Slashdot Mirror


Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Violent Game Ban

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down as unconstitutional a California statute purporting to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. In a 30-page decision (PDF), in Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the federal appeals court ruled that 'the Act, as a presumptively invalid content based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State's expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act's labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State's controversial opinion.'"

190 comments

  1. Tempting fate by EkriirkE · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tempting fate by going against one of the most violent; a Terminator.

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    1. Re:Tempting fate by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Fate got bored of temptation long ago, though nice try.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    2. Re:Tempting fate by GrandTeddyBearOfDoom · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have Fond Memories(TM) of Tempting Fate(TM), once daring to pick up a stick.

      --
      -- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
    3. Re:Tempting fate by John+Allsup · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looking at your profile, I wonder how you can pick up anything at all. Well done for being daring!

      --
      John_Chalisque
    4. Re:Tempting fate by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Since you brought it up. What's so different about "violent" games than "violent" R-rated movies that every kid even in the 80's had on VHS.

      Why is there not a LAW restricting sales and manufacture of R-Rated movies in California? As a child of the 80's video games weren't that violent... I'll admit I thought about bashing some barrels with a hammer and beating up apes.. but it was to save a girl. On the other hand I really did want to beat up bullies as a Terminator, or a Predator, or an Eraser... I'd say terminator invented the goth guys shooting places up meme in pop culture.

      How did Arnie make his money again.. it wasn't until the mid 90's (on his way down from the top) he was "enlightened" that violent media was maybe bad for all the kids that got a hold of those movies.

    5. Re:Tempting fate by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      Or violent books, like say, the Bible. When they start putting warning labels on Bibles or the sorts of things these legislators and such care about concerning the graphic violence and such therein, perhaps then I will hear them out on how they wish to tarnish the stuff I like to protect the childrens.

  2. How long will the ruling stand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Ninth leads in the number of cases that wind up being reversed.

    1. Re:How long will the ruling stand? by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, and video game laws lead in the number that wind up being reversed, too. I can only imagine how frustrated lawmakers must be that free speech applies to things they dislike, too.

  3. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brilliant.

    I thought all the smart people had killed themselves, but evidently they're lawyers.

    1. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the smart people are groovin' on the beach in tropical paradise until the ice melts. See ya in May...

  4. He'll be back by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1
    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:He'll be back by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  5. Here's a quarter honey, buy a clue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ninth also leads in the number of cases that don't wind up being reversed. Not that either statistic tells us anything meaningful about the likelihood of this particular ruling being reversed.

  6. Shit man, I bet... by alexborges · · Score: 1

    Legal staff: Governor, we lost in the appeal.
    Governator: No way, josé... we'll be back!

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:Shit man, I bet... by LordVader717 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While many here will certainly applaud this decision, I find the double-standard amazing. If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?

      I somehow doubt the founding fathers would have equated free speech to depictions of extreme violence, though I'll undoubtedly get modded down for this.
      There's certainly a case for forbidding censorship of any kind, but mixing up the values brings up crap like this.

      I certainly am not happy about my freedom to criticize politicians being considered on the same level as some spotty fifteen year old kid's "right" to buy GTA.

    2. Re:Shit man, I bet... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      ahh the old founding fathers chestnut. don't you think it's pretty pompus of you to assume you know what the founding fathers were thinking hundreds of years ago, not to mention inaccurate?

      we don't need anymore people making rules for us or telling others how to raise their kids. i grew up on doom and wolfenstien3d and it didn't make me (along with 100,000's of others) damaged goods. i suspect there is nothing wrong with the cartoon style violence depected in video games. next you'll want to ban bugs bunny because he is depected in acts of violence against elmer fud.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:Shit man, I bet... by digitig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think the GP was arguing that the lifting of the ban is bad, it's just a curious double standard. I've never understood the US (and increasingly UK) regulators' belief that violence is good and sex is bad. I have far more sympathy for the continental European tendency to view sex as good and violence as bad (even if -- or perhaps because -- it does lead to the French tendency when confronted with a war to say "f*** it...").

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:Shit man, I bet... by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While many here will certainly applaud this decision, I find the double-standard amazing. If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?

      Even better, just look at the FCC.

      Saying "Fuck" is most definitely speech; why can the FCC ban that on public radio waves?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    5. Re:Shit man, I bet... by JustNilt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I won't get into the should kids or shouldn't kids buy various games issue. I don't think that's the real question these articles raise. The real issue is why would any politician vote for a law such as this which has already been shown time and again to be an automatic failure then waste money defending the failed law. As far as why judges strike these down, that's an interesting question so I asked a client of mine that happens to also be a judge once.

      The main issue for the courts, it seems, is that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tailor legislation to violence alone in the same manner as it is with pornography. This difficulty of is the real issue from what I can gather. We can say any evidence of bloodshed is obscene but then what about a safety video showing actual injury? By definition, these things are both bloody and violent yet are absolutely something minors should see before they operate certain power tools.

      What it boils down to is what is considered obscene, really. Pretty much everyone (I suppose there are some few who'd disagree, thus the qualifier) agrees that nudity can be obscene, although not always. We likewise can agree that certain subject matter such as sexually explicit material are inappropriate for people under a certain age. Not everyone, however, agrees that violence, in and of itself, is necessarily obscene.

      I hope this makes sense; I'm neither a lawyer nor a legal expert so I may habve mangled this somewhat.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    6. Re:Shit man, I bet... by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they never meant it to mean that a black guy could be president.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    7. Re:Shit man, I bet... by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Saying "Fuck" is most definitely speech; why can the FCC ban that on public radio waves?

      Because while you have a right to freedom of speech, you don't have a right to express yourself without restriction on publicly owned airwaves.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    8. Re:Shit man, I bet... by geekboy642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is an absolutely salient observation for any time somebody parrots the line about the founding fathers. Those guys, well, they're dead. WE are the country now.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    9. Re:Shit man, I bet... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Publicly owned airwaves are exactly the place where you should be able to express yourself. Not much of a free speech if the only place you can exercise it is in your own bathroom

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    10. Re:Shit man, I bet... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think the GP was arguing that the lifting of the ban is bad, it's just a curious double standard. I've never understood the US (and increasingly UK) regulators' belief that violence is good and sex is bad.

      In my view the bans on 'obscenity' are equally idiotic, just political pandering.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    11. Re:Shit man, I bet... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What it boils down to is what is considered obscene...

      What I want to know is where does one group of people get the right to legislate for the rest of us what is 'obscene'.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    12. Re:Shit man, I bet... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      I think when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they never meant it to mean that a black guy could be president.

      I don't laugh out loud much, but you got a big laugh out of me on that one; I hope you get modded to +5 funny. Truer words were never spoken.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    13. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We likewise can agree that certain subject matter such as sexually explicit material are inappropriate for people under a certain age.

      Speak for yourself. There's no factual evidence that viewing sexually explicit material is harmful to anyone under any particular age. Calling it "inappropriate" is a matter of opinion, no different from calling political or religious material "inappropriate".

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    14. Re:Shit man, I bet... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      your confusing the right to speak with the imaginary right to force others to listen to you. it could very well be that no one wants to hear you and the bathroom is the place for you.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    15. Re:Shit man, I bet... by MWoody · · Score: 1

      Public radio waves are broadcast directly into your home. You might not have a radio set to listen in, but they're there. With that mode of distribution comes a requirement to pander to the lowest common denominator of offense, as it should.

    16. Re:Shit man, I bet... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      they get it when you vote them into power. sure you don't on who is in the FCC but the people you appoint to be your voice do.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    17. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because the majority of Americans consider sex something to be kept behind closed doors. It's a double standard, really, to say violence is okay but sex isn't, but nobody ever called the American voter rational.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    18. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's all fine and good, but profanity is words, like any other word. If I say shit, I'm in trouble. if I say poop, it's okay. Why? Why make one word worse than another of the same meaning? Somehow, saying God dangit instead of God Dammit is better. Won't you be going to hell for both anyway?

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    19. Re:Shit man, I bet... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?"

      Religion condemns pleasure it does not control. Violence OTOH is intrinsic to the superstitions of the desert and they favor it as a tool.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    20. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That may be true, but there is a branch of government whose sole purpose for existing is to interpret the Founding Fathers' intention in the words of the Constitution. That's pretty much what the Supreme Court does all day.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    21. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founding fathers wanted YOU to be the country now. The sad part is that you believe that you actually are and apparently have no idea what it even means to "be the country now".

    22. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Toonol · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it is a double standard. We should scrutinize laws banning all forms of speech, not just video games.

    23. Re:Shit man, I bet... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While many here will certainly applaud this decision, I find the double-standard amazing. If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?

      I completely agree, and I hate the double standard myself. Personally, I do applaud this decision, and I'd similarly applaud a decision banning sales of pictures of people having sex to minors.

      I somehow doubt the founding fathers would have equated free speech to depictions of extreme violence

      That might be true, but it's quite irrelevant. If you think it's right that they would be able to decide what equates to free speech and what does not, what you're actually doing is advocating a state-vetted list of things you can and cannot say. That's exactly the opposite of free speech. What makes them right?

      I certainly am not happy about my freedom to criticize politicians being considered on the same level as some spotty fifteen year old kid's "right" to buy GTA.

      Don't think of it in those terms. It's not that they have a right to buy GTA. It's that the government doesn't have a right to stop them. That's the job of the parents of this spotty fifteen year old kid. Parents these days think that educating their kid means sending them to school and plopping them in front of the tv. Monitoring your kids, especially during the teenage years is tough, but that doesn't mean the government should do your job for you.

    24. Re:Shit man, I bet... by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ugh...I should read my previews.

      I meant to say I'd applaud a decision against the banning of pornography sales to kids. Again, if the parents care, they should be the ones to monitor their kids.

      Sorry for the confusion

    25. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While many here will certainly applaud this decision, I find the double-standard amazing. If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?

      I somehow doubt the founding fathers would have equated free speech to depictions of extreme violence, though I'll undoubtedly get modded down for this.
      There's certainly a case for forbidding censorship of any kind, but mixing up the values brings up crap like this.

      I certainly am not happy about my freedom to criticize politicians being considered on the same level as some spotty fifteen year old kid's "right" to buy GTA.

      I agree with you. By all means, to raise a better society the smart idea is to of course deny the parent the opportunity to limit violence a young mind sees. Isn't in our best interests to let the state raise our children but taking away a parents responsibility to see or not see EXTREME VIOLENCE.

      Why, that could lead to a reduction in fucked up kids, and what state can survive without having as many fuckups as possible.

    26. Re:Shit man, I bet... by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am contractually obligated to mod up anything you say. Fortunately, that contract doesn't keep me from posting after I mod you up.

    27. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And you both could not be more wrong. While many states at the time of the American Revolution relied on slavery for their economy, many of the founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) sought to abolish it. They were certainly aware that blacks could be the intellectual and educational equals of whites, because they met some such people in business and from African nations.

      Some of the founding fathers would be delighted at how far Mr. Obama has come, and see it as a vindication of their dreams of liberty and justice for all.

    28. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That might just be the first time I have heard Obama's race brought up in a non-racist way.

    29. Re:Shit man, I bet... by the_bard17 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to point out that I've yet to see a study that says breast feeding causes perverts.

    30. Re:Shit man, I bet... by johnsonav · · Score: 2, Informative

      The real issue is why would any politician vote for a law such as this which has already been shown time and again to be an automatic failure then waste money defending the failed law.

      Because that way, the politician can say he "did something" about the issue. When stupid angry parents write letters to the legislator, he can assure them he's working hard to protect their poor little children.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    31. Re:Shit man, I bet... by geoskd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speak for yourself. There's no factual evidence that viewing sexually explicit material is harmful to anyone under any particular age. Calling it "inappropriate" is a matter of opinion, no different from calling political or religious material "inappropriate".

      Allowing anyone to view sexually explicit material anytime they wish is quite harmful to the various Catholic denominations, as it undermines their "god-given" authority. They have a vested interest in preventing it, since the bible says so. If they allow it to go unchallenged then they are hypocrites. For that reason, there is a strong religious need to prevent others from doing the things they themselves are prohibited from doing in order to justify their own faith.

      People don't have an inability to govern themselves, they have a fundamental inability to refrain from governing others.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    32. Re:Shit man, I bet... by geekboy642 · · Score: 0

      Troll more please.

      I've served in the armed forces and voted in 3 Presidential elections. No one can ask more from a citizen than to intelligently vote and to take up arms when needed.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    33. Re:Shit man, I bet... by luther349 · · Score: 0

      we do ban sales of violent games to miners. in this case they just banned them outright.

    34. Re:Shit man, I bet... by pcolaman · · Score: 2

      Your response to his post doesn't really make any sense, other than to ignore his argument. What does you having served in the military or voting have to do with the Supreme Court?

    35. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think if Mr. Jefferson could see what kind of presidency Mr. Obama has inherited, he would have fought to have no presidency at all.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    36. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion is a bastion of stupidity...

    37. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I think that the majority of them would have been delighted that a black man could become president. Most of them didn't want slavery; it was a necessary compromise.

    38. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Sex is bad" would help to reduce the population. "Violence is good" would also help to reduce the population. It's obvious. Politicians are tired of all the whining, sniveling voters who demand so much of their time and energy. So, get those voters to stop having babies, and start killing each other off. It's a win-win situation - for game makers and politicians, anyway. ;)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    39. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I don't believe we do, at least not by any legal measure. The game ratings you see are purely voluntary on the publisher's part, and purely voluntary on the retailer's part. Just like movie ratings.

    40. Re:Shit man, I bet... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      They made a movie of that, called Zardoz ;-p

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    41. Re:Shit man, I bet... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Learn To Thread. The AC was responding to geekboy who responded to the AC. The SCOTUS was only mentioned by Ravon who was not replied to.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    42. Re:Shit man, I bet... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's amusing how naive and anachronistic people can be about the thoughts and feelings of people over 200 years ago, especially given that the issues of race and slavery have been so conflated by modern interpretations of history.

      Slavery had virtually nothing to do with race in antiquity, Aristotle considered it to be nothing more than the bottom tier of a meritocracy. The Bible spoke of slavery as a social position to be endured rather than reformed (an attitude that the South latched onto with both hands of course) with no mention of race. The Romans were probably the slavin'-est bitches around, having no qualms about putting every ethnicity they could find under the yoke, including their own. Funny how all the honkies the Romans enslaved didn't whine about being victims for centuries. Instead, when the Roman empire showed weakness they kicked the shit out of it and moved on with their lives. (Albeit into the darkest period of recorded history, but that's neither here nor there.)

      All of this is important because the founding fathers were obsessed with antiquity, both directly and through the rehashing of other thinkers from the Renaissance and Enlightenment (if anybody is interested the topic is well covered in Morton White's Philosophy of the American Revolution). Anyway, point is slavery has a history before racism and is not inherently racist. Racism itself is a completely modern abstraction. Every culture on earth has some history of ethnocentrism, only through comparison and synthesis can values be assigned to decide which culture might actually deserve to feel superior. But from the inside of a culture looking out, another culture is almost invariably 'the barbarians and/or heathens'. Only in the West is there enough white guilt to have significantly mitigated that impulse. It sure as hell is alive and well in Asia. I would wager it's harder for a non-Korean to marry into a Korean family than it is for a black person to marry into a white family in the US. (Speaking from experience on the latter.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    43. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Tycho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but equal rights for women did not seem to be important to the founding fathers either. I would like to be wrong, but do you have citations that point otherwise?

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    44. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that "inheriting" the presidency is how we got George Bush, the lesser. His father was a corrupt liar to Congress about the Iran Contra mess: the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

    45. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      For rights for women? I'm afraid ou're right. The correspondence of John Adams with his wife reveals the disdain of at least some of the founding fathers for such ideals. That's consistent with how long it took to free the slaves, then permit women the right to vote.

    46. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      So stop reading ARFCOM and Stormfront.

    47. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Who's FORCING you to stay tuned to a station where someone's swearing?

    48. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never understood the US (and increasingly UK) regulators' belief that violence is good and sex is bad.

      It's kind of interesting to note that some of the most violent games targeted at young people -- 99% of them male -- are military-style games that this "violence=ok, sex=bad" government apparently has no problem with. There are people out there who think that military action games help to mentally prepare young people for actual military action in years to come. After all, they'd be less likely to panic in such situations, since they'd have some idea about what they need to do to protect themselves. These people must all be paranoid, of course.

      I have far more sympathy for the continental European tendency to view sex as good and violence as bad (even if -- or perhaps because -- it does lead to the French tendency when confronted with a war to say "f*** it...").

      You pot-smoking hippy, you. Seriously. If you dare utter an anti-war sentiment in the US these days, you're going to be called a pot-smoking hippy by somebody. I'm not sure when or how, but that has become a bad thing nowadays.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    49. Re:Shit man, I bet... by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      I have appointed few. And no one of any importance at a state or federal level. Few candidates I've ever supported have won an election, largely due to the joke that is our two-party system. Even if every voice is heard, if you're not in the majority, you'll be ignored regardless of how loudly you yell.

    50. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Skadet · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess that depends on what you consider "harmful". For example, there's a fair amount of academic research on how exposure to porn affects teens and preteens (nice rollup here: http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.html).

    51. Re:Shit man, I bet... by VariableRob · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah! I've been shot! Where's the QuickLoad key for real life?

      --
      The seriousness of the above post is not guaranteed.
    52. Re:Shit man, I bet... by moortak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but they couldn't even agree on whether the supreme court should be doing that. Look at Marbury vs. Madison.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    53. Re:Shit man, I bet... by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      You are free to negotiate a license with the FCC for a portion of the spectrum where you can say "fuck" all you like. The FCC is free to impose restrictions, within the authority granted to them by Congress, on what you can do with the spectrum they license you. What's so hard to understand about this?

      If you don't like the rules, you're free to call your Congresspeople and ask to have them changed. Just remember, you'll also be up against the Ned Flanders types who call to complain every time they see a buttocks on TV.

      Better yet, you're free to go print up your own leaflets at your own expense, with all the profanity you like, and thereby distribute them on a medium not shared by every member of the public.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    54. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never understood the US (and increasingly UK) regulators' belief that violence is good and sex is bad.

      My guess would be the fact that we have a centuries-long history of being Puritanical conquerors.

    55. Re:Shit man, I bet... by pcolaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Okay...and that still doesn't make his post make any more sense. Nice try though.

    56. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Nailor · · Score: 1

      I have far more sympathy for the continental European tendency to view sex as good and violence as bad

      Either way, the double standard is not a good one. What comes to the banning sex from minors, there really is point in that.

      The sex in games would probably not be anything like sweet sugar coated romances but mostly hard porn, which in no way is suitable for minors.

      However, this should not affect banning the violence, it should be treated equally bad everywhere.

    57. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What it boils down to is what is considered obscene, really.

      Censorship is obscene.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    58. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but there are some serious flaws there. First, correlation is not causation; it seems likely that people who hold certain attitudes about sex are likely to view porn more often as a result, rather than vice versa. Second, there's no mention of how these results compare to those of adults.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    59. Re:Shit man, I bet... by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      For one thing, if the violence is truly "obscene" as defined by the Miller Test then it is banned.

      Secondly, the reason why the sale of pornography to minors can be banned is because it is a genre not a medium while this law targets violence not as a genre, but as it exists in one particular medium -- in this case videogames. In the USA there are no government regulated ratings or bans on mediums. Film ratings, just like videogame ratings, are voluntary and inforced by the industry not the government. To single out videogame violence would require a mountain of evidence that it is particularly damaging to minors. No such mountain exists.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    60. Re:Shit man, I bet... by readin · · Score: 1

      ...relied on slavery for their economy, many of the founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) sought to abolish it. They were certainly aware that blacks could be the intellectual and educational equals of whites, because they met some such people in business and from African nations.

      From what I've read, Jefferson did not consider blacks to be equally intelligent. Indeed I read of a half-white half-black mathematician who tried to persuade Jefferson that blacks were intellectually as capable as whites. But Jefferson still believed that whatever the comparative intelligence, blacks should be free. Whatever Lincoln believed privately, his public speeches reflected a similar opinion that while blacks may not be equal, they should be free.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    61. Re:Shit man, I bet... by alexborges · · Score: 1

      I dunno... do the founding fathers get a PSIII?

      --
      NO SIG
    62. Re:Shit man, I bet... by readin · · Score: 1

      "Sex is bad" would help to reduce the population.

      Then why is it that the societies with strong laws against porn are growing with high birthrates while countries where prn and other permissive views toward sex is far more accepted?

      I've read there have been recent studies on the negative effects on men of much exposure to prn - and it's not what you would expect. The problem isn't that the men go sex-crazed, it's that they start to have difficulty pleasing, and being pleased by, a real women, getting more pleasure instead from pictures and movies.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    63. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I would be interested in seeing such studies. I probably can't evaluate them properly, but I would still like to see them. I'll go out on a limb here: Islamic society has strong anti-porn laws? Those folk just keep multiplying!! And, Latin America?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    64. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but there is a branch of government whose sole purpose for existing is to interpret the Founding Fathers' intention in the words of the Constitution. That's pretty much what the Supreme Court does all day.

      The document they work from today is not the same one written by those guys 200 years ago.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    65. Re:Shit man, I bet... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      I have far more sympathy for the continental European tendency to view sex as good and violence as bad

      Actually this isn't fully true. While nudity is seen here (Germany) much more relaxed then violence, real actual sex really isn't, its just as illegal to make it available to anyone under 18 as it is in the USA. In practice this means you will see plenty of naked people and violence on normal broadcast TV, but never ever real sex.

    66. Re:Shit man, I bet... by digitig · · Score: 1

      That's still more balanced than the UK and USA, I feel. And I remember noticing when I first worked in France, back in the 1980s, that whereas in Britain we advertise that mattresses are good for sleeping on, in France they were advertising them as good for having sex on. I was surprised when I went to Zurich airport that most of the billboards were advertising brothels. And head further south, to some of the more party oriented beach resorts, and I understand that public sex is actually allowed on some beaches at certain times. I can't imagine that in the UK -- I know of naturist beaches that have had patrols to make sure nobody gets up to anything in the seclusion of the dunes. Don't know about the USA.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    67. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      And then you follow it up a racist remark. Shame.

    68. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      How is my remark racist? AR15.com's forums and Stormfront are both places with high concentrations of racist commentary in regards to Obama.

      My point, which you clearly missed, is if you have any inclination to avoid racist remarks about X, stop going to places where racists congregate.

    69. Re:Shit man, I bet... by hellop2 · · Score: 0
      ElectricTurtle, you seem smart, but also racist. I'm sorry you didn't get to marry your Korean girlfriend, but that has nothing to do with American slavery. Nor does ethnocentrism. And for that matter, neither does racism, as you said.

      Really, I can't figure out exactly what your point is, or why you were modded +5 insightful. What insight are you making? It's just a bunch of random bigoted nonsense.

      e.g:

      Funny how all the honkies the Romans enslaved didn't whine about being victims for centuries. Instead [...] they kicked the shit out of it and moved on...

      So, you are saying blacks are unjustified whiners playing victim while simultaneously advocating a slave uprising. Well then, I wholeheartedly agree. All US blacks should revolt, taking over the country in our current time of weakness, and then you can be happy picking cotton without complaint.

      How do you know whether or not a bunch of illiterate slave descendants whined 1882 years ago? And who is whining now? And what does Rome have to do with your premise that Americans are "naive and anachronistic"? Are you saying that since some of the founders may not have been racist then no one can complain about racism and slavery? Are you saying "white guilt" has made Americans less ethnocentric, so they would never, for example, hate brown people and their religion?

      Ok, I grant that you made some points: 1. The Romans had slavery without racism. 2. Every culture is ethnocentric. (mild racism?)

      But what the hell does that have to do with videogame violence?

      Ok, maybe you aren't a bigot, and are trying to suggest that some of the founding fathers were non-racist slavemasters. Ok, but so what? What does that have to do with anything? Really.

      Trust me, slavery is not good, or justifiable. Slavery was abolished only 144 years ago, not "centuries." Racism was law as recently as 41 years ago. So, some of these "whiners" you insult, who have actually experienced being treated as sub-human are still alive. Why don't you go call them a whiner to their face, in front of their families, so you can learn a lesson about how much of a bigot you are and why it is bad to be that way.

      Now, I am sorry to have to insult you, but I take back what I said about your intelligence. Actually, you are ignorant if not also a complete pompous dumbass who thinks America's culture is white culture. Especially considering this absolute untruth you present as fact: "Racism itself is a completely modern abstraction." Do your own research.

      You are not insightful or interesting. You are flamebait, offtopic, and you contradict your own pointless arguments. Please mod down, and fire his moderators.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    70. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It is racist because you have a different standard of racism for people of different races. I see racist remarks all the time on NBC, CBS, ABC, in local newspapers, you name it. Every time someone says "I'm so proud that we now have a black president.", they are making a racist comment. Deciding a persons value based on the color of their skin instead of the content of their character is the very definition of racism. Your accusations that I would be a white supremacist just because I get tired of hearing people blathering on about how great their race of choice is and noted that the OP was possibly the first time I had heard Obama's race mentioned in a non-racest way, is why your comment was racist. I can honestly say that I have heard literally thousands of racist remarks concerning Obama. The vast majority of them were intended to be complementary of him, but were racist none the less.

    71. Re:Shit man, I bet... by npsimons · · Score: 1

      While many here will certainly applaud this decision, I find the double-standard amazing. If we can ban sales of pictures of people having sex to minors and impose other draconian punishment, then why is obscene violence any different?

      Get your facts straight: the "groupthink" you malign is actually in favor of uncensoring just about everything, including pornography. I have yet to see someone who said otherwise here get very far (no high mods and no high karma).

      though I'll undoubtedly get modded down for this.

      Oh, you mean like this perfectly reasonable comment that attacks false reasoning and bigotry? Oh wait, look at that your comment is still at +5, while more informed opinions are getting modded to oblivion.

      I certainly am not happy about my freedom to criticize politicians being considered on the same level as some spotty fifteen year old kid's "right" to buy GTA.

      Get used to it. It's called living in a free society. You have to give people a good reason to consider your opinion more worthy than artistic expression such as video games.

    72. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm looking at the Wikipedia entries on this, quoting from his letter to Abbé Grégoire. It's quite clear that he expected that as the blacks were educated, that their skills would increase to be at least sufficient to justify treating them with the same rights as others.

    73. Re:Shit man, I bet... by JCota · · Score: 0

      You know my whole life my parents have always used the phrase " where do we look to find the body?" anytime I went out with friends. It is a simple statement but makes a huge impact on a teenager that is going out and always made me think about what I was doing and if one of my friends or I could get seriously hurt. It made me think... and it kept me out of a lot of trouble. My parents were always strict, always wondering where I was, what I was doing, I even tried to resist getting a cellphone. Simply put I didn't want my parents constantly in my life. Now I look back and thank them every chance I get, they are the reason that I'm not dead or not in jail, the reason that I never wanted to take drugs and why I always strive to be the best I can be for myself and others. They also gave me the strength to do what I KNOW is right, and they trust me to make the best decision in a group of difficult choices, THEY my PARENTS gave me the ability to choose and learn, and all because my parents made a choice to be in my life and to always be there for me.

      Now to put this in perspective with the current argument. PARENTS not the GOVERNMENT should decide what is acceptable, the right of censorship is the PARENTS and ONLY the PARENTS decision. I'm not a parent but I had the 2 best parents, and I love them to death, and I know that I have a solid base so when I do have children that I will have the ability to point them in the correct direction. So the real question is where are the parents, what are the parents doing and why are kids getting their hands on material like GTA, its not the governments prerogative to keep the games and other content out of minors hands it's also not the job of the development studio that creates the game. Its the parents job to censor inappropriate materials from their kids, to force themselves into their child's life and be there before trouble starts.

      BTW, since I always seem to get modded down for my responses on here please do so but at least admit my reasoning is solid. And yes I do know this won't stop someone from modding me down, just think.

    74. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh wow, this one's going to be fun. First off, learn to read, when I was talking about inter-racial relationships I said I had experience with the latter, not the former. To enumerate it specifically, I'm white and married a black woman and we have a daughter. I'm sure they can both tell you what a dyed in the wool bigot I must be.

      So, what does slavery have to do with race/ethnocentrism or anything else? Ask the poster(s) I was responding to. Both Antique Geekmeister and Toonol make implicit links between race and slavery. I came along to break those links.

      I will come right out and say that contemporary black people need to stop rolling out slavery as some kind of trump card to get pity. Those ancestors who were slaves are long dead, just as my ancestors who were slaves to Rome are dead and I don't get to go to Italy and talk about how The Man messed up everything for me because of what happened to my great*n-grandfather. This neither denies the real suffering of those slaves in the past nor ignores the racism that exists in the present, but there is no (contemporary) link. And I have no qualms with the slave uprisings that did occur (they can't occur now because there are no longer any slaves), both in the antebellum South as well as antiquity such as the Third Servile War and the long struggle between the Spartans and the Helots.

      While I'm not going to go hunting for a citation, I'm pretty sure that somebody was whining back in the 19th century, and as for now, I'm sure that a quick search for 'slavery reparations' would answer your question of who. Rome has nothing to do with my initial assertion about American attitudes toward history, nor did I draw direct links for that. What I was saying is that previous posters are trying to stick modern thought processes and morals into the heads of Enlightenment politicians. That's anachronism, and the attitude that spawned it is naivete.

      I'm not trying to address whether the founding fathers were racist or not. Not only is the truth of that a matter internal to each person, but when you're talking about cultures over time there are certain parameters that might be considered mitigating. Sort of like grading on a curve, if somebody was significantly less racist in what was a very racist society, they might for practical reasons be considered not racist at all (like getting an A+ for being at the top of the curve even if you have some wrong answers). In an absolute sense, probably virtually all the white people in the colonies were racists, but the ones who were least in spite of that social environment could functionally be considered 'not racist' for the work that they did as abolitionists etc.

      White guilt has made Americans less ethnocentric. A lot of people disagree, but ask my wife what it's like as a black person traveling around outside of the US or Africa. Getting catcalls of 'Oy negra!' in Spanish-speaking countries. Asian cultures are polite but militantly xenophobic and insular. Europe thinks they're over it, but tell that to all the victims of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. At least we stopped doing that after Manifest Destiny. And as for hating 'brown people and their religion' at least it's mutual, and they hated us and our religion first.

      None of this has anything to do with video game violence, but you can take that up with the posts several levels above.

      What I was trying to suggest was simply that slavery was not inherently racist, which means that somebody could be an abolitionist and still a racist (I'm sure that many abolitionists of the antebellum era wouldn't back inter-racial marriage) as well as pro-slavery and not racist (sourced in the classical roots of meritocratic or socially structured race-neutral slavery). Do you see yet? What this means in the context of the original reply is that assuming that because somebody wanted to abolish slavery it doesn't necessarily follow that they wouldn't have wanted all race barriers broken, and THAT was naive and anachronistic.

      I have not

    75. Re:Shit man, I bet... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Aw motherfuck I must have clicked the anonymous box accidentally. No karma for me. Anyway post is here for those who have thresholds set at 2 and wouldn't see it.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    76. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they never meant it to mean that a black guy could be president.

      I think it's pretty clear that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did intend that to mean that black people would become eligible to be elected president (although they probably didn't think there would ever actually be a black president).

    77. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      I didn't make any accusation.

      Your tinfoil is showing.

    78. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      by Grimbleton (1034446):

      So stop reading ARFCOM and Stormfront.

      by Grimbleton (1034446):

      I didn't make any accusation.

      Really?

    79. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Really.

    80. Re:Shit man, I bet... by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      Notice the psychology in your statement, paraphrased: I think my freedom to XXX is more important than someone else's freedom XXX.

      Also please read up on the chilling effect

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    81. Re:Shit man, I bet... by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Much as I would like for you to be correct, you're not. Jefferson may have been anti-slavery, but he did not view blacks as intellectual equals. Evidence:

      "Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. ... The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life." -- Thomas Jefferson

      Sorry.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    82. Re:Shit man, I bet... by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should consider the implications of your wording yourself. That is, you instantly gather all types of "freedom" in one pot and say it's untouchable.
      In reality it's always a question of balance and we need to encourage and prioritize certain liberties while we need laws to limit and regulate certain aspects of society. Otherwise you have negative liberty.

      The problem is that by equating "free speech" to pretty much publishing and distributing everything imaginable to everyone under the sun, we impair the substance of the real intention of free speech when conflict arises.

      By reasoning from the current situation:
      GTA is free speech so Porn must be free speech too. We limit sale of porn, because many people don't like it being sold.
      Conclusion: if enough people agree we can say that whether or not your "free speech" is protected depends very much on whether we like the content of it or not.

      We should be trying to limit this kind of contradiction, particularly for something as fundamental as the constitution.

    83. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are correct I erred above and should have said free speech for XXX. I don't not see any justification for supression of speech, other than as you pointed out the current unconstitutional combination of church and state. Since there is no balancing needed, freedom of speech feels like a good thing and I fail to see the reason that political dissidence need be categorically different from violent art.

      Posting AC because I hate slashdot on the iPhone, please replies to the above post

    84. Re:Shit man, I bet... by Jeruvy · · Score: 1

      Actually, Mr. Pompus they DID equate it to many of the evils that men do, but this should NEVER affect the ability to speak ones mind. They KNEW that later on folks who 'think they know better' than the rest of the world start infringing their lessor opinion in hopes that others will change they're mind. If you don't like violent/sexy video games, or anything else for the matter then you don't buy it. But where would hollywood aka California be without this. Yes the double-standard is quite evident here.

      --
      Jeruvy
  7. "Sale or rental" by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Funny

    So this doesn't apply to piracy, right? Then the kids won't be affected anyway.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  8. I Believe in censorship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what do the ESRB warnings mean? Or are they going to make it illegal++ So there might even be a sum of money involved when violated (get parents where it hurts)

    1. Re:I Believe in censorship. by Faylone · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ESRB warnings do not hold the weight of law, they are a private company. I can make a game and it doesn't HAVE to be rated.

  9. Time to celebrate with a marathon of violence.... by VinylRecords · · Score: 0, Troll

    Grand Theft Auto III, Doom, Mortal Kombat II, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario Galaxy, Pong....let's show these uptight bastards!!

  10. The Jack Thompson of Video game research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    HAHAHAHA! Once again the Jack Thompson of violence in video game research, Dr. Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, has been thoroughly rejected by some clued-in judges

    From the FPDF

    Even upon lay review, however, the disclaimers in this article, alone, significantly undermine the inferences drawn by the State in support of its psychological harm rationale.17

          17
                Dr. Anderson's hearing testimony in the Blagojevich case, which is in
    the record, contains his assent to the statements that there is probably an
    "infinite" number of stimuli that could cause aggression or aggressive
    thoughts in a person (e.g., a picture of a gun), and that his selection of vio-
    lent video games was "largely a matter of [his] choice."

    ...

    Thus, Dr. Anderson's research has readily admitted flaws
    that undermine its support of the State's interest in regulating
    video games sales and rentals to minors, perhaps most impor-
    tantly its retreat from the study of the psychological effects of
    video games as related to the age of the person studied.18
    Although not dispositive of this case, we note that other
    courts have either rejected Dr. Anderson's research or found
    it insufficient to establish a causal link between violence in
    video games and psychological harm. See Kendrick, 244 F.3d
    at 578; Granholm, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 653; Entm't Software
    Ass'n v. Hatch, 443 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1069 & n.1 (D. Minn.
    2006); Blagojevich, 404 F. Supp. 2d at 1063.

    Ever wonder where the "scientific" studies that stupid lawmakers use as a basis to establish justification for these crap laws come from? Well, now you know. Thankfully, the judges can tell the difference between good science and bullshit science. Too bad the fucking politicians can't.

    1. Re:The Jack Thompson of Video game research by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      Oh but they can. They just diregard good science and present bullshit when it suits their interests.

    2. Re:The Jack Thompson of Video game research by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thankfully, the judges can tell the difference between good science and bullshit science. Too bad the fucking family values voters, who vote more often than people who don't have agendas to push and get politicians who pander to their votes, can't.

      Fixed that for you. The politicians don't care one way or the other. If those voters got it in their heads that painting the washington monument pink would prevent violence, then we'd have serious proposals to start buying pink paint and lots of rollers.

    3. Re:The Jack Thompson of Video game research by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      If those voters got it in their heads that painting the washington monument pink would prevent violence, then we'd have serious proposals to start buying pink paint and lots of rollers.

      Yey another stimulus bill! Or should I call it paint industry bail-out?

    4. Re:The Jack Thompson of Video game research by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love how people who are pushing family values have an agenda to push, while other people "don't have an agenda." Dude, everyone has an agenda. You are naive if you believe otherwise. There are people who want god as a fixture in every aspect of public life. They have an agenda. There are people who feel that god should never be mentioned in any context in public life. They have an agenda. There are people who don't care. Even THEY have an agenda. Hell, there are people who think we should worship their poodles. Everyone has an agenda, it's the people who's agenda you agree with who you blindly don't see as having an agenda. And he's right, the politicians, in the end, really don't give a rats ass about any of these agendas, by and large. Yeah, some might, but most follow their own separate agenda.

    5. Re:The Jack Thompson of Video game research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be awesome! Can we get them to paint the top of it purple?

    6. Re:The Jack Thompson of Video game research by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Dude, everyone has an agenda. You are naive if you believe otherwise.

      I guess I was simplifying a bit there for clarity sake. The family values voters are usually much better organized than those of us who aren't opposed to family values but don't think they're doing it the best way. The coalition that wants to ban videogame sales to children because ohmigoodlord it's causing them to be violent zombies, is MUCH better organized and votes much more in the local elections (where these types of silly proposals are often pursued under the radar of many people) than those of us with the opposite "agenda" which is "No, thats censorship and is stupid."

      When one group is focused on making the local government into a morality brigade, and the rest of us who are busy trying to solve (what we see) as real problems with real solutions at the national level (where some of the biggest budget problems, and where the poor foreign policy decisions have been made).

      I would definitely characterize them as having an agenda where I have none. I do have agendas, yes, but not on the subject at hand. Which is why this crap is getting passed while most of us don't think it will work and don't care. Why be semantic about it?

    7. Re:The Jack Thompson of Video game research by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      For the record, I'm glad it was overturned, as I don't want the government to tell me how to raise my son (although at 19 months old, he's hardly ready to play Mortal Kombat yet). That being said, there is a legitimate argument for controlling the violent garbage in most video games when many parents and retailers are not willing to self police. So what you see as the morality brigade, I see as people who are making the wrong argument for the right reasons. My only major complaint with the "Morality Brigade" is that they also want no nudity anywhere in media, where last I heard, no kid ever went on a slaughter spree or started abusing women after seeing tits and ass.

  11. Good Call by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This was a really good ruling. Leave censorship to the parents. There has been yet to prove a direct corollation between violent behvior and video games. Some studies have shown that operrant conditioning is happening where video game players may overcome the natural inhibition to kill. However, this theory fails to explain why most people that play violent video games do not go out and act like that in the real world. Behavioral science, while fascinating, is inexact at best. Legislating people's actions based on an inexact science is never a very good idea.

    1. Re:Good Call by mkiwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not so sure.

      We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids. The reason for this is the graphic nature of many films. (See Saving Private Ryan)
      Kids are exceptional impressionable, and many of these games are as violent if not more so than many R-rated movies.
      I have no problem if the kid's parent comes to the store and buys the game with the child. However, children alone and without supervision should not be allowed to randomly pick up ideas that they have no guidance for.

      I know I'll get modded down. There's a reason these things should not be available to kids without guidance. The human brain does not develop its judgement part until between 18-22 years old, and the judgement of kids younger than 18 is notoriously horrible.

      IMHO, there are a majority of kids who don't have proper guidance and have no moral frame of reference to deal with these situations. Examples:

      - Recent story about a girl arrested for text messaging during class and putting the phone in her underwear so the teacher couldn't get it.
      - The many people who do professional wrestling moves on their little brothers and end up killing or disabling them.
      - Kids who do karate moves on others because Chuck Norris is so badass.
      - The girls at a Massachusetts middle/high school who treat getting pregnant is no big deal and mom will take care of the baby anyway.
      - The fact that two spaces after the end of a sentence seems to be too much to ask for.

      I love libertarian views, but this stuff is not meant for people who have no rational frame of reference. I do not want these people influenced by something they are physically incapable of understanding. That said, there are a few exceptions, and the parents need to be the judge to determine whether that maturity is there or not.

    2. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we can prove that exposure to various images has no impact on our behaviour by observing the cost of an advertisment in the middle of your favourite sports game. Clearly no one rushes out to buy tampons/toilet cleaner/shampoo, yet the cost of those slots is way off the scale...

      Clearly those companies are wasting their money because clearly no one suddenly changes their behaviour after exposure to those 20 second snippets. Likewise regular exposure day in and day out for multiple hours of computer games will have zero effect on my behaviour patterns...

    3. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids.

      Except we don't. MPAA ratings are just guidelines, exactly the same as ESRB ratings. Most theatres choose to prevent people under the age of 17 from entering R-rated movies when not accompanied by a parent, just as most video game resellers choose to prevent people under the age of 17 from buying MA-rated video games when not accompanied by a parent.

      It never ceases to amaze me that, despite the seemingly weekly "Someone's trying to ban video games!" article on slashdot, there are still people with the misguided notion that MPAA ratings are enforced by the government.

    4. Re:Good Call by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This was a really good ruling. Leave censorship to the parents. There has been yet to prove a direct corollation between violent behvior and video games. Some studies have shown that operrant conditioning is happening where video game players may overcome the natural inhibition to kill. However, this theory fails to explain why most people that play violent video games do not go out and act like that in the real world. Behavioral science, while fascinating, is inexact at best. Legislating people's actions based on an inexact science is never a very good idea.

      When I was a kid my favorite game was war and my favorite toys were toy guns. In real life I've never in my life ever used a weapon, not even a stick, against another living creature, or even wanted to.

      As far as I'm concerned coming up with a law like is just a bunch of phony politicking, pandering to the dumber voters amongst us.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    5. Re:Good Call by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The human brain does not develop its judgement part until between 18-22 years old, and the judgement of kids younger than 18 is notoriously horrible.

      No offense, but I don't agree with a single thing you have said. The human brain starts developing its "judgment part" when it's in the womb. Many children's "judgment" is a lot better than that of most adults.

      During the first six years of my legal career I studied under the late Louis Nizer, who was probably the greatest trial lawyer of the second half of the 20th Century. He said that the best way to know whether your position in a case was right or wrong was to present the facts of the case to a 15-year old; if the 15-year old votes for the other side, then settle the case, quick.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    6. Re:Good Call by Big+Bill+the+Conjure · · Score: 1

      So what are you suggesting? That kids' possession of cell phones, watching of pro rasslin' and Chuck Norris be banned? That knowledge of how to get pregnant be withheld from kids until they are of legal age? You cannot legislate to account for poor parenting supervision or juvenile stupidity. When you attempt to do so, you end up with a society in which the laws for everyone are tailored toward the most ignorant and poorly-raised child. Is this the sort of society you want to live in?

    7. Re:Good Call by Mr2001 · · Score: 0, Troll

      We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids. The reason for this is the graphic nature of many films.

      More specifically, the reason for this is a common belief that the graphic nature of many films makes them "inappropriate" to be viewed by minors. This belief, however, is based on ideology rather than evidence.

      There's a reason these things should not be available to kids without guidance. The human brain does not develop its judgement part until between 18-22 years old

      This is blatantly false: minors make judgments all the time. Perhaps you meant to say that minors make judgments you disagree with.

      and the judgement of kids younger than 18 is notoriously horrible.

      You could say the same thing about any other group: "the judgment of women is notoriously horrible". And it'd be just as inaccurate. You could even come up with five examples of women making bad judgments, but you'd have to overlook the countless examples of everyone else making their own bad judgments.

      I love libertarian views, but this stuff is not meant for people who have no rational frame of reference.

      Luckily, most minors do have a rational frame of reference, whether you care to admit it or not.

      I do not want these people influenced by something they are physically incapable of understanding.

      There's no rational reason to believe minors are "physically incapable of understanding" them in the first place. What makes you think there is?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    8. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYCL, I agree with you. People are conflating the concept that the human brain does not stop developing until later in life with the fact that those so-called "centers" of brain activity are not present yet. Just because a region of the brain which is correlated with increased neural firing or increased blood flow does not appear to be fully developed (which I take to mean fully myelinated) [the gp post can correct me if they meant something else], that does not mean that this particular region of the brain is fully non-functional.

      Also, as an aside, Fred Gage at the Salk Institute has also shown that the old saw about the human brain grows during childhood and adolescence and only loses cells after adolescence is incorrect. Gage found stem cells in the adult human brain, and it has been conclusively shown that there is ongoing cellular plasticity and connectivity in adult brains and that neural stems cells divide and create new cells even in adult brains.

      NYCL, I thought you were branching out to other legal issues, but then I saw your other comment about the RIAA lawyers being lawyers for this case also.

      regards, kl

    9. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that two spaces after the end of a sentence seems to be too much to ask for.

      Unless you're using a monospaced font, you shouldn't need two spaces at the end of a sentence. It's a rule that works fine for typewriters, but is now mostly unnecessary.

    10. Re:Good Call by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      Well, from what I've read, it's not judgment per se, but the complete processing of the possible consequences involved in a decision that doesn't fully develop until early adulthood. I'm not sure this applies to the issue at hand, though, except maybe that they'll stay up too late playing. The part of the brain that knows right and wrong are developed by the age of six, and that is ultimately what will stop them from going on a killing rampage. So maybe you ought not let a four year old play the game, but I don't see a problem with teenagers.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    11. Re:Good Call by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      big difference between switching your brand of deodorant and going out and killing somebody.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    12. Re:Good Call by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      IMHO, there are a majority of kids who don't have proper guidance and have no moral frame of reference to deal with these situations. Examples:

      - Recent story about a girl arrested for text messaging during class and putting the phone in her underwear so the teacher couldn't get it.
      - The many people who do professional wrestling moves on their little brothers and end up killing or disabling them.
      - Kids who do karate moves on others because Chuck Norris is so badass.
      - The girls at a Massachusetts middle/high school who treat getting pregnant is no big deal and mom will take care of the baby anyway.
      - The fact that two spaces after the end of a sentence seems to be too much to ask for.

      This may come as a real shock to you, but kids have been doing rotten, nasty, stupid and suicidal things since the beginning of time. I have no idea where people like you get the idea that kids trying to hide wrongdoing or being complete morons about sex, karate moves, professional wrestling or anything else is somehow something new. I remember stories from my grandparents about a kid who shot his brother while playing with the old man's rifle, or another kid who chopped off one of his brother's fingers while they were playing with an axe. As to pregnancy, well, the chief difference nowadays is that society frowns on shotgun weddings, because that's the way they used to handle it in the olden days (and not so olden days, a member of my family was pushed into one in 1960).

      Kids do stupid things, and about the only way to prevent them is to lock them in a room until their 21.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Good Call by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids.

      Please cite the relevant law. I am quite sure that it does not exist.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    14. Re:Good Call by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You are correct. There are now laws in the books.

      The reason there arent is because when congress was getting ready to create a regulatory body specific to this sort of thing regarding movies, the motion picture industry (MPAA) teamed up with the theater industry (NATO, heh) and quickly created a voluntary regulatory body of its own to deal with it.

      ..and thus movie ratings were born. Movies don't require a rating, nor do theater owners need to abide by rating restrictions. The entire system is voluntary, but works quite well in practice.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:Good Call by ring-eldest · · Score: 1

      He said that the best way to know whether your position in a case was right or wrong was to present the facts of the case to a 15-year old; if the 15-year old votes for the other side, then settle the case, quick.

      No offense to your profession, Ray, but I'd say this is a bigger slight against the typical judge and juror (especially the later) than it is any kind of evidence that kids are great analytical thinkers. ;)

    16. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they are enforced by the MPAA. You let children in you will no longer receive are films. Not a bad idea but that does require scruples something companies like RockStar do not have. I agreed with the law the gaming industry is not doing enough. Ask any 50 year old about movie ratings, then ask about game ratings.

      The simple fact remains I have seen a 7 year old by GTA 3 at EB Games with there Grandma there. I had to explain what the ratings meant to the Grandmother. It is a sad statement when X rated movies can't be advertised but a game that glorifies murder and rape is OK to advertise.

    17. Re:Good Call by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Well, from what I've read, it's not judgment per se, but the complete processing of the possible consequences involved in a decision that doesn't fully develop until early adulthood.

      Rare is the adult that ever becomes capable of "complete processing of the possible consequences involved in a decision".

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    18. Re:Good Call by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      No offense to your profession, Ray, but......

      :)

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    19. Re:Good Call by PPH · · Score: 1

      We ban R-rated films from minors without a parent accompanying the kids.

      Not quite. Any 17 year old girl who has a 28 year old boyfriend with a mullet and a TransAm can get in to watch one.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    20. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The adults were the ones out of line in that texting situation. so much for the rest of your argument about the maturity of judgment based on age alone....

    21. Re:Good Call by TriezGamer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think GTA glorifies rape, you need to get your head checked.

    22. Re:Good Call by TriezGamer · · Score: 0

      I strongly disagree. Having sentence breaks double-spaced is more readable with any font.

    23. Re:Good Call by Toonol · · Score: 0

      Correct. Highly off-topic, but still absolutely correct. Two spaces is better with nearly every font. Unfortunately, HTML tends to strip out the second space.

    24. Re:Good Call by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I don't know... you'll need to find four other instances of adult stupidity to match that list. Do you think there exists four more stupid adults? Start scouring the newspapers...

    25. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP is semi-correct about "the judgment part of the brain".

      Clinical studies show that kids and teenagers rely on the prefrontal cortex to do ALL of their "processing", while the adult brain does a much better job of dividing processing between different parts of the brain. This fact leads to a tendency for the teenage brain to get "overloaded" and make bad judgments. For example, a teenager about to crash into another vehicle is much more likely to become overloaded and just scream than an adult is.

      Whether or not this affects their ability to judge the facts of a case or to handle R rated films is up for debate, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

    26. Re:Good Call by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I think I can summarize your entire post with this one quote: these things should not be available to kids without guidance.

      Absolutely right. I think just about everybody agrees that there are things that are not for kids. Now the real issue is does "should not be available" mean "should be forbidden by law"? I tend to think there are certain, very limited, cases where the government does have a role in protecting the child's rights against abuse or neglect by the parents, but in almost all cases it is in child's own interest to be raised by their own parents, as imperfect as they may be, rather then by government regulations. If this means that a parent allows their child to play a certain game before the rated age then so be it.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    27. Re:Good Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children don't understand death.
      Children don't understand some things are irreversible.

      That's what hes speaking of.

      That's why children have parents. They don't know not to stick their hands in the fan, not to put their hands on the stove, to not run out in front of cars, etc.

      There are many lessons in life that you simply don't want to learn through first-hand experience (pun intended).

    28. Re:Good Call by Skadet · · Score: 1

      No offense, but I don't agree with a single thing you have said. The human brain starts developing its "judgment part" when it's in the womb. Many children's "judgment" is a lot better than that of most adults.

      It seems you may have hit reply before perusing the rest of GP's comment. I took the whole 'judgment' thing to be his main point, but I got caught up in the diction. . . turns out what (I think) he's saying is that the younger you are the less life experience you have, and consequently the more difficult it is to make correct decisions since you don't have any experience from which you can extrapolate possible outcomes.

      I think we can all agree that the younger one is, the less experience they have; we can also agree that the more relevant experience one has, the easier it is to make informed decisions.

      Our brains are also not fully developed until somewhere in our late teens/early 20s I believe it is? (if it weren't 3:30am I'd Google it myself). So throw an undeveloped decision-maker on top of all that, and there's your typical kid.

      FWIW, I don't think this argument inexorably leads to the conclusion that Government must, then, control what our kids can consume. The best takeaway is "be a good parent," not "let the Government babysit for you."

    29. Re:Good Call by slash.duncan · · Score: 1

      In real life I've never in my life ever used a weapon, not even a stick, against another living creature, or even wanted to.

      You've never used roach or ant spray? I suppose it's possible, altho I'd suppose you don't live in Phoenix... No rat traps or d-Con(R)? Or do you not consider ants/roaches/rats "living creatures"?

      But I agree with your concept tho I'd not characterize it as "favorite", but certainly a major theme. FWIW, my folks didn't encourage and wouldn't buy us toy guns (with the exception, for some reason, of squirt guns), but that didn't stop me or my playmates from finding and using appropriately shaped sticks. We never hunted or anything either, and used milk and eggs but fish or meat was extremely rare at home. OTOH, stray dogs, etc, used to "disappear"...

      --
      Duncan
      "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
      and if you use the program, he is your master."
      R Stallman
    30. Re:Good Call by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      NYCL, I thought you were branching out to other legal issues, but then I saw your other comment about the RIAA lawyers being lawyers for this case also.

      Well there are other things I'm interested in. Just thought it was an interesting 'aside' that others without my 'RIAA Radar' might not have picked up on the fact that the very same firm that so passionately fought for 'freedom' for its clients would deny freedom to others.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    31. Re:Good Call by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      You cannot correlate young age with those stupid actions. There are people over twenty-five who have done idiotic things such as what you posted; what's your point?

    32. Re:Good Call by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      However, this theory fails to explain why most people that play violent video games do not go out and act like that in the real world.

      It doesn't have to. It shows (apparently) that video games cause some people to act violently. That's cause enough to consider a ban, regardless of what the other people do.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    33. Re:Good Call by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Sounds good, except you and people who think like you have got it backwards. PG-13 violence (see Aeon Flux for a great example) is worse for kids than R violence (see Saving Private Ryan for a great example). PG-13 violence, where some superhero walks into a crowded room and starts shooting and everyone just quietly and cleanly falls down with no blood, mess, or gore gives a skewed perspective to violence and its impact in the real world. Gunshot wounds are often not the simple, clean affairs of a PG-13 movie. They are brutal mutilations of flesh and bone.

      A PG-13 action scene often focuses almost entirely on the protagonist and how "badass" he or she is, with lots of glory shots of them blazing away, trenchcoat blowing in the wind, brass flying... and no focus on the pain and suffering they're putting out.

      An R rated action scene has a lot more opportunity (not that this is always taken) to show the horror and agony that the victims experience as their bodies are torn apart and permanently ruined by the violence. It provides a mental context to the acts being taken, and reminds the viewer that walking into a room and blazing away at people isn't clean and pretty, it is messy and brutal.

      There are, of course, exceptions to this (Matrix lobby scene was pretty scrubbed), but the R rating is MUCH more free to show young people the true context of violent content than PG-13 is. Think about the sick feeling of watching soldiers be blown apart by german machine gun fire on the beach and compare it to the stylized gun play scene in Aeon Flux where she kills about 100 dudes in the course of a few minutes without a drop of blood being spilled, and you'll understand what I'm getting at. I'd rather a kid know that violence has consequences, and I think the kid will be better off for it.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    34. Re:Good Call by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      >two spaces after the end of a sentence seems to be too much to ask for

      Kids don't use typewriters. That rule only applies to typewriters because they are monospaced. Modern typography using proportional fonts is designed for one space after a period. Are you an old grandma?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    35. Re:Good Call by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      My Mother (while age five) jumped off her roof with an umbrella, after seeing Mary Poppins do it and broke her arm. Why won't someone ban Mary Poppins? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    36. Re:Good Call by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      It shows (apparently) that video games cause some people to act violently. That's cause enough to consider a ban

      Not necessarily. What if playing violent video games as a youth serves as an outlet for some, so that their having access to the games causes them to be less, rather than more, violent, in their real lives?

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    37. Re:Good Call by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Kids do stupid things, and about the only way to prevent them is to lock them in a room until their 21.

      Then they just do stupid things as adults.

    38. Re:Good Call by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck is this comment modded troll? Fucking mods on crack again. Of all the days they DON'T offer me mod points, why did today have to be one. This is exactly why I have certain people friended and set to +6 modifier. Looks like it's time to go do some meta-modding . . .

    39. Re:Good Call by ShigureBerry · · Score: 1

      So... the game isn't that bad, there's no rape, only murder? It's OK because it only glorifies murder, therefore is suitable for children? Who's head needs checking?

    40. Re:Good Call by frsmith · · Score: 1

      HI
      I see where your at on this, but must take this further.

      As regards the moves from the Chuck Norris and co on TV/film, they at least show what happens when you kick/punch or head butt someone

      I think things like 'Buffy the vampire slayer' are worse.
      Although these programs don't show blood and guts, they also don't show the consequence's of kicking someone in the head
      How many kids try this at school and really don't realise the damage they can do!
      Cheers
      Bob

      --
      It Seems I've developed an aversion to proprietary software
    41. Re:Good Call by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Yours. American culture in general, (not only movies, but the Bible as well) glorify murder wayyy more than GTA. With GTA, the focus is the graphical effect, whilst the others focus on the act of depriving another human being of life.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    42. Re:Good Call by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    43. Re:Good Call by ShigureBerry · · Score: 1

      That would work if I was American. Fact is - the game rewards you for killing people in cold blood. Who cares about what is glorifying which act, the question is whether or not it should be sold to kids.

    44. Re:Good Call by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      That's not for you to decide.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  12. What about nudity in games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I am glad for this ruling but on second thought is this just another example of the Violence vs. Sex double standard?

    1. Re:What about nudity in games by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. We can have games in which we run around sawing people's heads off, disemboweling them, torturing them, gunning them down by the thousands - but at least we won't see their nipples!

    2. Re:What about nudity in games by Kesch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a worse double standard here though that was struck down. Video games vs. Every other form of media. In the extreme case, what if they had tried to pass a similar law for books? Not even movies are subject to this though, there is no legal requirement for movies to be rated, or for theaters to bar children from movies. All rating and enforcement is done voluntarily by the theaters.

      The double standard we have for sex and violence is a deep rooted societal issue that can't be undone with a few court rulings, but rulings like the one in the TFA can sure as hell beat back the tide of idiot legislators that try to pass this brain-dead anti-video game laws.

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    3. Re:What about nudity in games by Toonol · · Score: 1

      If you're a comic fan, you'll probably have encountered another entertainment medium that has been singled out for special censorship. Not so much anymore, but during the 50's and 60's, comics were. Due, of course, to congressional grandstanding about the threat comics provided to our youth. That's a major part of why comics as an adult art form in America are so far behind those in Europe and Asia.

  13. All I want to know by mmaniaci · · Score: 1
    When is music going to go back to being an art, not a product.

    (Accidentally posted as AC)

    1. Re:All I want to know by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Music needs to go back to being a service and an experience. That's more important than it going back to an "art." (There's more art and experimental music than ever, you're just not looking for it.)

    2. Re:All I want to know by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why can't it be both? There is more good music today and it's more accessible to more people than ever before in history. It might be hard to find though since it's buried under a Mt Everest of crap.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  14. OMFG by rrohbeck · · Score: 0

    What will Jack Thompson say?

    1. Re:OMFG by bgray54 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know, but I know that he won't be saying it in court!

    2. Re:OMFG by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Who cares? :)

  15. Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did anyone notice that the lawyers who successfully argued for "freedom of speech" here are the same ones who are fighting so hard to prevent the televising of the SONY v. Tenenbaum RIAA case?

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    1. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by microbee · · Score: 1

      What's so hard to understand?

      Lawyers are like hitmen. They just live on the blood, but there is always OTHER PEOPLE who hire them to do the dirty work.

    2. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      Wow a lawyer that's in it for the money. I wouldn't have guessed. Ok ok sorry for the sarcasm. I think it's a good thing that lawyers are greedy SOBs that are in it for the money, that way you can be sure they will do the best job possible.

    3. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you know what, those lawyers probably don't give a fuck other than they are getting paid. Hell, betcha I could find a lawyer who would defend Hitler in German war crimes charges posthumously if he thought he would get really good money out of it. Lawyers are like leeches, they live off of feeding, and in this case, they feed off of money.

    4. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      And eventually end up corrupting a large chunk of the legal system. There have to be limits placed somewhere.

    5. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by Skadet · · Score: 1

      Lawyers are like leeches, they live off of feeding, and in this case, they feed off of money.

      Unlike us regular folk, who have no need for food. . .

    6. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I don't. You eat food? That's so 1990's.

    7. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      You may be able to find a lawyer who would defend Hitler. I, in turn, would be able to find a thousand who wouldn't, at any price.

      Law is a messy business, but most lawyers I know have a working moral compass.

    8. Re:Anyone notice the RIAA lawyers... by pcolaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You may be able to find a lawyer who would defend Hitler. I, in turn, would be able to find a thousand who wouldn't, at any price.

      Law is a messy business, but most lawyers I know have a working moral compass.

      That points straight to their bank account.

  16. Lobbyists Duke it Out by WallyDrinkBeer · · Score: 3, Funny

    The violent move industry is losing market share to the violent video game industry. The video game industry is not paying their hired scum politicians enough apparently.

  17. Less banning, more parental controls by californication · · Score: 1

    I happy that the noose is being loosened from around the video game industries nest. At the same time, while we are paying less attention to the accessibility of violence to children, we need to pay more attention to enabling parents to control what their kids do and do not see.

    Consoles, DVD players, computers, etc, need to be sold with the strictest parental controls already installed and enforced. After purchasing, the parent can then adjust the level of sex, violence, etc, that they want their children to see, and that they themselves want to see. As of now, the effort to implement effective and user friendly parental controls in media devices has been abysmal.

    Almost every one of my relatives with kids and a computer have caught them accessing inappropriate content, but they have no idea how to block it, so they often come to me and I do my best to put restrictions in place and make the controls user friendly for them. They all have the computer in a family area, but they just don't have time to watch what their kids are doing 24/7, and the computer has become a critical tool for kids to do things like homework and yes, play games.

    I think everyone should start paying less attention to banning things, and more attention ensuring that parents have the strictest control over what their children watch using their media devices.

    1. Re:Less banning, more parental controls by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Consoles, DVD players, computers, etc, need to be sold with the strictest parental controls already installed and enforced. After purchasing, the parent can then adjust the level of sex, violence, etc,

      People who want those features should buy them. If there's enough demand, someone will provide it - if they don't already.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. I find this incredible ironic by mahohmei · · Score: 0

    Let us not remember that Ahnold starred in quite a few extremely violent movies.

    This isn't the first Ahnold irony I've found. While watching MSNBC's "lockup", an inmate said that Ahnold took away weights from prisons. Think about it.

    1. Re:I find this incredible ironic by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      "said Governor Schwarzenegger. "I also signed into law legislation that will improve foster care services, guard kids from the dangers of steroid use, protect children and everyone from"
      ( http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/1359/ )

      This isn't the first Ahnold irony I've found. While watching MSNBC's "lockup", an inmate said that Ahnold took away weights from prisons. Think about it.

  19. To the first amendment by ProfMobius · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have been erased.

    --
    EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
  20. Re:Here's what you get from these "games" by piratesyarr · · Score: 1, Funny

    She got beaten up by her fella, ella, ella...

    --
    Small though it is, the human brain can be quite effective when used properly.
  21. Depends on their judicial philosophy by langelgjm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That may be true, but there is a branch of government whose sole purpose for existing is to interpret the Founding Fathers' intention in the words of the Constitution.

    That's what some judges do, depending on their judicial philosophy, but it's by no means clear that the purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret the Founding Father's intentions.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  22. The late great George Carlin... by KingAlanI · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I'd rather have my son watch a video of two people making love than two people trying to kill one another..."

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  23. Yeah, I've heard that too... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    ...Certainly, military combat training would need to get people over the psychological resistance to killing one another, if that training's going to be effective.
    Not sure, but playing ridiculously violent video games may have start desensitizing.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  24. Free speech turned on its head! by readin · · Score: 1

    First, how is the violence in a video game "speech" or "the press", which are both mediums in which words are used so ideas, opinions and facts can be discussed?

    Second, why is the production of violent video games protected but my right to donate money to a group that will publish ideas, opinions and facts I agree with not protected?

    Third, perhaps California should have simply put a limit on how much money a person could spend on a video game containing violence and called it the "Video Game Finance Reform Law".

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  25. I've always wondered by Patch86 · · Score: 1

    Why is it terrible and awful for kids to see pictures of sex (which all balanced people grow up to do / want to do / fail at), but perfectly a-OK for kids to see pictures of violent killings (something that we really hope no-one grows up wanting to do overly much)?

    Not much has changed since the 19th century I guess. "Come child, we're going to watch a public hanging! But cover up those ankles before we leave, harlot."

  26. Re:Good Call Why kids have monopoly on stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are impressionable. People don't have proper guidance and have no moral frames of frame of reference and clearly should be stopped from randomly picking up ideas. Examples?

    -A poor impressionable adult gets the random idea that the Aryan race should rule the world and starts WWII because of his small

    -thousands of poor impressionable adults are getting bad ideas for the O'Reilly factor. Clearly we must protect them from his random idea.

    -The fact that people still play the lottery.