Slashdot Mirror
Most Laws Attempting Limits of Violent Videogames Fail
circletimessquare writes "Good news for common sense: the New York Times examines the track record of state laws attempting to put additional limits on violent videogames, and finds that the courts have struck almost all of them down as unconstitutional. Especially notable is this gem of a quote, from Judge Richard A. Posner: 'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"
Looks like Judge Posner is thinking of the children.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
..... Is gonna be really pissed about this. Now we'll have a new round of him going apeshit over violence in video games. Sigh.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
These laws are continually struck down, one by one, yet the state legislatures still propose them. (Helped sometimes by some overzealous individual advocates). Do the state legislatures not look at court rulings? or do they not care? In my dream world, there would be penalties for passing unconstitutional laws. Sadly, the people who make the laws have that power.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Now just to confirm that it's no more harmful for a teenager to see a nude human body or have a glass of red wine with parents at dinner time.
... "And while you're at it, spank your children and stop reading them politically correct fairy tales. Yes the gingerbread house is made from bad little boys and girls."
- Stories-Modern/dp/002542730X
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Correct-Bedtime
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
http://hallert.net/images/crime-victims_games.jpg
This is a graph that's been floating around that tracks violent crime rates and maps them against the release dates of various "watershed" violent video games. While correlation does not equal causation, it's certainly intriguing.
There is the possibility the lawmakers pushing these types of limits might try introducing a constitutional amendment if their desires are continually shot down by the courts.
The news byte they'll get out of "fighting the evils of violence in youth culture" when they run for reelection.
I don't think anyone ever really expects legislature like this to pass. I figure that politicians take up this crusade when they need something to make empty promises about to get supporters. If they get elected or keep their office, they can say "Oh well, I tried..." when it gets shot down. They got what they wanted out of the voters, and there's really no personal accountability for anyone involved.
Laws don't have to be struck down to fail.
Laws which ignore the reality that a given banned activity/item/passtime has widespread public popularity always fail.
What's really scary though is no government since the 30's has had the guts to stand up, admit they were wrong, and repeal such a law.
Prohibition failed.
Drug laws have failed.
anti-downloading laws have failed.
speeding and racing laws are and always have been in a continued state of failure.
Laws prohibiting X age group from obtaining Y product are retrograde failures because they tempt younger people to products as 'restricted' in the same way declaring something unhackable tempts hackers.
another suitable headline for this story would be "Duh"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.
This has got to be the most insightful and intelligent thing I've ever heard a person of political or judiciary status say.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sorry, but I don't see how these laws are unconstitutional. A child is a parents' responsibility. What games a child plays is up to the parents, period! Because I am a responsible parent, I'm not worried about my child playing violent video games because I know she won't. I won't let her. She is my responsibility. Am I depriving my child of her Constitutional rights? No! I'm being a responsible parent. There is no Constitutional right to bad parenting!
Unfortunately, not all parents are responsible. Some parents give their child birthday money or allowance or whatever and let them buy whatever they want. This child that plays Postal2 who thinks that whacking people with a shovel is OK, is not going to beat himself up. He's going to go after my child! Now I can't stop this kid from playing Postal2, and I wouldn't if I could, but I would like to at least know that his parents are aware of what he is playing. I like the idea that the parents have to go to the store with their kid and see what game they are purchasing. I would hope that they would ask their kid, "Johnny? Why do I have to show ID for you to have this game?" If the parent still wants to buy it, great! That's their choice. They are mature enough to make it. A 10-yr old child is not!
Of course, these laws do not prevent any adult from purchasing these games. And when I say violent video games, I'm not talking about Mortal Kombat. I don't care about impossible, cartoon violence. No kid is going to do the Sub-Zero kill move on my daughter! I'm talking about Postal2 and games that are violent for the purpose of being violent. Games where the point is violence over game play.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I am unequiped to deal with the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
I expect no less from someone who once guest posted for a week or so on lessig's blog.
It's a shame he wont go "activist" and call out nixon's drug laws for violating the congressional authority clauses by essentially allowing any fda lackey to outlaw any substance.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
It's the same old story told again and again. At some point people get old and stuck in their ways. They refuse to waiver in there attempts to hold on to what they think is the way things ought to be. Not much you can do, but fight off the total controlling of our society. Best thing to keep in mind is to keep an opened mind. Someday (perhaps that day has passed for you) you'll get old, but remember the plight of your youth and remember to help, not restrain, our children.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
A game of any kind ought to be harmless fun, but we've reached a point where everything has to be allowed.
There is no need for entertainment to use foul language or blood and gore just for the sake of it.
Same goes for using the name of God or Jesus or lewdness.
This is not escape from realisim, just more of the same.
Ad Astra Per Asper
how this is the big legal issue surrounding video games, when you have IGN sending letters of a not precisely nice nature to people for downloading a preload for a game they paid for via direct2download, for bypassing "security measures". The security measures in question being not linking it directly off of the order page. But the page for the file itself was indexed both by Google and their own internal publically accessible fileplanet search mechanism. All because they fucked up and some people got to activate their preload early on Sunday.
Using the J word should be banned.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
which is a flat-out perfect description of Jack Thompson:
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
If they really want to do this it's simple.
Instead of making it Illegal, just give companies in the state Tax Breaks for restricting sales to Minors.
Let the market sort out whether it's worth it or not.
No joke, I really wish I could give that guy a hug. Just a simple, ecstatic, no-sexual-intent bear hug. America needs more like him - he seems like the rare justice who might even make sense of the new-fangled internet tube thing.
Though, since he's a justice and it is politics, I guess I'd settle for buying him a beer. Or two beers. Really nice beers, too, maybe one of those eastern European deals with the chocolate and nutmeg in it. Whatever tickled his fancy.
Non, but he does have to deal with them all day!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hurrah! I've been saying for years that the obsession with nerf-coating the world was a Bad Thing. The best way for the masses to learn due caution is for a few to serve as a negative example, not to round every corner and pad every edge.
This is true psychologically, too. Sex and violence is part of the human creature. Pretending it's not "for the children", the children who will eventually inherit this mess, does a disservice to us all for exactly the reason stated - they will be unequipped when it's their turn. Nevermind the bozos making these stupid laws - find me one among them who didn't flip through a playboy and play cops and robbers as a child him/herself. These things are desirable, perhaps even required, for a well-balanced adult to form. We all grew up watching GIJoe shoot at everybody and Sam Malone hit on everything in a skirt. We had monkeybars on asphalt, BB guns, steel sliding boards with exposed bolts and pinch points. We never had those ridiculous bike helmets and elbow pads. There were scuffed elbows and scraped knees, maybe even a broken arm or two, but seriously, how many of the kids you went to school with were maimed or killed on the playground?
So go, kids, run and play! Climb trees. Jump from the swingsets. Play dodgeball. Play doctor. Explore the world around you, it belongs to you, too, after all.
Off with their helmets! Lawn darts for everybody! Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
Either one takes the point that a child always knows what is best for himself, and give children power to sign legal documents and so forth, or we maintain that parents are legally responsible for a reason. The powers don't restrict as such, just limit who makes the decision about whether a ten-year-old should play Vice City or whichever game we have to hand.
Well, first of all, children aren't interested in sex until their teens
Oh really? Just where are you getting these facts?
Or maybe you are thinking of "sex" as the old in-out and nothing else. Young children do get caught sneaking a peek at dirty magazines or playing sexual games even though they aren't technically having sex. So are you saying that these activities don't demonstrate any sort of sexual interest at all?
To quote Heinlein, "I've been a dirty old man since I was six."
the price of freedom is that it must always be guarded. it is not true that you will fight some decisive battle, win some decisive argument, or enact some decisive law (as you suggest above: "In my dream world, there would be penalties for passing unconstitutional laws") and then presto changeo, forever more you are free without ever having to think of any threats to it
no. all around you, every day, is someone, somwhere, in some form or another, thinking it is a good idea to limit your freedoms. in fact, the worst sort of enemy are those who do this, thinking they are actually helping you (as many of the well-meaning but deluded legislators intend)
so when a little ray of light, like this story of universal failure on the front of limiting violent videogames breaks, then you should celebrate. don't be despondent
you'll need to celebrate. because tomorrow is another day, and tomorrow, some well-meaning but stupid legislator will cry "think of the children!" yet again. and again. and again
and you must go to battle yet again to protect your freedom. it's never easy. it's never over
and that's another important point: the people who pass these laws are not the minions of emperor palpatine, establishing the beachhead for the rise of fascism across the globe. they are in fact mostly well-meaning people, but are just deluded on the facts. you have to know your enemy to defeat him, and to give in to paranoid fantasies about evil operators of the illuminati finessing and manipulating the system in service of some dark agenda: no, you've been watching to many bad hollywood movies. don't attribute to evil that which is obviously the work of stupidity. and even worse, WELL MEANING stupidity. their heart is in the right place, but their mind is it. when we cry "won't somebody think of the children!" it's a simpson's punchline, and we all laugh. but for some people, "won't somebody think of the children!" is an earnest heartfelt honest to goodness cry of desperation and call to arms to fight to protect children
from what? well i'm not going to argue their stupidity here. that's not my point here. my point here is to simply demonstrate to you that the fight is not easy, and it's not a fight against evil. it's a fight against stupidity. and the fight never ends, and the fight is never easy
know the REAL nature of your enemy, roll up your sleeves, and get to work. it's the price you pay for your freedom: constant vigilance. the fight is never easy, the fight is never over
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
OK Some of those I'll give you but Little Red Riding Hood?! I don't recall hearing "My grandma, what a huge wang you have!" That didn't make my cut! I mean pretty much anything with a Prince Charming or some chick kissing a frog, sure, but I think you're really reaching on this one.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Am I the only one who sees violent video games as a completely different animal that the occasional bit of violent imagery?
Violent fairy tales, cartoons, or slasher movies are non-participatory activities. The mind absorbs lessons on some levels during passive viewing, but when you add a dimension of active participation it's a whole new ballgame. Modern video games are graphically rich, have reward systems, and are designed - from the ground up - to be highly addictive activities that keep the mind engaged on many levels. They are immersive. They compel the gamer to become better, more effective, at completing the game's objectives. If those objectives are relentlessly violent, they what you have on your hands is a simulator that's explicitly designed to strengthen violent antisocial tendencies in the playing audience.
And before I get modded down into oblivion I'd like to ask one simple question:
If the North Korean government, or the Taliban, were using sophisticated computer training simulations to brainwash an army of a hundred-thousand children in order to create thoughtless killing machines, would you figure it's all cool?
"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"
I agree with him, but surely this sort of thinking is more a matter of opinion. It's a good basis for enacting legislation but shouldn't the judges opinion be based on the specifics of the law?
At least one old fogey has to weigh in:
There seems to a continuum of vicarious involvement with violence, and we seem to be headed in one direction on that continuum. I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument that we are headed for ubiquitous real violence, but I would appreciate a cogent argument for why we won't soon find ourselves playing games of animal torture, virtual reality torture of people, protracted vivisection, and so on. (Or is that already in video games that I'm not aware of?) (Hey, should we legalize real animal torture?) If humans can torture each other for real--and if that is wrong (Abu Ghraib), is there virtue in engaging in it for entertainment?
Reading about violence (fictional or historical) is one thing. Actually acting it out with your own hands feels qualitatively different.
Flame away...
Most anti violence laws attempt to legislate the developer or publisher of games. However they are creating a product. The fact that the product is violent is irrelevant, it's not a immediately dangerous product. Almost certainly less harmless than alcohol and tobacco. But the big point is you're trying to suppress the game. That's hardly allowed in America.
Instead a solid law that someone wants to pass should focus on the retail clerks, but most of the laws being passed around target the producer and the fact remains they are not the point of sale, they are just the creators.
This is like a violent movie. No one really tries to shut down Saw or Hostel. No one goes after the director, or the movie company, instead the laws focus on the MPAA and the movie theaters it's shown in. That's acceptable. In addition there's acknowledgment that if a child wants to see a movie a parent or legal guardian is allowed to take them to see that movie. That works
Most of the way these laws that target the stores are worded even says that a parent who buys the game and gives it the kid would still be considered criminal. A violent video game law is likely to happen soon, however the change to the industry from the law is minimal as it's already decently regulated by the ESRP. The big "snafus" that have happened are very very special cases where the ESRP was unable to find all the content in the game. Even if we give them a year they would not have found neither Oblivions nor San Andreas "easter eggs". To expect them to do so is hardly reasonable.
I wonder if video games based on William Shakespeare's works would be too violent.....Would make a great headline to get an AO rating ;)
;)
Just have to make sure that Romeo and/or Juliet die before they...well we can't go there can we
Meanwhile back to adding the Big Bad Wolf mod to my architectural drafting program...at least that one is still safe.
The current popular theory that these games let people KNOW about violence, is pretty much patently unconstitutional.
To me, the flaw in anti-violence-depicting-video-game statues, is the niegh-unprovable theory that these video games make a user more likely to commit violence in the real world. It seems to me, that if regulators went after these games on the grounds that the games make violent people more EFFECTIVE at violence. I.e. the games infact teach and refine effective fighting strategies and techniques. And thus banned the games on the same theory that silencers for guns are banned, then such a regulating body would at least stand a chance.
No 'arguably' about it. Certainly in older versions, the witch only caught on to what Rapunzel had been up to once the naive young girl asked something along the lines of 'why don't my clothes fit right any more?' Oops.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
These laws are continually struck down, one by one, yet the state legislatures still propose them. ... Do the state legislatures not look at court rulings? or do they not care?
It's worse than that. In Posner's words they're deliberately ATTEMPTING to "deform" the children and "leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."
It's part of the "culture war". A conscious (if misguided) attempt by the "progressives" to raise non-violent children by insulating them from knowledge of violence and tools of violence.
This has been going on at least since the Vietnam-era anti-war movement, which discussed and promoted this form of child-rearing - though primarily as a way to head off future wars. Some of the things done then were refusing to allow children to have toy guns or play games involving fighting or conflict: "soldier", "cowboys and indians", "cops and robbers", etc.
Over time this has been institutionalized and escalated into things like the "zero tolerance on weapons in schools" program (which expels children for having a gun-shaped charm-bracelet ornament or a plastic knife in their brown-bag lunch) disciplinary policies that give a pass to bullies striking their victims but severely disciplines any victim who strikes back in self-defense.
Of course the unintended consequences included raising a large fraction of several generations with no understanding - or worse, an erroneous understanding - of how to react to violence and threats - at personal, group, and political levels.
Of course such mind-stunted people are much easier to rule. So it's politically expedient to continue and expand the programs to "deform" progressively more of each generation.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I don't trust that graph one jot -- and no-one else on /. should either: Mortal Kombat is older than Doom, and every geek knows it.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
"those people" are not a vast secret evil conspiracy
"those people" are mostly isolated stupid fools
sure, it's not as sexy as the plotlines of most hollywood movies, but my understanding as opposed to your understanding has the useful side benefit of being reality
and if you are going to beat your enemy, you have to know the true nature of your enemy
you don't
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If all Posner said was, "Well, I took a look at the First Amendment," then there wouldn't be much of a story here. He's just going beyond that and saying, "And really, the First Amendment isn't all that bad. You people should quit fighting it, because.." and then his opinion comes in.
now understand that he is also resourceful and determined
so he is a dangerous lunatic
and so i hope in your mocking words above you weren't dismissing him from your concern
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think that's the reasoning behind modding the GGP redundant. (Though I find it rather harsh, myself.)
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
Have you ever read McBeth? Or Hamlet?
Ok, now, have you understood it? Teh horrorz! Crime, murder, schemes and machinations, teenagers driven to insanity (Hamlet) or to suicide (Romeo and Juliet), and don't get me started on MacBeth and the themes of witchcraft, plotting for a coup d'etat and mass murder!
Save our children! Ban Shakespeare!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The games had little do to with Rome's military might. Indeed, Rome wasn't all that great until a certain someone reformed the legions entirely - allowing poor, landless folks to join up and smack some stinking, filthy barbarians on the head. And why did they?
A bunch of useless slaves getting bloody in the games wasn't in it. The legions provided a steady income and a nice little plot of land at the end of your service to call your own; that and prestige.
Pretty damned good deal - you have a modicum of respect from your fellow citizens, good food, a sure retirement plan... A hell of a lot better than wasting away on the streets of the city, begging for scraps of mouldy bread, hey?
So, eys - hail the violent media, in despite of which, our own military has severe recruitment issues, because smacking barbarians on the head with 5.56mm rounds just isn't fun anymore once you've seen the governor of California fighting an alien.
(I certainly won't argue that the soil of Rome was indeed fertilized with the blood of millions; slavery is not only why Rome's economy kicked ass for so long, but also later lead to the rise of the United Kingdom and other world powers. But conquest and slavery != violent video games.)
and spread disease and destroy families if not taken in moderation.
violence (physical and otherwise) is an inescapable fact of human existence, as is sex. But I think it's a lot easier for a child to understand the basics of the role violence has in our society, versus a child understanding the more complex role of sex in our society. baby steps please.
I do hope that by the time a kid is 12 or so she/he has a healthy understanding of both violence and sex, and hopefully not by personal experience. Violence and sex is something we should shield children from experiencing personally. Although the violence part is pretty much impossible to stop (playground bullies, sibling rivalries, etc).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
and being exposed to violence at an early age has no direct correlation with bully's on the playground?
Dude, watch where you're aiming that thing!
If you want to discourage something don't legislate it, tax the shit out of it.
I agree with a lot Hans has to say about raising children. Especially the whole "culture of manhood" thing, although I'm not quite as extreme about it as he is.
I don't agree with killing your wife or allowing your best friend to sleep with her. or whatever the F*** went on.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's quite delightful that great thinkers already had come up with the basic maxim that you're right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. You might even say it nicely sums up one of the founding principles of the United States, though you wouldn't know it listening to the self-righteous, simpering, God's-my-bestest-friend types that run around society trying to call down the power of the state to enforce their wannabe-theocratic desires. "Oh, ban violent video games, porn, books by Liberals, and anything that challenges my inbred, myopic, theologically idiotic world-view."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What a dumb analogy. Having sex with someone against their will by definition involves nonconsenting people. The GP post's actions do not.
US Rep Dr. Ron Paul would not want the government at any level (especially the Federal) telling people how to raise their own kids or condoning censorship.
If you don't know anything about Ron Paul, you should seriously do some research.
Libertas in infinitum
You dumbass; he's saying the GGP should be raped for saying something everybody and their grandmother on slashdot agrees with, prefaced with "I'm going to get modded down for this..."
that pornography decreases rape, that violent videogames/ violent movies decreases real violence. they do this by providing a harmless release, a catharsis, for impulses that might otherwise be expressed in real life
just as your graph shows, the truth is that violence and rape have actually been going down in areas of the world where media saturation with sexual/ violent content is allowed. that instead of desensitizing people to sex/ violence, pornography and violent media provide for a harmless release that would otherwise happen in the "real world"
in fact, i think it all boils down to how you view the social development of children. are we born vessels of purity and innocence that are corrupted by society? or are we born raging no impulse control demons that are tamed by society? i don't know about you, but i've been around some 3 year olds recently, and a 3 year old human being is basically a feces slinging monster. Scale up a 3 year old to a teenager or young adult, without any proper social development, and you have your basic madman killer/ rapist. so social development channels our sexual and violent impulses into more appropriate channels, and violent and sexual media are merely an extension of this ability to tame our negative and natural impulses into harmless release
anyone who played a lot of violent videogames/ watched a lot of violent movies/ indulged in a lot of pornography and then went out and killed/ raped is someone who is psychologically already damaged, and it wasn't the media that made him or her commit crime, and it would have been some other stimulus that would have precipitated their behavior if they were never exposed to violent/ sexual media. blaming the media is a red herring
me myself, there was a period in the early 1990s when i must have played hours of doom every day, for months on end. and i am for the repeal of the second amendment. how's that work? well, with enough indulgence in the first amendment, we wouldn't need the second amendment
some of you may consider me bizarre, but i actually think we should expose children to MORE violent and MORE sexual media, in GREATER quantity, at a YOUNGER age. and this will result in less real life rape and violence
i am not in any way joking. i seriously and firmly believe that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In 2006, Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote a book called "Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency." [1] In the book, Posner argues that facing terrorism and the threat of WMDs, the scope of constitutional rights must be adjusted in a pragmatic but rational manner. Using cost-benefit analysis to balance the harm new security measures inflict on personal liberty against the increased security those measures provide, Posner comes down, in most but not quite all respects, on the side of increased government power. Posner argues that terrorist activity is sui generis--it is neither "war" nor "crime"--and it demands a tailored response, one that gives terror suspects fewer constitutional rights than persons suspected of ordinary criminal activity.
What I find silly is that I can walk into a store and purchase a R rated movie at 13 without ID, yet I can't purchase a M rated video game at 18 without ID on me.
Jack Thompson is out there attacking windmills with a sword on the assumption that they are threats (and apparently evil), and meanwhile people think WE are the delusional ones!
Wouldnt this be the most charitable thing to say for our current Prez?
Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons have no such illusions, they just want to accumulate power and wealth. I'm sure Bush was sold something quite like bedtime stories by Cheney and others that invading Iraq and spreading democracy would make him (Bush) a hero, a true leader of the free world.
I think the Republican party (as well as hard-right religious conservatives) is more prone to this, which would be laughable if it didnt adversely affect all of us.
Give the guy some credit...
I'd rather have to brave the Barons of Hell and those sick robo-Spider fuckers than deal with *shudder* lawyers.
Our new Slashdot Bigot overlords!
IIRC, every war since WWI has ended with a larger population after than before..
Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
Hah, as author of the GP, I must admit I was fully expecting -1, Redundant - that's what Fucking Obvious is all about :)
Still, it's something that bears repeating, I think. Generally, I hate redundancy, but we can get 1000 nerds in the same thread (well, okay, more like five nerds with ninety accounts each making two posts - whatever) all saying how much DRM sucks - and I think this guy is about as cool as 0.01 DRM Suck Unit is sucky, so, hey, redundant (and this, possibly off-topic), but me too.
I grew up with a commodore 64, transformers, he-man, ulysses, M.A.S.K and yea my family did not want me watching to violent stuff (eg actionflicks rated 15-18) but that family was mostly my aunts and uncles etc, my parents and grandfather really saw no wrong inn it as long as it wasn't overly gross. And to this day I have yet to strike a person back when in a violent/hostile situation because of the fear of hurting another person.
On the other hand! I found my uncles pornmags at the age of 10 and started to lend them out to class-mates for a small fee and frantically watched porn and masturbated from that age and after the first time I dipped my godrod in the proverbial cave I have been unable to satisfy my interest in cave-exploration.
For some reason I as many actually have sort of a predisposition towards sex that guys are ready earlier than girls, probably cause for me sex had and doesn't have a very emotional aspect to it unless I am in love, thus from the age of 12 or 13 I wanted to "tap that ass" and I can remember all the way back to kindergarden that me and this other girl were playing with eachothers "unmentionables" in the playhut.
Every person is different and sure it's upto the parents to setup boundaries but I believe that most teenagers (from the young age of 12 and up) are perfectly able to watch and interpret both violence and sex (yes full blown porno) without it in any way negativly affecting but instead positivly reinforcing their curiousity in such a way to not find their own existance and curiousity completely normal.
My 2 euros!
- D - Norway
Quixotic is also a great Scrabble word, scoring 26 points plus a bonus for using all 7 letters with the one already on the board.
I am against censorship on principle, and I would like to believe that media violence and real violence are totally unconnected. However, reality unfortunately does not always bend to my principles.
According to New Scientist April 2007, the link between media violence and aggression in children is less conclusive than that linking active tobacco smoking to lung cancer, but more conclusive than that linking passive smoking to lung cancer! This evidence comes from two types of study:
1. Controlled short-term studies: Show one group of children a video of someone beating up a doll, and another group some more anodyne video. Then leave the children alone with the doll. Group one is far more likely to beat up the doll, in some cases using the same actions and words as the actor in the video.
2. Environmental longitudinal studies: Compare the amount of violent media viewed in childhood to the rate of violent crime or domestic violence in adulthood. These studies show a moderate-to-strong correlation.
Of course these studies are not perfect. Type 1 effects may not be long-term, and type 2 effects may not show causation (e.g. maybe people predisposed to violence are more attracted to violent tv). The "perfect study" (keeping two groups in long-term isolation and controlling for all factors except exposure to violent media) is impossible for both logistical and ethical reasons.
However the evidence as it exists does not point to a "violent media = harmless" message, much as we would all like it to.
The main problem I see with the govt trying to get people to do things that they dont want to do is that for the most part the restriction is set but there is no alternative release outlet. For example you bring up the speeding and racing laws are always failing, more specifically racing is the real troublesome problem. There are no real accessible outlets for non pro racing that are cheap and local. Basically whats cheaper (if you dont get caught) that public roads! Race tracks are usually far away from residential areas due to noise and other ordinances and they are really big. Small local tracks would be a good idea. People could go and just have fun when the need for speed arises. Also, track days and autocross are not happening every day, especially after work hours. anyway, thats my 2 cents.
Balderdash!
Parent should be modded Informative instead of Funny. :-)
Agreed. In the not too distant past, people by age 18 would have been married with children. This is still the norm in some countries (usually one called "developing countries").
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
I recently watched 'The Hills Have Eyes', the remake that was realized a few years ago. It was one of the more violent movies that I have seen in the last couple months, and reading this article made me ask myself why should movie studios be able to release a movie depicting a person ripping away flesh from another dead person, and eating it, yet punching a prostitute in the face until she bleeds is a major taboo. I grew up on Friday the 13th movies, tons of zombie movies showing the walking dead devouring the living, sometimes very graphically, but when you throw a little sex (hello, Cinemax is as close to soft-core porn as you can get without pay-per-view) or violence in a game, call the National Guard, our children are at risk! I know there are people who believe that doing something has more of an effect than watching something, and I think to a certain extent that is true, but healthy-minded teenagers (I agree that younger kids shouldn't be exposed to that kind of thing) should have no trouble separating what is real with what is fiction.
My six-year-old daughter asked me recently about what the police do to bad guys that they catch, and what to the bad guys do to get in trouble. Knowing that it wouldn't show her anything too bad, I turned on 'Cops' and let her watch an episode of that. I told her that it seems that is probably more of what police officers have to deal with, but of course there are days where the bad people are "a lot badder". She seemed to understand, and immediately asked if that's why they carry guns. She then made a comment about some of the games that she has seen me play, and asked me if I have ever shot anyone. I replied no, I've never even pointed a gun at anyone. She replied again with "I've seen you shoot people in the games that you play, but I know that's not real, so its a lot different than doing it for real."
As bad as it sounds, she even cheered me one while watching me play Resident Evil 4 on my Wii. (Silent kid, I didn't hear her sneak up behind me) and she also was able to discern what is real and what is not.
People are saying that games with excessive violence shouldn't be able to be sold to minors. As much as I hate censorship and govermental control, I think there is some merit to this. I wouldn't want my daughter when she is 11 or something to be able to go buy some movie like "The Hills Have Eyes" without me knowing, and I'd feel the same way about video games. Until I know for sure that she can handle things, I will continue to prescreen what she watches and what she plays, but as a parent I feel it is MY choice, not the government's.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney can shoot a man down.
5 9016,00.html
...
7 45-2004Jun17.html
...
Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney can unilaterally issue orders to take down aircrafts.
Videogames can have a negative influence on our young ones, really !
In what kind of alternate reality do these guys live ?
References:
The Man Who Dick Cheney Shot
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,11
On February 11, 2006, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old Texas attorney, while participating in a quail hunt on a ranch in Kenedy County, Texas. Whittington was shot in the face, neck, and upper torso with birdshot pellets from a 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun.
Washington Post: "Cheney Authorized Shooting Down Planes "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50
At 10:39 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney, in a bunker beneath the White House, told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in a videoconference that he had been informed earlier that morning that hijacked planes were approaching Washington.
Cheney, who told the commission he was operating on instructions from Bush given in a phone call, issued authority for aircraft threatening Washington to be shot down. But the commission noted that "among the sources that reflect other important events that morning there is no documentary evidence for this call, although the relevant sources are incomplete." Those sources include people nearby taking notes, such as Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Cheney's wife, Lynne.
I've heard a disturbing meme being propagated by Nanny Statists as well. They say, "the brain continues to develop until the age of 25," implying that childhood ought to be extended until then.
What's the purpose of this? Well, partly because since the state has decided it has a particular interest in raising children, it gives the state more power. Also, it warehouses people for longer, keeping them useless and out of the workforce and decreasing the number of people competing for jobs.
I was particularly sickened when the media started looking at whether Seung Hui Cho's rampage was brought on by violent video games. I shouldn't be surprised though, considering the distorted story of James Dallas Eggbert was used to hammer Dungeons and Dragons.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Manhunt 2 Meltdown Shows Game-Killing Power of Adults-Only Rating
Looking for Hitler=bad, you found money=bad instead, but too late: pwnt, you are.
I can see what you're saying, but don't you think the fact that the game laws are completely unconstitutional is a little more relevant and a little more important than the fact that people are just going to seek out banned items anyway? Your argument presumes that the government can ban game sales to minors in the first place. They can't; it's illegal. We should be reminding them of that.
I thought that name sounded familiar. Sounds like giving civil rights are his exception, not his rule. This is the second time on /. I've seen that book mentioned, now I guess it's time to read it.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
However, since corporations (whether for-profit, the ones people normally think of as "corporations," or non-profit, like the ones that are the legal embodiments of most universities) do most research in this country, it's corporations that are going to be the focus of regulation which ultimately affects individual rights, over what you can research, publish, and examine publicly. Corporations don't exist -- they're a legal fiction, a convenient thought-object -- and are always made up of people. When you place restrictions on a corporation, you are really placing restrictions on people. And when the action that's restricted is one that can only be readily accomplished by a corporation, you have effectively restricted anyone from doing it. Thus, corporate 'rights' issues are inherently individual rights issues.
Don't be so quick to demonize corporations; like anything else, they can be used for good as well as ill. Allowing the government to over-regulate the corporate sphere is a backdoor into over-regulation of individual life as well.
At any rate, you should investigate botulism a little further. The bacteria that causes food poisoning is not, as you seem to correctly understand, very hazardous. You'll probably end up with it in you, once in a while, and feel pretty shitty as a result -- but you probably won't die. That's not really a concern from a terrorism/weaponizability standpoint.
The weapon is the botulinum toxin. That is, a chemical that Clostridium botulinum produces, and what actually makes you feel ill (and the active ingredient in Botox, ironically). It's one of the more potent poisons known to man -- the lethal dosage is a little over a microgram for an adult human. The concern is not that somebody could breed up a batch of Clostridium botulinum bacteria, or even breed some up and sprinkle it on your food (although that would be bad, and would probably be hugely disruptive if it was at key points in the food supply), but that they could use the bacteria to produce the toxin and then extract and concentrate the toxin in significant quantities. That's difficult to do, at least for the moment. (And even if they did, it would take some further work to really weaponize it well -- although dumped into a city water supply it would probably cause significant death before people realized they have to boil their water before drinking.)
But the point is that while isolating a bunch of botulinum toxin is out of the reach of a basement biologist for the moment, it won't be for very long. And that's just one example, and probably not the best one. The greater point is that technology makes it easier and easier for a single person, or group of determined individuals, to kill a whole lot of other people -- and short of just grinding civilization and progress to a halt, that's not a trend that's going to change or reverse itself.
And if every person on earth has the ability to kill a few thousand other people, it's not a question of will someone decide to do it, it's a question of when. And when they do, the public will demand -- rightly or wrongly -- to be protected. And they'll flock to whomever promises them protection. The result is either going to be realistic security handled by people whose goal is protecting freedom and maximizing happiness, or it's going to be more of what we have today: security theater sold to us by a bunch of power-hungry charlatans.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Have to say ... exposure to violence is one thing, violence as entertainment another. The whole 'bashing and smashing is such jolly good fun' mentality creeps me out.
You know, it almost sounds like the judge is saying "They shall come, all, for violence. Their faces shall sup as the east wind, and gather in the captivity of the sands."
yup he sounds liek one intelligent guy......what a great way of looking at it..wonder if he feels the same way about sex in video games.....i always felt sex should be fine...the biggest thing is that the respect in it should be shown.
...er "dark light" lol
:)i can't think of very many that don't....because even the ones that do....give the characters negative consequences for naughty behaviour :P:P
like show gay relationships, show sadomasochist relationships, show f*** buddy relationships......as long as its made clear that there is consenting and respect...and when there not....show them still...as long as there not portrayed as "the way it should be" or "great" so if you want to show the darker side of life...rape and violence etc etc...as long as its not shown as a wonderfull thing...... it is shown into a
you can't hide people from the darker side of humanity......but there is a difference between telling it like it is, in a dark meaningfull way VS making rape and violence happy for humanity.....thats not to say that you can't make the "bad guy" enjoy murder and rape...but after all he is potrayed ss the "bad guy" and most games and shows seem to do it all alright