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.'"
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
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.
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!!
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 agree with you. The nude body is not something to be censored. Not even on public television.
But what about sex? I'm not talking love, I'm talking pure, lustful, sex. What about double, or even triple penetration? What about people having sex with animals? We're all just animals anyway, right? And so what if that woman wants a combined three feet of throbbing man love in her? I mean, she's got that Right, to choose to do that, hasn't she? How about gay sex?
While I agree that the nude body is nothing to be ashamed of or censor, and I understand that you didn't say you think I should turn to a public channel and be able to see a gang-bang in progress, I think we must draw the line somewhere as a society.
Is that line drawn at soft-core pornography? Or before? Is it drawn whenever the nudity is involved in a sexual act? What if it is just posing in a sexy way?
I'm genuinely curious what you think about this.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Religious institutions. You're much less likely to get excommunicated from your church for beating your wife vs. cheating on her. I never understood the logic myself. Why are we so much more lenient in censoring violence--an act that inflicts pain and can end human lives vs. sex--acts that bring pleasure and can create human life?
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."
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.
Romans used to dig going to the arena and watching the bloodsports, often involving the killing of animals. Now we can sit here and pass judgement on them (as the Christians did when they finally managed to seize power in the crumbling state), but the fact is that Rome flourished as a society even with this (and other nasties like slavery and leaving unwanted infants to die by exposure).
People have long had a fixation with death, and with the means by which it can be accomplished. It's hardly new, nor is entertainment by which people could enjoy the spectacle of murder and torture.
The key of these bills is that they assert a link between certain types of violent entertainment and actual violent behavior. They have yet to put forward a concrete study that actually demonstrates that link. One would imagine that if it were true, cultures like Rome and the Aztecs would have been filled with depraved murderers, and that is simply not bourne out by the evidence.
Again, I'm not defending violence, nor am I defending bloodlusty cultures like Rome, but if you're going to try to pass these kinds of laws, they should be based on sound research, and not simply on politicians trying to pacify or ingratiate themselves with the likes of Jack Thompson.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Romans used to dig going to the arena and watching the bloodsports, often involving the killing of animals. Now we can sit here and pass judgement on them [...], but the fact is that Rome flourished as a society even with this [...].
Rome flourished as an imperial power because of this. By dehumanising their enemies, making the the torture of their prisoners into a form of communal entertainment, they made the population complicit in the brutal regime that they imposed on conquered lands. In the amphitheatres, they prepared their boys for the life of rape and slaughter that awaited them as men in Rome's legions. The soil of Rome was fertilised with the blood of millions.
So all hail the violent media; the wonder of violent video games and blood-soaked DVDs. Without them, we wouldn't be as good at bringing peace and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
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'
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 you missed the title of this thread "Think of the Children". Are we going to argue that pornography is not damaging to a young psyche? Children don't have sex, they don't need to have sex, and are not interested in intercourse (but are interested in gender and sexuality).
I think it's easy for a child to understand that pulling people out of a car and blowing their brains out in Grand Theft Auto means your character is the "Bad Guy". It's quite different for a child to understand why two men and a golden retriever are having sex, even if a child understands what sex is.
I think every video game, comic book, tv show, movie, etc that a kid would be interested in (ie, not bored to tears) has a pretty stark contrast between Good Guys and Bad Guys. Even if it's something like GTA where you have Bads Guys and Worse Guys. Comics, WWF, etc have been going in the direction of dark heros and even bad-is-good.
I always liked episodes of GI Joe where the Joes had to cooperate with Cobra to achieve some common goal. You still knew Cobra was the Bad Guys, but you respected them more for not being mindless in their badness. Although sometimes episodes like that leaves a young child with a lot of questions, but I would assume that he's going to ask someone older about it eventually. (I'm off on a tangent now)
The roles of sex between lovers is perhaps out of the grasp of the younger audience, and the role between carnality and perversion is way beyond the understanding of all but the most mature audience. If children watch porn, especially the hardcore stuff, they are not going to be able to make sense of it. They will eventually try to fit it into their world view, and likely get the facts wrong. I can only hope they would not end up too warped as they got older. Violence on the other hand seems to make sense to kids, because they see and practice violence often in their daily lives. And are taught lessons about violence by their parents regularly (don't hit, don't throw things, etc).
There are a very limited amount of things that a child really needs to know about sexuality. either taught or learned on their own through experience or observation. Mostly it has to do with roles and rules in society. Don't show your privates to other kids. don't touch others. tell an adult if someone touches you. boys are different than girls. and even things such as boys and girls become men and women, and men and women can make babies. (being vague about the mechanism is fine). Even roles between couples seems to make sense to kids. like boyfriend/girlfriend. even if they don't understand the purpose or what goes on between them or what "love(passionate)" is all about.
I think the fear is that children almost always understand that games like GTA are fantasy, that it is not "normal" to go around murdering people. I believe this is because children have experience with violence, and understand what a normal amount of violence is. If a kid is playing a game, playing "make believe", seeing a cartoon/film or hearing/reading a story, a child is going to have to decide if it is "pretend" or if it is real. Harry Potter is live action (and i think zapping people with spells is violent), with convincing special effects, but all but a few children realize that it is a work of fiction. remember, there is a dramatic difference between a child who prefers to act out "make believe" fantasies, and a child that does not know the difference between fantasy and reality.
But a kid doesn't not have experience with intercourse, so pornography, which is almost 100% fantasy. may not be recognized as fantasy by a child. A child might not realize that two guys banging a woman with giant breast implants is not "normal". And that it represents a mature fantasy, and that the entire image/film is staged precisely to depict a fantasy for the viewer.
There is nothing wrong with sex, intercourse, and sexuality. But I think many of us question the ability of a child to distinguish between sexual fantasy and sexual reality. Therefor I disagree that it is hypocrisy to restrict the flow of adult sexual content, while allowing children to be exposed to violence. (of course there are limits to this too, I don't think I would show a 1st grader Hellraiser or anything like that)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
Well, first of all, children aren't interested in sex until their teens, which is much different from playing cowboys and indians since young. Even when children play mommy-and-daddy games, it's more about family than about sex. This is reflected in fairy tales and children's literature as well.
So, would you consider shielding kids from portrayals of sex (while keeping romance and marriage) until the age of, say, 15 to be ok?
Since young children arn't interested in sex "shielding" them is really more for the sensitivities of adults than anything else.
A big problem with portrayals of "romance and marriage", especially those aimed at children, is that they can wind up as propaganda for the idea that heterosexual, monogamous and long term relationships are best for everyone.
And that attitude is why you are a good parent who isn't raising a future gang member and or star on the Bang Bus website.
Problem is, people want excuses why their kids aren't moral over achievers. They'd rather shake their finger at you saying, "That's child abuse", when out and you give your kid a light swat on the ass for not behaving, rather then paying attention to what they watch and or play, and taking some responsibility for their child's behavior.
When I was a kid, my parents paid enough attention to me to make sure I didn't walk into the room with the beaded curtain in local video stores. You mean they can read the title, look at the screen shots, and read the recommended age on the package while waiting in line to pay? That is a lot easier then keeping an eye on kid(s) in a store at all times.
I thank these games, movies, and music as a sane and moral way to release frustration. Not to say robbing and murdering in Elderscrolls Oblivion is why I don't steal and murder people in real life, but it definitely has had no ill effects.
It's like condemning porn, which is probably the biggest reason we have less people on sex offenders lists. I know it has saved me a number of times from jumping on a willing grenade. I'm sure there are many cases of unwilling.....