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.'"

24 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Think of the children!! by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like Judge Posner is thinking of the children.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Think of the children!! by nelsonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Judge Posner is probably one of the best legal minds of the age, it's sad that he wasn't one of the nominees to the Supreme Court.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Think of the children!! by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Judge Posner is probably one of the best legal minds of the age, it's sad that he wasn't one of the nominees to the Supreme Court. And don't you ever think that there might be a correlation between those two facts...
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Think of the children!! by Mikkeles · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "'Sex 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 sexual descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.'"

      So why the hypocrisy with respect to pornography and other sexual or erotic descriptions.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    4. Re:Think of the children!! by justin12345 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because this guy wasn't on the Supreme Court that ruled the obscenity wasn't protected by the First Amendment.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Think of the children!! by Surt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Aladdin: sex
      Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass: sex
      Beauty and the Beast: sex
      Cinderella: sex, nudity
      Little red riding hood: bestiality

      The list goes on and on.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Think of the children!! by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
  2. Jack Thompson...... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..... 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.
    1. Re:Jack Thompson...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny



      "Judge Posner can't take your call, Mr. Thompson. He's playing the leaked copy of Manhunt 2."

  3. Thank you very much by iamacat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Thank you very much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea, they regularly have naked red wine parties, and they turn out just fine!

    2. Re:Thank you very much by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:Thank you very much by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm thinking we should give parents the tools to moderate what their kids see, rather than having a big ol' Nanny State which knows best telling parents what their kids should watch. If all these parents didn't just park Little Johnny in front of the TV or leave him to surf the Net unattended for long stretches of time, then there would be less of a problem.

      And here's another thing to remember, kids have about as much trouble finding porn as they do finding booze; which is to say they don't have much trouble at all. It would be better to expect kids are going to see nasty things, and to give them some bearings early on so that they are prepared. In North America, we're a pack of cowardly prudes, so afraid of talking about sex that the best we can do is to have somebody come into the classroom and answer all the awkward but important questions the kids have. Even there, paranoid uber-Christian types (you know, the ones that want to cover up Justice and Liberty) won't let their kids near that, so their kids are completely ignorant of the nuances of human sexuality.

      I'll tell you what is perverse. It's our stick-in-the-mud, Fundie-paranoia anti-sex culture which makes the more twisted forms of pornography so desirable. By creating this taboo around human sexuality, we have produced a schizophrenic, fetishistic society.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:Yet they keep trying by Fx.Dr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not as though The Powers That Be don't know and don't care - they most certainly know, but that's not the point. It helps them establish a track record of "thinking of the children", which makes it all the easier to posture on their soapboxes come election time.

  5. Tough Love by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... "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."

    http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Correct-Bedtime- Stories-Modern/dp/002542730X

    --
    "If still these truths be held to be
    Self evident."
    -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:Unconstitutional? by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A child is a parents' responsibility. What games a child plays is up to the parents, period! Perhaps that's why it's unconstitutional.
  8. Re:Jack Thompson......Quixotic! by eggoeater · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...and the Judge used one of my favorite words, Quixotic,
    which is a flat-out perfect description of Jack Thompson:

    ....a person or an act that is caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals. It also serves to describe an idealism without regard to practicality.


  9. Re:Yet they keep trying by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, there is a penalty. The people who proposed the law look like fools

    Penalty???

    You are kidding.

    People don't want non-foolish politicians or lawmakers; they want people in power that they can feel superior to. How do you think George W Bush got in power in the first place?

    People don't want to feel inferior! So they vote for the idiots!

    Duh!

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  10. This may be -1 Fucking Obvious, but... by nugneant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Violent Video Game Law by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.


    Well fuck Jesus and God, bring on the tranny porn and show images of Jesus getting shit on. Amen brother, and pass the Bible so I can urinate on it!

    Now, it's quite possible I'm going to get modded down, but that's fine, as this is a private site. But neither you, the Reverend Billy Graham or even God Almighty have any right in a free country that honors liberty telling me what I can say, or what movies I can watch or what video games I play. You are perfectly free to not partake of it, and keep it out of the hands of your children, but what you aren't free to do is to shove your standards on other people.
    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. I couldn't agree more by dosquatch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    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
  13. you're thinking about it the wrong way by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. Whoah whoah whoah! by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?