    1. Re:Accept Responsibility! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Did your parents know everything you were doing at 13? Didn't you have a hiding spot your 'rents didn't know about? Hell, I was smoking pot at 13, you think I couldn't sneak out a buy a video game without their knowledge?

      You say it the parent's responsibility, and you are correct. Why not make the parents decide if their kids can have this game or not?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Accept Responsibility! by wolf_lord2002 · · Score: 1

      I did sneak a lot of things when I was that age, but my parents always found out. If you can live in a house where your children can keep secrets from you for a long time... you have to start questioning your parenting.
      Also, if the children could play their games without their parents knowing it would beg the question 'Where are the parents?'
      Don't get me wrong, I am not having a go at parents, i am just stressing that it is their responsibility BEFORE the salesperson. So if the parents don't want their children playing the games, the PARENTS can take measures of control. And if the parents don't mind who are we to say if it is right or wrong?

    3. Re:Accept Responsibility! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      My point was that this is a tool to help parents, not take their job over. If parents don't mind their kids playing these games, great! They can go buy them for their kids or at least go to the store with them.

      Personally, me and my daughter are going to be taking on parent-child teams throughout my family in no holds barred deathmatch competitions. "Great head-shot honey! Next time, try a frag-grenade, it's cooler to seem turn to jibs." I have nothing against violent games, I just don't want my daughter being able to buy them without me being there, just like I don't want her buying R-rated movies, cigarettes, liquor, dirty magazines or much of anything else. I can't be with her all the time. She will spend time at Grandma's and her Uncle Howard who will gladly give her that last $10 she needs to by that copy of GTA, not knowing what GTA is. The idea is that if they go to the store with her and see the "you must be 18 or over to buy this game" sign, maybe they'll stop and ask questions that they otherwise would not have considered. Now I'm a geek, I know what GTA is, but very few parents and grandparents do. Most parents won't think twice about giving their money for their kids to buy that "racin' game GTA".

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Accept Responsibility! by wolf_lord2002 · · Score: 1

      My apologies, thank you for going a little more in depth there. I do think that the ratings advice on games should be heeded, but if sold to a minor, not illegal! Thank you again... you have now made me a fence-sitter on this one!

  14. Super mirrors by marko123 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There looks like there could be a link between what we see on media and our actions, and the mirroring of the behaviour we see may not necessarily even be conscious. Tell me this effect would be lessened during the playing of an actual game. I want to believe it doesn't have an effect, but...

    (From edge.org, http://edge.org/q2006/q06_print.html )
    MARCO IACOBONI
    Neuroscientist; Director, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Lab, UCLA

    Media Violence Induces Imitative Violence: The Problem With Super Mirrors

    Media violence induces imitative violence. If true, this idea is dangerous for at least two main reasons. First, because its implications are highly relevant to the issue of freedom of speech. Second, because it suggests that our rational autonomy is much more limited than we like to think. This idea is especially dangerous now, because we have discovered a plausible neural mechanism that can explain why observing violence induces imitative violence. Moreover, the properties of this neural mechanism -- the human mirror neuron system -- suggest that imitative violence may not always be a consciously mediated process. The argument for protecting even harmful speech (intended in a broad sense, including movies and videogames) has typically been that the effects of speech are always under the mental intermediation of the listener/viewer. If there is a plausible neurobiological mechanism that suggests that such intermediate step can be by-passed, this argument is no longer valid.

    For more than 50 years behavioral data have suggested that media violence induces violent behavior in the observers. Meta-data show that the effect size of media violence is much larger than the effect size of calcium intake on bone mass, or of asbestos exposure to cancer. Still, the behavioral data have been criticized. How is that possible? Two main types of data have been invoked. Controlled laboratory experiments and correlational studies assessing types of media consumed and violent behavior. The lab data have been criticized on the account of not having enough ecological validity, whereas the correlational data have been criticized on the account that they have no explanatory power. Here, as a neuroscientist who is studying the human mirror neuron system and its relations to imitation, I want to focus on a recent neuroscience discovery that may explain why the strong imitative tendencies that humans have may lead them to imitative violence when exposed to media violence.

    Mirror neurons are cells located in the premotor cortex, the part of the brain relevant to the planning, selection and execution of actions. In the ventral sector of the premotor cortex there are cells that fire in relation to specific goal-related motor acts, such as grasping, holding, tearing, and bringing to the mouth. Surprisingly, a subset of these cells -- what we call mirror neurons -- also fire when we observe somebody else performing the same action. The behavior of these cells seems to suggest that the observer is looking at her/his own actions reflected by a mirror, while watching somebody else's actions. My group has also shown in several studies that human mirror neuron areas are critical to imitation. There is also evidence that the activation of this neural system is fairly automatic, thus suggesting that it may by-pass conscious mediation. Moreover, mirror neurons also code the intention associated with observed actions, even though there is not a one-to-one mapping between actions and intentions (I can grasp a cup because I want to drink or because I want to put it in the dishwasher). This suggests that this system can indeed code sequences of action (i.e., what happens after I grasp the cup), even though only one action in the sequence has been observed.

    Some years ago, when we still were a very small group of neuroscientists studying mirror neurons and we were just starting investigating the role of mirror neurons in intention understanding, we discussed the possi

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    1. Re:Super mirrors by Yartrebo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it always assumed that adults are somehow immune to the effects of violent games/TV/movies while kids will be horribly warped by it?

      Personally, I feel that there is some truth to the nasty media -> bad effects meme, but it effects adults too, and the type of content is far more important than rough metrics like violent scenes per hour.

      My gut feeling is that verbal violence (which usually does not involve curse words) and displays of disrespect have a far greater impact on people. It's both far more prevalent and much easier to imitate/believe than physical violence. "Saved by the Bell" is quite likely to bend many teenagers' beliefs towards conformity (more rigid gender roles, more focus on social rank, etc.). "Pokemon" has bent many kids towards materialist/consumerist views. "Star Trek: The Next Generation", despite showing people die and other forms of violence, is unlikely to engender either pro-violence/pro-militarist or antisocial behavior. Even "Power Rangers" probably has fairly muted effects since it's pretty devoid of any real substance.

    2. Re:Super mirrors by cliffski · · Score: 1

      Glad to see someone else thinking it may have an effect. I love video games, heck, I make them for a living (check the sig), and I mow down a lot of people in Battlefield 2. I'm pretty sure it *does* affect me though. Of course it does. How can we accept that a passive visual medium (advertising) massively affects the population as a whole (not only is it economically clear this is true, but I advertise myself and know it works), but assert that an interactive visual medium that often gives rewards for violent actions (games) somehow has no effect?

      I'm not saying violent games should be banned, but should we prevent very young kids from playing them? I think we should. Its all very well saying 'leave it to the parents', but most parents equate games with super mario or pong, they have no idea whats in GTA and its ilk. Nor will they read any labels or warnings.

      I'd much rather gamers learnt to accept that not *all* video games are suitable for *all* ages. There is no shortage of non violent (or low-violence) games that kids can enjoy, they don't have to go straight from kindergarten to soldier of fortune.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    3. Re:Super mirrors by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Even "Power Rangers" probably has fairly muted effects since it's pretty devoid of any real substance.

      I'm always amazed at the number of people that believe violence has no effect on children. I'm not sure if this is mass ignorance or willful action to ignore what's obvious to anyone that cares to look. We had to stop our children from watching Power Rangers because our oldest would start beating the crap out of our youngest immediately after watching that show...almost every time. The preferred method of harm was kicking. In the show, the preferred method of attach was kicking. Hmmm. Without the influence of the show, the violence stopped. Hmmm. But obviously that was not an influence.

      Simple fact is, kids emulate what they see. I see the degradation of our society on a daily basis...in what I believe to be result of things like video games. Chances are, you do to, but simply don't recognize it. When I was growing up, it was rare for others to enjoy the pain of others. People would rush to aid and share in their pain. These days, if they are under 25, I usually see people rolling on their backs laughing while bone is popping out. To them, someone else's pain is truly something to relish. Take a look on various video sites and watch some videos created by young people. It is shocking how much these losers enjoy the physical pain of others. Hell, look at America's Funniest Videos. Most of their clips are nothing but people being physically injured and people think it's the funniest thing they have ever seen. The vast majority of these types of clips are not even funny. Seriously, is someone working on a roof and falling off funny? Yet something has taught these people that injury to others is funny and should be enjoyed. This is not by accident.

      The long of the short, we are ALL influenced by our environment. Period. This is a well established fact.

      To be absoluete clear here, I am by no means saying that violence in video games is directly causing kids to mass murder, etc. It doesn't work like that for healthy humans. What I am saying, these types environmental factors influence everyone and you can easily see the negative social impact its making on the current generation; in my opinion anyways.

      What we know:
      Environmental factors influence the development of humans - especially during early development.
      Commonly, these days, violence is a large part of young humans.
      This means violence is a known influence in their life and is having *some* effect; more than likely negative.

      Lastly, sciences which document social behaviors is very difficult. Things which are inheritly obvious to even the causual observer are still terribly difficult to scientifically document and support because the number of factors are so large and the human brain so complex. So just because it can not be scientifically proven there exists a direct link does not mean such a link does not exist.

      In other words, the ONLY real question at this point, how many kids are negatively effected and what effect is it really having on the kid. Those that say there exist no impact are simply in denial as science already disproves that position.

  15. Proof violent gaming doesn't make violent gamers by jimhill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't play video games but I'd say a convincing argument can be made that playing violent games doesn't turn people into violent offenders. Namely, that none of these people has mowed down ol' Jack with a bazooka or GTO.

    --
    Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
  16. Is this really a good thing? by Beefysworld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, I'm one of the many anti-Jack Thompson people around... I can't stand the way in which he is going about his 'crusade' against video games. However, is enforcing game classifications in regards to selling to minors such a bad thing? Seeing as many people (read: parents) don't seem to have much control or responsibility over what their kids are buying / doing, perhaps it's time that the retail sector did enforce these things.

    Here in Australia, kids are asked for identification when they are purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, or when they go to an MA15+ or R18+ rated movie... why not carry that over to games? If a parent is happy for a kid to have the game, then they can go and buy it for them.

    1. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Shados · · Score: 1

      It might be, if games were rated well. As it is now, a videogame with content that would -barely- make a movie PG13, gets a flat M rating. I mean come on, Prince of Persia: Two Thrones is M. Thats rediculous.

    2. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they are asked for ID (In Australia) when they try and get M games. Or at least I was. I had to get dad to get HL2 Aftermath for me. :(

    3. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The battling I've experienced in Zelda:TP (T) is surpassed by some animated Disney movies (G). Only the most realistically violent FPS games I've played are even comparable to what's on the news some nights - while I agree that they should be rated M, I think some news stories are worthy of an R rating (or MA for television I guess; I never watch TV so don't know the ratings well). Having said that, I don't really care for the idea of parents V-chipping out the news (as if anyone uses those things).

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    4. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      My issue (which extends to movies and TV too) is that every person has different values. In particular, mine aren't terribly typical and I find the rating systems to be quite poor.

      In my view, "Pokemon" should get an R rating, mostly for its highly effective pro-materialist content. The trouble caused to parents, schools, and society at large far outweighs any entertainment value.

    5. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Surt · · Score: 1

      In the US we have very strong feelings about erosion of the freedom of speech.
      That's why our movie rating system is only voluntarily enforced by the theaters, not legally enforced.
      We'd be perfectly content to have all stores voluntarily enforce the ratings system, but no store in the US is going to be the first mover on that issue and lose all their sales.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Is this really a good thing? by Sarisar · · Score: 1

      Well considering there have been several examples of children being robbed by another child for their pokemon cards, why hasn't Jack gone off on one about them?

    7. Re:Is this really a good thing? by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      Because in the USA, NO ratings on entertainments are government enforced. From videogames to film, they are all voluntary systems that the industries enforce. Because of this, singling out videogames is simply a moral panic like previous ones over rock and roll and other things. Because no other ratings for entertainment are government enforced, to single out games would require a mountain of incontravertable evidence which simply doesn't exist.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  17. Scapegoats? by vivin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Causative Link? Bullshit!

    People want to find a damn scapegoat for everything. First it was "Violence on TV", then there's "Heavy Metal Music"! Oh my god! Will someone please think of the children! Seriously... you can get more violence in some religious texts than on TV, or Music. Computer Games, TV, or Music don't make people want to commit violence. This was used as an excuse for Columbine.

    The fact is that we can owe it to either bad parenting, or maybe a more obvious fact. Homo sapiens is a territorial, aggressive, war-like species. For all our intelligence, we still like to beat the crap out of each other. This is obvious perhaps in more individuals than others.

    So stop trying to find things to blame. Making laws are not going to make us less violent.

    --
    Vivin Suresh Paliath
    http://vivin.net

    I like
    1. Re:Scapegoats? by scoot80 · · Score: 2, Funny

      For an instant I thought you said "spacegoat".. People want to find a damn spacegoat??? Geez, is that why we are sending all those rockets into space.. its all about the space goats!!!..

    2. Re:Scapegoats? by Courageous · · Score: 3, Funny

      .. you can get more violence in some religious texts than on TV, ...
      -------------------

      I've never heard of a TV show that actually makes rape sound like a good thing. And yes, the bible does do that.

      C//

    3. Re:Scapegoats? by alphafoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I never put much faith in the idea that voilent video games help make kids into killers until I read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Killing, which discusses in a systematic and well-referenced manner exactly what the armed forces have done since the Civil War to increase the firing rate of their infantrymen.

      Firing rate? Contrary to what you may think of the typical Civil War battlefield, most soldiers did not fire their weapons. On a big field running with blood, cannons booming and everyone screaming, most soldiers would not fire a single shot. Battles would end with literally thousands upon thousands of loaded muskets on the ground. Fast forward to WWII, where we have the image of brave American soliders firing automatic weapons under terrible conditions. The nonfiring rate among infantrymen was 80-85%. Further, only 1% of airmen accounted for over 40% of all downed enemy aircraft. Most pilots did not shoot anyone down or even try to.

      The Army decided to look into this. What they found out is that people generally don't want to kill anybody, and would often rather die themselves, even in battle when they are scared to death, than shoot someone. Not that the soldiers were cowards. On the contrary, the same soldiers that would not fire a shot would repeatedly take terrible risks to rescue a wounded comrad. But the Army wanted them to pull the trigger and hit something, and they figured out how. The only way someone that scared would be able to do anything in that situation is if they had been subject to operant conditioning. They would need to program the soldier's midbrain to fire the weapon, since the forebrain is no longer in use under that much stress. They began to make training as realistic as possible in terms of exposure to violence, and make the thought/action of killing part of a soldier's reflex, so that when the bullets started flying, the American soldier would respond.

      It worked. During Korea the nonfiring rate among infantrymen dropped to 45%, and by Vietnam it was an amazing 5-10%, meaning that nearly every infantryman fired his weapon. The American infantryman had become a killer on the battlefield, and only later did the Army realize that fully 98% of soldiers who experience close combat and pull the trigger would be psychiatric casualties. The 2% that weren't mentally crippled are people who, outside the military, would be locked up.

      The author makes an excellent study of how this sort of operant conditioning for violence exists outside the military, in movies and video games. Before you knee-jerk and say that violent video games have no impact on the children who play them hours and hours a day, and who then go watch violent movies and television on top of that, you should check out this book. It's hard to dismiss the data out of hand.

      And as for religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an, the violence preached in them does condition people to behave violently, if these people read the words over and over and internalize them as fundamental truths. This is just what video games might be doing according to this author.

    4. Re:Scapegoats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But none of that relates to people being violent.

      Video games, movies, martial arts, and the military have made me a well oiled machine and a very efficient killer, but the cold hard fact is that my psychological profile gives me a 2(50 being normal) on my violent indicator score.

      It isn't possible for someone to have had a longer experience to violent first person shooters than me besides people that actually work at ID software testing the original wolfenstein.

      Working in a team to efficient kill was trained in me over 2400 baud modems in Cyberstrike on GEnie.

      If video games and the military make people violent why am I not violent? Why have I never hurt anyone since the 4th grade? When I was 6 I bit a kid that tried to take my ball.. When I was 9 I was attacked by 2 bullies on the bus who were 2 grades above me and I fought them off but didn't chase when they ran.. Since then I have managed to defend myself from every other engagement with another human without causing them any harm whatsoever. People that have attacked me have been injured, but its usually from breaking their fist trying to punch me in the back of the head or missing me and hitting a wall.

      The Army is my job, sometimes we engage and fire on the enemy.. but it isn't like my blood is pulsing and i'm out of control. Your average football player is more psyched up and out of control than the men in my platoon. It is just a job and we are good at it, we don't go around smashing heads because we like to or even want to.. Calm and control is something the video game generation exhibit better than the generations before.

      When you are calm and in control you are able to think and use your frontal lobes when faced with a possibly violent situation, you know the harm you can cause by pulling the trigger or stabbing with a knife. You know the person has families and people that care about them, untrained killers don't have time to think about this because they are under control of primitive fight or flight instincts.

      I think people like Jack Thompson and their views are more responsible for violence than anything else. When someone does something violent, Mr Thompson doesn't blame them for their actions and would instead blame TV, rap, rock, video games, or even Satan or something silly. People need to be taught cause and effect and understand consequence for their actions. If you kill someone they die and you go to jail, is it worth whatever reason you wanted to kill them for.. when you THINK about it the answer is almost always no.

    5. Re:Scapegoats? by SamSim · · Score: 1
      First it was "Violence on TV", then there's "Heavy Metal Music"!

      Don't forget comic books!

    6. Re:Scapegoats? by houghi · · Score: 1
      Causative Link? Bullshit!


      What I always wonder about is that if people are not influenced by what they see, but make good judgement every day, why is there so much advertisement on TV? That influences people.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:Scapegoats? by rar · · Score: 1

      I agree that connecting video games and 'training to pull the trigger' does not prove that video games turns someone into a more violent person. However, as usual, you cannot argue general principles by giving circumstantial evidence (even when the evidence involves yourself...). Furthermore, you might be joking or something, because I just don't see how these statements work together:

      ... Since then I have managed to defend myself from every other engagement with another human without causing them any harm whatsoever.

      The Army is my job, sometimes we engage and fire on the enemy..

      So you fire weapons at people, but have never hit anyone? Or what? Does that really make you a non-violent person?

    8. Re:Scapegoats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You play a contact sport are you a violent person? You do martial arts are you a violent person? Knowing how to kill someone and being able to do it doesnt mean you are a violent person. It means you have the capacity for it. Trying to point to one thing and say its that things fault that this kid/man/woman/person whatever is messed up is retarded. How often is it only 1 thing that causes problems? Its usually a culmination of little things that causes people to act outside the norm. Course dont go by the norm else half of the people on this site are complete losers.

    9. Re:Scapegoats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Grossmans book really says is that people arent by nature attuned to large, centrally organized killing. Hell, the Romans knew that, and took advantage of it.

      It has no implications whatsoever that violence is not innate (it most certainly is), even though he (Grossman) himself seems to think so. Thats dangerously close to some kind of noble savage bullshit.

      Humans are individualistic, and in general will not risk themselves for the sake of a group unless it is or ~appears to be~ of an individual benefit to themselves or their families to do so. All his study shows is that soldiers in the US are humans like all others throughout time - they ask, 'Why am I risking my life or killing these guys for ~you~?'

      His book in no way shows that humans are non-violent by nature, on the contrary: his book shows that in order for large, centrally organized wars to be waged, armies/govts etc have to get the perspective in soldiers minds that its in their self interest to fight. They have to harness a soldiers ~innate~ capacity for violence to the ends of the artificial central body. They have to connect that soldiers self interest, something he ~will~ kill or die for, to the interests of whatever govt/army that soldier belongs to. The only thing unnatural about centrally organized warfare is that its centrally organized.

      Military training in the US pre-WW2 had little if any war games or actual practice of group warfare. No wonder they didnt shoot. The Civil War was even worse, most soldiers had no training at all beyond shooting ducks/geese/deer. They were thrown into a group and told to follow orders. The american military only has had its modern reputation ~since~ WW2, before that our military was considered nothing much more than a bunch of hay-seeds.

      Play a football game with players who just praticed skills over and over, or just played pick up games and never played a practice game together; theyll lose. Does that indicate that team sports are not an innate activity??

      Grossmans book in many ways is just one big stating-the-obvious-as-if-it-were-a-profound-disco very thingy; its just as much of a twist of critical thinking and the scientific method as Intelligent Design. Grossman has a philosophical (thus religous) viewpoint he selectively looks for facts to prove; he does ~not~ look at all the facts and then develop a viewpoint.

    10. Re:Scapegoats? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      We had a student shooting up his school over here in Germany, just a couple weeks ago. It was found out that he'd been a softair player and had set up a website where he posed with his guns along with texts on which people he wanted to kill. That website and forum posts of similar content have been on the net for several years. People who knew him noted a sudden change in behaviour about a year ago. All signs point to someone who had severe mental issues for years.

      Of course, after the amok run the media was quick to point out that he played Counterstrike. They also pointed out that Counterstrike has lots of blood (he played the German version which has no blood) and had the killing of hostages as one goal (both sides lose points for killing hostages).

      I'm really thinking about writing a letter to the BILD (Europe's biggest tabloid; Germany-based) asking for action to be taken to preotect our children from dangerous rock music like the stuff the Rolling Stones produce.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    11. Re:Scapegoats? by refriedchicken · · Score: 1, Interesting

      OK, but this is reactionary conditioning...If being shot at in the middle of chaos, shoot back. It is about the "appropriate" reaction to a situation. Games like GTA (personally can't stand the game) rarely have what I consider to be realistic daily engagements. When was the last time you where doing a job for a mob boss and the FBI was chasing you? And if you where, then I have got some news for you, you are violent and it started before you played the game. Now if you asked if the games could desensitise you? I would agree that they can and probably do (especially as they get more realistic looking), but no more than the news media that goes out of its way to show the most horrific and graphic footage it can.

    12. Re:Scapegoats? by mcsestretch · · Score: 0

      You forgot D&D. There for a while, it was the evil Dungeons & Dragons that was causing all of the violence.

      It'll always be something.

    13. Re:Scapegoats? by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Advertising works because it usually does not get us to go beyond our moral standing or ask us to forfeit our ethics (our actual morals and ethics, not our professed ones). Most people have no moral standing on which brand of detergent they use, or what brand of sandwich meat they eat, and many other things. So they allow that to influence them.

      For example, I have a cousin who honestly believes all GM made cares suck. No amount of advertising will convince him otherwise. He will not allow it to influence him otherwise.

      Also, violence in entertainment settings (be it books, movies, music, art, games, etc.) does not usually influence people to think it is bad because it is not reality and most people can figure that out.

      For example, I've read lots of books about war, I've seen movies about it, and I've played games with war as a central focus. For reasons I have not yet solidified, Call of Duty made me appreciate war more than any other influence in my life. By appreciate, I mean I came to respect the dangers inherent in it, the risks, the lives lost, the sorrow, the grief, the heartache, and the pains associated with it, as well as the certainty and gravity of death. All this from a game where I can just respawn after dying and move on. Did it influence me? Yes, but it did so in ways that have made me more fearful of violence. Does Unreal Tournament do the same for me? Not one bit, but it also doesn't now, nor did it ever, make me want to commit any sort of violent act.




      ...though if I did, I would be expect to hear "Flak Monkey!!!"

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    14. Re:Scapegoats? by skorch · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but as compelling as the argument posed in this book may be, there is a fundamental psychological difference between realistically simulating violence for the purposes of training killers, and realistically simulating violence for the purposes of entertainment. The big psychological difference is context. When you go to the military, and they sit you down in front of a violent simulator and ask you to imagine killing real people, your state of mind will be placing real people in those pixels and in those silhouettes (another one of the big revolutions in raising the firing rate in military training by the way, switching to silhouette targets verses the traditional circular bullseyes). While you are mentally preparing yourself to kill people while playing the games or running the simulations, your brain is hard at work associating those images with real people you will eventually be facing with real lives, and learning to dessociate them from actual consequences of violence.

      However, when you're playing a videogame for purely entertainment purposes, you could be going through exactly the same motions, but your state of mind is different. You're not thinking about how you'll have to be doing this for real, and you're not mentally preparing yourself to eventually have to kill real people. To you, all the simulated violence you're participating in is just that, a meaningless and inconsequential simulation. All the simulated "people" you're killing don't have real lives, jobs, and families to worry about. You're causing no real pain to empathize with. When the game turns off, all the digital world resets and no real or permanent harm is done. Only when training to be a professional killer do you deliberately consider these things while participating in these excercises (or learn to suppress these questions when participating in the real thing).

      Unless of course you're already depraved, and you are deliberately playing games to "train" yourself to be a killer. But if you're already at that point, then you were messed up long before videogames got a hold of you. There are things in life that cause people to want to cause real pain, suffering, and death that are far more influential than anything designed for entertainment can do.

    15. Re:Scapegoats? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "And as for religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an, the violence preached in them does condition people to behave violently"

      If you are talking about the old testament I would agree, the new testament (christian teachings) does not preach violence, in fact the exact opposite.

      Of course many horrid things have been done in the name of christianity but the same could be said about freedom or democracy.

    16. Re:Scapegoats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are talking about the old testament I would agree, the new testament (christian teachings) does not preach violence, in fact the exact opposite.

      Have you read Luke 19:27 lately? Quotes Jesus as calling for killing.

    17. Re:Scapegoats? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      You have misread that passage, he is telling a parable of a man with many servants whom he entrusted with Talents (gold) and how the man said he would take those who had been unfaithful to him and slay them.

      Jesus never advocated killing anyone, if you wish to equate the division of the faithful and unfaithful on judgement day with a call to kill those who oppose Jesus before that day, well that I would say that is your call... but you would be wrong.

  18. Is it just me.. by popeye44 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or does anyone else here want to stalk Jack Thompson and everytime you see him whip out some violent video game and play it until he leaves? better yet.. bring along my 5 year old and call of duty 2 hehe.

    --
    Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
  19. Anybody know if the state has to pay legal fees? by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    I'd love to be able to write an opinion to a few papers in the state, reminding everyone to thank our legislature for the unanimous (wasn't it?) approval of this clear violation of the Constitution that will cost the state to spend money when we can least afford frivolous expenditures, and mocking the "Think of the children!" crowd.

  20. "Permanent" injunction by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Permanent injunction does not mean "forever." It is simply an injunction granted after a complete hearing on the merits, as opposed to a preliminary injunction, which is granted before a trial if you show a "reasonable likelihood of success" and other things, like irreparable harm.

    --
    What?
  21. Make love, not war by swell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Am I the only one who thinks it odd that children can enjoy all the murder and mayhem that the entertainment industry can dump on them, but god forbid they should see a bare breast!

    Is this part of a military conspiracy that wants them for cannon fodder, and fears that a healthy sex drive might make children avoid the latest Republican adventures overseas?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:Make love, not war by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks it odd that children can enjoy all the murder and mayhem that the entertainment industry can dump on them, but god forbid they should see a bare breast!

      Is this part of a military conspiracy that wants them for cannon fodder, and fears that a healthy sex drive might make children avoid the latest Republican adventures overseas?


      I agree with you, but as a Republican, I can tell you that this is not a Republican thing. Don't be a troll and blame everything you don't like on Republicans.

      Wasn't it Tipper Gore that started this whole thing in the 80's. I had no idea she was a Republican.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Make love, not war by NATIK · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "Zomg nakid peeple r scary" way of thought is pretty much american, here in Denmark we can see naked people in movies and series on public tv in the primetime quite often and no one complains, we save the hardcore stuff for after midnight but the rest is shown at all times of day. I think you can thank the religious crowd for removing all things involving naked people from your tv. Again here in denmark religion is not widely practiced, it is mostly older people (as in around 70 years old or more) and Muslims that actually care about religion the rest are Atheist or have some sort of personal belief that dosnt follow christianity.

    3. Re:Make love, not war by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Tipper Gore that started this whole thing in the 80's. I had no idea she was a Republican.

      Democrats == republicans. There's only one party in this country, and you're a fool if you think anything will really change after the last election.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  22. youth crime by UltimApe · · Score: 1

    youth crime is at a 30 year low
    games have always been violent.

    this points to me that there is not a viable corrilation.

    --
    "Infecting minds with my own memetic virus, one post at a time." Ultimape
  23. After everything, why bother? by ishmalius · · Score: 1

    After last year, when the state was smushed by God's finger of Doom, why would this even be on the radar? Why would anyone care? I can't believe that anyone is spending any energy or oxygen on something like this.

  24. confusing title.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not rename it to 'jack thompson - suck it' just to avoid confusing.

  25. American Academy of Pediatrics study. by fuego451 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cnn's Dr. Sanjay Gupta has a blog entry on a new study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics which says there is a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior.

    From the article:

    Now, for the first time, a study has probed deep in the brain to figure out what is really happening when teenagers play these violent video games. Researchers found that teenagers who played particularly violent video games showed more activation in an area of the brain called the amygdala. This is an area responsible for conflict response and emotional arousal.

    Unfortunately the post is pretty short on details and there are no links to the study. Interesting too that Dr. Gupta'a post was referring to 'children' but the tests were done on teenagers. I don't equate teenagers with children.

    1. Re:American Academy of Pediatrics study. by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cnn's Dr. Sanjay Gupta has a blog entry on a new study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics which says there is a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior.Of course there is. Violent people like to play violent video games. That doesn't mean a violent video game will make someone violent, they're violent before they play the video game.

    2. Re:American Academy of Pediatrics study. by alphafoo · · Score: 1

      There's a book called "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence", which will cite some studies for you. It's the same author who wrote On Killing, which I mention in this post. That book, too, has some interesting statistics that might surprise you.

      I am not advocating legislation as a way of dealing with violent video games, but it certainly makes sense to study the effects of them a bit more so that whatever decisions we do make are based on actual data and not just the deeply felt convictions of some moral busybody.

    3. Re:American Academy of Pediatrics study. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have more confidense in their study if there was a stated contrast to neuro activity when playing other types of games.

      When playing an NBA game do the same areas of the brain become active, or not? When playing FIFA soccer, do the same areas of the brain show activity, or not?

      The problem with this study, and others like it, is that as far as I am aware they fail to show that violent games - and violent games only - cause activity in this part of the brain.

    4. Re:American Academy of Pediatrics study. by Mr.+Sancho · · Score: 1

      I see what you are saying, and actually totally agree with it. I only wish when people used scientific studies to further a cause they would at least word them correctly, or even give us the study to look at... From what small amount i have been able to find on this i am lead to believe that the correlation was made by using brain scans while children (or teens, ??) played video games, and wow, the portions of the brain that modern scientists know are active during emotional states light up... um yeah, i could have come to that conclusion without a scan... but them actually being made more violent as a cause of the video game is a totally different story.. When you take brain scans of people that are playing music, an insane amount of brain activity goes off - this does not mean playing music makes people violent, or even more emotionally inclined.

    5. Re:American Academy of Pediatrics study. by Mr.+Sancho · · Score: 1

      Even if they were to contrast it and show that only violent video games light up these regions, it would not prove cause. When you are doing an activity that would stimulate the portions of the brain that control those functions, they will show activity more than when you are doing (or in your mind, ie video game) an activity that is not violent or aggressive, like soccer maybe (aggresive maybe but not violent).

      The thing is, even if that part of the brain shows activity, that is normal... That brain showing activity, and the people becoming more violent, are altogether totally different things. I can play a game that will stimulate those portions of my brain - that does not mean my personality will change and i will become more violent of a person - if it were that simple we would understand ALOT more about the human body.

      IE: It is factual that crime rates are higher on nights of the full moon. Does this mean that the full moon CAUSES crime??! But how would that be?! But it must, right, because the crime rate is up?.. it's a correlation... maybe cops see more crimes and make more arrests... maybe criminals take advantage of the lighting themselves... maybe it is a combination of both and many other extraneous factors - either way, you cannot take this information and scientifically state that the moon causes crime.

      Psychology is a roughly 200 year old science - seriously, only 200 years! Imagine how short of a time 200 years is, and how many years of scientists proving and disproving theories and even what they called "laws" that were struck down by what we BELIEVE today.

      Nothing pertaining to the brain which involves personality is as cut and dry as saying "The MRI scan shows that part lit up" - It is just not that simple, and they lead us to believe that it is... which in my opinion is bad science...

      Let us be honest with ourselves for one moment - a lot of people that read this site are gamers, or at least know many gamers. This is very very general, even stereotypical, but i am a self proclaimed gamer so stick with me... Think of out of all the hardcore gamers you know - how many would you call violent people? Of these that you would call violent people, looking at the person, would you speculate the violence they assert is due to video games, or possibly another portion of their life/biology/environment?

      I for one would suggest the public school system in America is more prone to having a cause and effect relationship on violent teenagers, or possibly the parents of the children themselves - but then again nobody looking at the problem from the perspective of the state or the parents want to credit themselves for violence, because they do not intend to create violent individuals... and the idea makes people defensive....

  26. I'm sorry by vought · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm from Louisiana. After moving here seveal months ago to attend to a family emergency, I've grown used to the state's warped-ness.

    I'm sorry. Never move here thiking you'll take a tech job. Never think that anything but either a mall job, an MCSE grunt, or a longshoreman's work awaits you.

    This state is hell. And it's the future of the nation if the last two presidential elections are any indication - declining public education, declining corporate interest, and declining intelligence.

    It might be the sportsman's paradise, but it sure is a geek's hell.

  27. Re:Proof violent gaming doesn't make violent gamer by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    It's really quite simple. There hasn't been violent video games since the year dot and yet times past were much more violent then now. Or are people going to try to claim that Ghengis Khan and Adolf Hitler played violent video games? Now myself, I play violent video games and yet you'll be hard pressed to find someone less violent then me. I imagine there are many people like myself.

  28. I believe... by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    I believe the technical term for such matters is "LOL, PWNED!".

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  29. True Causal Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd actually go so far as to say that there is a causal link between video games and violence.

    Being violent leads one to enjoy violent games.

    Really, wasn't that simple?

  30. You know what good this will do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Absolutely nothing.

    Indiana has a state law that states that it's also illegal to sell video games that are mature rated to minors.

    Does it stop them being sold?

    Nope..

    Parents who don't listen to sales people when they say whats in the game are the problem..

  31. Just make it 18 or older by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Just stop selling things to minors. Problem solved.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  32. This stops nothing. by hoy74 · · Score: 1

    I have seen kids go in and have their aunts/uncles/grandparents purchase the game for them for a present. I have seen it happen before me with one of the GTA titles, and I remember when I did the same thing with the Jerky Boys first CD back when I was in junior high.

  33. Just like beer?? by kphume · · Score: 1

    Since the ban on the sale of alcohol to minors has worked so well over the last 40 years. is there any doubt this will work???? Once again, parents are looking to the government to do the jobs they should be doing.

  34. Chronicles of Riddick said it best... by Kirin+Fenrir · · Score: 1

    "In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil."

    --
    Caffeine is my anti-drug!

    Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
  35. Firearms, Alcohol, Videogames... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    So the idea is that a child at 16 can drive a freakin' motor vehicle but cannot play a violent video game?

    Buh?

    They could just act out their violent fantasys with the auto...mow down a bunch of Wal*Mart shoppers in the parking lot and you'll get a lesser sentence than if you used a gun or knife!

    Lucky for us, that rarely happens.

    --
    Blar.
  36. Just wondering.... by Mr.+Sancho · · Score: 1

    Rep. Roy Burrell (R) and Jack Thompson had research that purported to show a causative link between playing violent video games and real-world violence Causative link, huh? Anyone have a link or know where i can come across this research? I am failing to understand how they could show a causative link.... My limited knowledge would lead me to believe an experiment attempting to make people more violent would be unethical if not military... but otherwise it would be a correlation only, and correlation does not equal causation, no? Point being, how are you going to prove people are more violent scientifically, it is not objective data, you would be showing a trend that could be manipulated by many other factors...

  37. Violent is as violent does by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    If video games and the military make people violent why am I not violent? [...]

    The Army is my job, sometimes we engage and fire on the enemy.. but it isn't like my blood is pulsing and i'm out of control. [...] It is just a job and we are good at it, So you aren't violent, you just kill in a cold, detached state. Devoid of emotion or empathy, because it's the job you have chosen. You only kill for profit, never out of passion...

    That does not seem better to me.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  38. Parenting 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    With this law, the parents had just a little bit more control of what kind of sludge gets fed into their kid's mind.

    The world is a big scary place with lots of... reality. Regardless of this law, parents have only minimal control over what sorts of things their children will experience or observe. It is far more effective to spend ones parenting efforts trying to prepare children to face the world, and teaching them how to react to the things they experience and observe, rather than hiding them from it so that they don't know how to react when it does happen.

    This is much more in line with the basic premise of parenting, which is that children will eventually grow into adults, and if they are never taught how to deal with things as children, they will still not know once they become adults.