Slashdot Mirror
Video Games, the First Amendment, and Obscenity
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from an article about how obscenity laws and the first amendment relate to modern games:
"This question is a tough one, for the very good reason that no video game developer or publisher has ever been prosecuted for obscenity related to video games. As we have seen, if the medium of video games are held to the same standard as literature and film then, presumably, they can also be held to be obscene. One of the reasons for the lack of obscenity prosecution against video game developers and publishers is that the courts have limited obscenity to sexual content only. In fact, the courts have gone so far as to specifically reject calls to alter the definition of 'obscenity' to include violent content in video games. The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board."
So games don't have much potentially obscene content because of existing censorship and fear of further censorship if they included sexual content? Talk about a chilling effect...
Environment affects behavior. If you provide no balance to the violence of video games, the outcome can only be violent behavior.
I can't remember off the top of my head what the case cite is, but the SCOTUS decided that each local has the choice of deciding for its self what is obscene and what is not.
For example, what might be obscene in Kentucky may be par for the course in California and so on.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Declaration of Independence. Three inalienable rights. It shocks the hell out of me that people don't understand everyone's entitled to these. If what I'm doing doesn't deprive other people of these three rights, I should be able to do it. Yes, that's a libertarian viewpoint but it's in the Declaration of Independence. If I want to play Left 4 Dead in my home, what do you care? It's not depriving you of any of these three things and I enjoy it. Should I start saying that you sitting at home all night reading The Holy Bible is bothering me? Because it's about the same damn thing with Lazarus and the whipping and the lashing and the begetting and the Mary Magdalene and the apocalypse ... See how stupid this argument is? It's a waste of time. It has been this way with books and movies and it will be that way with video games. Get over it and move on to target things worth your time censoring and prosecuting like child pornography.
My work here is dung.
Do keep in mind that the legal definition is really, past all the smoke and mirrors, whatever the judge personally finds distasteful. Deciding what the population doesn't need or want to view for them has no place in a free society.
Then of course, we're not a free society.
The law often makes up legal principles (usually giving them Latin names to try to make them seem magical and justified) to override other legal principles. Obscenity is a great way to override freedom of speech by taking speech, labeling it "obscenity," and then claiming that it's "not really speech." A problem with the constitution colliding with the rights of minors and school? No problem! "En loco parentis," is right up your alley (whether you agree with the concept or not). The "community standards" excuse is, even if it is applied as per the name, is a violation of individual rights which the legal system has been more than happy to sacrifice in the name of a sort of vicious populism. Why community standards in obscenity, and not political opinion? Obscenity, political opinion, all of it is simply how one takes it. Personally, I find Nazis more distasteful than goatse, but we're not at silencing them (yet...).
This also extends into the domain of politics, where wars become "police action."
Don't think freedom means a damn thing if the government gets to play with the meaning of words, or if whatever is popular reigns over individual rights.
"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately."
(at which point he launched into this jaunty tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pva35TFiBfI)
I am officially gone from
Many countries, even in the English-speaking world, still have official censorship bodies which won't let you publish content without state approval. That's general content, not particular content niches like pornography. Games have been effectively banned in Europe or Australia from being sold for being too violent or "mature." By comparison, the United States has no effective apparatus of censorship. The most that can happen is that a prosecutor brings you up on charges of violating local obscenities laws, but then the prosecutor has to show that your sexual content is gratuitous and has no independent (artistic, literary, etc.) merit. If you had a map where a character walks through a realistic strip club, and gets into a shoot out, that content is likely to be protected under the same precedents that protect R-rated movies with similar content.
Now, if you create a sex simulator, even one like Hot Coffee, well, you're up shit creek. That aside, our system is significantly freer and more in line with "let adults be adults and let parents be responsible" than the majority of the industrial world on content in general.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Until the demand for content that is considered obscene (in current culture) allows for mass profits, the big developers will never take it on.
I'll bet you see attempts at prosecution when the interfaces for obscene games are well developed.
Games will be pretty wild, then.
The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.
A game that contains sex gets rated AO by the ESRB and AO means that it won't be allowed to make it on either Nintendo's, Sony's or Microsoft's console. There is still the PC market, but Walmart and other shops won't carry AO either. So AO pretty much results in a game that you can't sell, so everybody avoids it as good as they can, meaning no sex in games.
Anyone know of any court cases involving Japanese sex games? I know they get pretty obscene..
There's been a lot of talk and grandstanding for banning games like "RapeLay" but I don't think there's been a court case or decree. It's pretty difficult to get a hold of through a major outlet though. And I think Japan's version of the ESRB is passing new standards preventing the publishing of games like this. No court cases on US soil regarding this title to my knowledge. From what I've read, it seems to be the most explosively controversial title out there right now.
My work here is dung.
It does amaze me that we live in a society where realistically depicted violence, and in the case of some news stories, actual violence, is considered acceptable. Meanwhile, a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show resulted in outrage and a strong desire to "crack down" on obscenity. The message there is that violence is normal and acceptable while sexuality is obscene and must be censored.
You are quite right about a chilling effect. That tells me we are doing things the hard way. Rather than censorship, I'd much rather we teach people that fictional depictions like video games can be appreciated for what they are without also being idolized and emulated. Any adult who can't understand what that means is not really an adult but an overgrown child. So I assume this must be about children. If parents are worried about their children being exposed to the more severe video games or movies or any other media, I fully support their right to act as the "benevolent dictators" that they are and control what their children have access to. However, I expect them to actually be parents instead of relying on institutional censorship to carry out their responsibility for them.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/
And not just because Jack Thompson keeps failing on the civil side.
Getting video game violence declared obscene is well prevented by the movie/tv industries' efforts in the motion-picture realm. They've been working for decades to keep visual depictions of violence in the "OK for young children" realm. You can punch somebody on television and it'll be ok for anyone over the age of 8. Add some blood and it pops you up into the low teens, on par with a bit of side-boob.
The interactive aspect is too narrow a distinction for the rest of the entertainment industry to risk getting drawn in and censored, so it'll never happen until somebody comes up with a .9 r^2 correlation between violent games and homosexuality.
I thought the idea was protecting against public obscenity. It's not saying you can't be obscene with someone, or something, or yourself, or whatever, in your home. I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me, walking down the street, from seeing obscenity.
For those that are complaining about "we don't live a free society because I can't do obscene things in public," what if I were to complain that "I don't live in a free society because I can't even walk down the street without having to wear a mask to keep myself from seeing obscenity."
Hm. And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there? After all, it's free speech. It's not even obscene. Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.
IMO, there's a double standard for "moral legislation." On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.
I suppose this particular article is not about public obscenity but "private," e.g., video games.... but most reactions against it are going to be regarding public, not private (video games are private), stuff...
I'm kind of failing to see what the loss to humanity is if some commercial sex games aren't made.
I can definitely see that a game with strong sexuality can have artistic merit, that's not what this is about. On the other hand, I think most games like that would never, ever be made by anything other than an individual or small group that would make it regardless of whether it would be commercially viable.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sexual content in a movie that would earn an R rating by the MPAA, earns an A (adults only) rating in game. See, for example, the Hot Coffee version of GTA.
This applies to retailers as well, the same retailer will accept the content in a movie but not in a game. It's not just chilling, it's deadly to a game.
When people decide to get violence removed/banned/controlled in video games, get ready for millions of gamers to call for the same treatment of books, film, TV, and the most violent of all, the news.
Be a parent, not a fascist. Freedom is hard if you cant govern yourself, but at least you have options.
Not entirely on topic, but there was that court case in Iowa regarding Japanese sex comics. I can't imagine a zealous prosecutor being too hesitant to make the jump from comics to video games should it serve his interests.
Well a lot of games involve violence of some sort as critical to gameplay, FPS being a favourite of mine where the objective is to annhilate occasionally with good strategy. Games with a sexual objective? Not so much. Of course there could be just as well. However apart from this it's interesting to note just what society calls 'obscene' in Indian movies a hint of sexuality gets a movie's rating bumped up a couple age groups but a movie I once saw which had systematic hunting down and killing people in crazy ways (including being decapitated by a flying car door from a car exploding) and having a head sheared off with brute force, this got a fucking G rating. While matrix 3 with it's tiny no parts visible sex in the beginning automatically gets that an R rating. There's hypocrisy for you.
Mass Effect was rated AO?
Japan's porn is animated, which is a far cry from obscenity.
Obscene
Ob*scene"\, a/ [L. obscenus, obscaenus, obscoenus, ill looking, filthy, obscene: cf. F. obsc['e]ne.]
1. Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing of presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure; as, obscene language; obscene pictures.
2. Foul; fifthy; disgusting.
3. Inauspicious; ill-omened. [R.] [A Latinism]
Let each state (or break it down further, I'd prefer, to local municipality) handle what they consider to be obscene. What I find obscene may be right up someone else's alley. What they find obscene I may find normal. This puritanism crap has got to stop. That was years ago. Get over it, America.
*and you too, the rest of the world, especially Germany and Europe in general.
Sent from your iPad.
That ratings board is stil voluntary, right?
What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?
Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there? Hell sell it online, the first one out to do this would win by word of mouth selling. If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No, it wasn't. Mass Effect was rated "M" and can be purchased just about anywhere that sells video games.
The controversy that surrounded that game alleged that there was rape and other sexual disturbing scenes, which was completely false. There exists one (1) "bed scene" that is more tame than what you see on TV.
I have a bad feeling about this...
Did Mass Effect contain sex? Not really, a little stuff shown from the side and cut together so that you couldn't see anything at all. In terms of nudity I think God of War got away with a good bit more and Fahrenheit so far seems to have had the most sex and full frontal nudity of any mainstream game, but then it was only was released uncensored to Europe, the USA got the censored version.
TOS clauses of most ISPs rules out the distribution of genuinely obscene content. It is censorship, and in fact, many governments actually do censor this stuff as well.
I mean, if you go by the old rules of what is obscene, sex and violence, obviously, that's not too bad these days and won't get you into trouble. But if you put together a cartoon swastika game for children that features a character running around tossing minorities into concentration camps where you can dehumanize, torture and exterminate them, all while beating the crap out of its wife until she creates babies for the fatherland and streudel for the tummy, that might get you into some trouble.
In Germany, you would go to jail, for sure. In the USA, I think you would probably be banned by most ISPs, be put on a number of terrorist watch lists by the government, get sued by the ACLU, ripped by Al Sharpton, and worst of all, you would get modded as a troll on Slashdot. In the UK, you would probably find a dozen cameras in your house, and a ton of condemnation from the BBC and parliament, unless you were islamic, in which case, it would be ok. In Iran they would probably cheer you and in Israel Mossad would probably have more than a word with you. For some reason, I think Canada would argue you had the right to host but they would probably bend over backwards to paint you as an American.
People that actually had the game would suddenly find themselves subject to any sort of hate crimes laws. So, if you punched someone in the face, without the game, it might be a simple assault. But, if you had the game and punched someone else in the face, that would likely be a hate crime and you would wind up in prison.
So.... in reality, there's still tough anti-obscenity laws out there. It's just that, liberal nations have made it taboo to hate people, just as much as conservative regimes once made it taboo to talk about gratuitous violence and sexuality. If you really wanted to make sure you covered all the bases, you could probably make the swastika concentration camp game into an ultra violent porno. That way, liberals and conservatives would be thoroughly offended, and yes, you would be obscene by anyone's definition!
This is my sig.
I actually agree with you on expecting parents to be parents. However, as a parent, I have to mention that sometimes my kids stay over at other kids houses. We don't always get the ability to audit everything available in that house before they stay there. In fact, if we tried, the kids would never get to stay as we would be considered "weird creeps". We can ask about the video games - but from experience kids sometimes pull out a game that their parents didn't know they had. So it is a problem and although we try to do this correctly and be responsible some times you can't reasonably avoid them being exposed to something you'd rather they weren't.
It boils down to this: Crusades = ok, premarital sex = da debbil.
You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex. I think violence is a lot worse than sex.
It's OK for kids to see people being machinegunned into pieces, blood and flesh everywhere, but a boobie is simply too outrageous. WTF!?!
Here in Europe, most movies have nudity in them but in a Hollywood movie, if you see some boobs for a fraction of a second, it's outrageous. The leg-crossing of Sharon Stone in Fatal Instinct was deemed as the sexiest thing on cinema, but truly, it's pretty standard in European movies. Of course, in American movies and series, violence is rampant, even in family-rated stuff.
On American TV, I've seen boobs blurred out in movies, music videos, etc. I've even seen something incredible, Naomi Watts was masturbating in Mulholland Drive, but she was only filmed from the waist up, so you could only see her arm going up and down, suggesting what she was doing. They fucking blurred her arm! How stupid is this?
I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.
Unblessed games don't run on unhacked consoles, so you can't sell your AO game to the mass market of any kind of gamers except those on PCs, a market which has been dwindling.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
God of War wasn't AO either, and you had to pound out a sex scene rhythm at one point... not just all sex is AO and removed, just explicit and graphic sex.
Yes. The second they take my freedom of expression away from me will be the second I begin unscrupulously pursuing censorship of TV, Movies, Music, Artistic Drawings, Books (especially). If they have ANYONE shot in any of them, or death is mentioned, then they should all burn in a big bond fire. If video games can't have violence, nor should they. This will be the slippery slope of hell, where the slope is a swedish luge competition. So I say to the censorship part: bring it, you mother fuckers.
You clearly haven't seen the DMCA.
To be able to get the game to work on their consoles you have to get their blessing or circumvent their copy protection mechanisms.
You mad
ftfy
\u262D = \u5350
Dude, WE KNOW.
We're waiting on the AARP crowd to die off so we can take control. There's a shit-ton of baby boomers out there, they're active and they vote.
Once they're all dead, we'll "relax" more as a country.
But yeah, I agree, I'd rather see a delicious breast than some dude get blown to pieces by a gun in a movie.
Don't kid yourself though, Europe is just as screwed up as the US is, just in slightly different ways.
Sent from your iPad.
Unless these games are broadcast over these mediums the Federal Government is going to try to stay clear of them. The exception is ... well everyone here is smart enough to figure it out. I am not going to feed the candidate trolls that need a superfluous platform to stand on.
Personally, I'm not really worried. Because of the AO rating, obscene games are commercially not viable, but they are not completely banned. Even the most gruesomely violent games aren't censored, and only in extremely rare cases are overtly sexually games completely banned from being sold. I have some issues with this, but I can handle it.
The point where it would cross into being a problem for me is if they banned the ownership of sexual video games, which I don't believe has happened in most of the free world. So long as the development of the video game doesn't negatively affect other people (as is the case with the creation of child porn), I don't believe that the government should have any right to restrict that game's ownership.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
It's not even "a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show" but a single nipple. You can show much of the breast on TV and in print without being called porn. Just look at all of the bikini shots that show nearly the entire top of the model. But show one female nipple and you're in "won't someone think of the children" territory. I still haven't quite figured out how that small patch of skin on a female qualifies as obscene while the same patch of skin on a male is mundane. I keep envisioning a test to see how the "think of the children" folks react. Put a woman in a modified burka. It would cover her from top to bottom so you wouldn't be able to tell anything about her shape but cut holes in the burka so that only the woman's nipples showed. (Some tape may be in order to keep any breast from showing.) Would people think this was lewd? What if a similar woman walked around in a string bikini?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?
The fact that it won't play on the vast amount of consoles that aren't unhacked?
Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there?
Are you completely unaware of the DMCA?
If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.
And you'd lose on the grounds that circumventing copy protections in such a manner as you described is clearly against the law.
Well, part of parenting is teaching your kids how to react to things that you don't usually allow. If you'd rather your kid not look at nude photos of women or play extremely violent video games, you don't just keep them out of your house and pretend that they don't exist. At some point, your child will discover them. Instead, you have a talk with them about why you consider those things bad (kids aren't too fond of "because I said so") and how to react if they should come upon something like that. It's what I do with my five year old son (and will do with my two year old son when he gets older).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And the thing is that for a disc to be recognized by a game console, it usually have to include material copyrighted by the console manufacturer, usually a picture of their logo (compared against a copy located in the firmware) and sometimes some proprietary bootstrap code, so if you're pretty much forced to have a license to be legally able to make a game running on their console.
I'm kind of failing to see what the loss to humanity is if some commercial sex games aren't made.
I can definitely see that a game with strong sexuality can have artistic merit, that's not what this is about. On the other hand, I think most games like that would never, ever be made by anything other than an individual or small group that would make it regardless of whether it would be commercially viable.
What humanity could stand to lose is the "we know what's best for you" mentality. Humanity could stand to lose that, the same way that a cancer patient could stand to lose a tumor.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Mass Effect didn't have explicit sex scenes. They had some boobage along with the implication that there was sex. Same goes for The Witcher, where you have hints of eroticism by having two characters holding each other, but once anything serious is about to happen, the camera blanks out and wonders off. This amount of 'sex' is already fairly common in most media, from the cover of swimsuit issues to your basic cable show (e.g. Battle Star Galactica). So games are pretty much in the safe zone when they advertise sex and show only the periphery of action.
What's sad is that we as a culture treat sex as a constant juvenile taboo but are pretty much ok with most graphic violence and subtle racism. I suppose the former is more likely to happen than the latter (fun copulation versus violent killing spree), that it would require some responsibility on the parent's part. Since that would be awkward and take effort, we shift the blame elsewhere.
Of course, they're justified in that. Most people do have sex. Most people don't commit murder.
Indeed, we accept the "sex drive" as a natural part of the human makeup. And seeing depictions of sex obviously stimulates an appetite for the real thing in most normal people. I don't think the same can be said for killing, and most people seem to agree with me.
I'm not excusing censorship, just giving what I think is a reasonable explanation of the disparate treatment of sex vs. violence--they're very different things (for most of us).
But purposely talking to your kid about that stuff might lead to you or the kid feeling embarrassed! That's like psychological child abuse!
Mass Effect didn't have (humanlike) sex, it had a hand on a window.
The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.
That's only self censorship in the same sense that employer-mandated drug tests are "optional -- as long as you don't mind losing your job". Game developers censor themselves because if they didn't, their publishing opportunities would be zero thanks to console vendors and the ESRB.
Actually the part about the proprietary bootstrap code isn't an issue as was decided in Sega v Accolade in which Accolade reverse engineered code to load their games for the Genesis as they weren't a licensee of Sega. Basically that code wasn't covered by copyright because it was considered "non-expressive" and as such didn't get copyright protection. The issue for what the GP is talking about has to do with the cryptographic key signing that is used by the consoles. That is illegal to circumvent.
Obscenity is so relative as to make its use in your sentence useless.
Good-bye
Dude, WE KNOW.
We're waiting on the AARP crowd to die off so we can take control. There's a shit-ton of baby boomers out there, they're active and they vote.
Once they're all dead, we'll "relax" more as a country.
I bet you don't. You'll be their age then, and I bet you'll be pretty much the same. Remember that those baby boomers were the "free love" and "turn on, tune in, drop out" generation!
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Doesn't DMCA have provisions for compatibility/interactivity issues? What about monopoly issues, they the company alone decides who can sell games for their systems? That kind of thing wouldn't work for computers would it?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
mean while...we get the "ESRB-Experience may change during online play"
That I think is the loop hole that gaming companies want. The gaming company can't create it but I've run into enough players online that want to flaunt AO material.
I think that is great, but most gaming companies still crack down on AO fan material creation. If memory serves there was a AO guild that's stated purpose was to flaunt AO subject matter in WoW. Blizzard shut it down.
Personally I think gaming companies would be better served by allowing players to filter when it comes to online content. Give them the ability to ignore players/alliances. Give them the ability to control who can talk to them.
I believe the last leisure suit larry game came out in multiple ESRB and included an AO version. I don't see why online games can't do that. Just create a restricted area for adults only. It would be interesting in WoW to see how many people paid to transfer their characters to an AO allowed server. Kids would still get in illegally of course, but kids also get alcohol before 21 with the infamous 'hey, mister' while offering a $20 outside liquor stores.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
There are a grand total of four possible sexual encounters. One is optional for all characters in all playthroughs (and happens or not depending on conversation responses). The last three are optional depending on which (if any) crew member you decide to romance - at most one of these will happen per playthrough. All of them are consensual and between adults.
The first doesn't show anything even remotely considered nudity, and is mostly implied. It's with an Asari (a mono-gendered, but female-looking/acting alien race) consort. It's a 'reward' for you if you don't think her gift of advice is enough for completing her sidequests.
The other three are very similar in style, and are between a male PC and a female human, a female PC and a male human, and a female or male PC and an Asari (female-looking/acting) scientist. They show, at most, mild nudity from the characters (showing rear nudity, with full nudity implied), and are indeed tamer than what you can see on network TV in most ways, and certainly tamer than some things you can see on cable TV. They also only occur after a fairly significant romance sideplot, advanced in conversations with the chosen NPC between missions, and only occur near the end of the game (which is, attempting 100% completion, a longer-than 20-hour game, and probably could not be completed in much less than 8 hours, even with skipping all non-plot related events or quests).
Has anyone of those bible thumpers ever thought about what that word means?
It is the implication of nudity, sex, and talking about these things, being related to something bad and forbidden.
Now if you think about it, we all are born nude, and by nature, this is our intended default state. Also our very existence is based on sex, and it is probably the best feeling that anything can give you. (Especially when based on love and fun). Which of course is for the same reason of our existence depending on it.
So if this are the best and most natural and important things in our existence, then why in the world would anyone come up with the concept of them bing somehow bad and forbidden? It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Yet somehow we are so used to it, that it appears to be a totally normal thing, to look in a disgusted manner upon "obscenity".
I once found an article that was the first to actually shed some light on how this was possible.
It explained, that in the dark ages, and even before that, some people came up with this scheme:
You make the very things that they love the most, and can't help but wanting to do, because it is you basic nature, a bad and forbidden thing. Forbidden by "god".
You then tell the people, that this "nice" god, would literally raise hell upon you, if you so much as thought about doing these things.
Because nobody can hold back his basic nature forever, this would make everyone a sinner.
And this would give you absolute power and absolute control over those people, commanding them to do how you please, to pay for their sins.
So apparently, this whole concept is just straight out of the rule book for oppression from the dark ages. And in reality, there is no such thing as obscenity.
Which would make it a power play. A fight for power and control.
Well, if this really is the case, which I believe it is, (but ask you to think and decide for yourselves), then, well, this is easy to fight:
Just ignore those who scream against "obscenity". Because all they scream for, is to stay in power, or for their master to stay in power (while being mostly unaware of it).
So question such (seemingly) basic matters of course, and look at things yourself. Then you will exactly know what is OK and what is not OK to do, and your art and ideas will not be limited by false beliefs or controlled by others. Which in my experience usually results in the most outstanding art and concepts, and even make people follow your strong reality. But not because you oppress them, but because they respect you.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I actually agree with you on expecting parents to be parents. However, as a parent, I have to mention that sometimes my kids stay over at other kids houses. We don't always get the ability to audit everything available in that house before they stay there.
So then don't let you kids stay at someone else's house. If you want total control, then thats what you should be doing... but instead you're going to the government to ensure your neighbor doesn't have anything objectionable to YOU.
Oh, don't see you agree, because you don't. "However" and "but" are just words used to negate whatever you said previously.
Doesn't DMCA have provisions for compatibility/interactivity issues?
Sure, but none of them would allow what you are talking about.
What about monopoly issues, they the company alone decides who can sell games for their systems?
Pretty much would fail. No company is obligated to let anyone and everyone develop for their system. Especially if they aren't a licensee.
That kind of thing wouldn't work for computers would it?
Really? Seems to work plenty fine for Apple.
It is interesting that we are ok with Violence, but fret over sex (At least in the US). To me though, I prefer it that way. My wife and I, we watched Watchmen last night. It is now funny to look back at our reactions, all the gory parts we said "WHOA!" and the sexy parts we'd blush and look at each other (You know what they are doing?!?). I'm ok with sex being Taboo, because I like sex. For example, you're watching some love story, they start getting hot and heavy, you start thinking (they are gonna do it) and then the Camera pans off. Same is is in Mass Effect, and some people think (DANG I wanted to see that). But it's the question that has people interested. If we saw sex, and it was ok, all the time, we wouldn't be so curious about it anymore. Why do you think old married couples don't have sex as often? It's not just because they are busy. It's because they have lost the curiosity.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
Yes, but then it will be because we're vindictive that we didn't get it, not out of actual morals or anything.
That's true, and they're shooting themselves in the feet by doing it. This is a chance for a new undertaking that could eat Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's lunch, by making a console that AO games would run on.
Computer games ain't only for kids any more, and actually never were. There's no valid reason why you can't have sex in a video game.
Look at the disaster Die Hard IV: Revenge of the nerds was. They made it so nothing would have to be cut for it to play on TV so as to get the "younger audience", and it tanked at the box office - for good reason. The PG version sucks donkey balls. The unrated version on the DVD is as good or better than the other three Die Hards, but it is in the same spiruit as those. For instance, when the bad guy woman goes down the elevator shaft, the "fuck you, bitch!" fit. "The last time I saw her she was at the bottom of an elevator shaft with an SUV rammed up her ass". And of course the all important "yippie kayay, motherfucker".
That was what people were expecting and wanting to see at the theater, and were sorely disappointed.
Why does the TV version of The Terminator show Arnold cutting his eyeball out, shooting and burning policemen, ripping a punk's heart out, but they cut the sex scene? The people who rate and censor this shit are sick, imo.
I want to see GTA's hookers get naked. I want to see them actually give somebody a blow job. And, er, why is it OK to show somebody getting their head blown off, but not OK to show titties? Some of you young puritans are hypocritical twits.
Free Martian Whores!
Ok, I as usual did not see some errors in the preview, but noticed them right after clicking submit.
1. I should not have used the aggressive tone of "bible thumpers" in the first sentence. If was a bad start. I meant people who strongly believe in their religious rules (which include that view about obscenity), wherever they may come from. I hope you can forgive me, as I respect every person.
2. I should not have used the evil word of "bing" in the seventh sentence. It was a bad pothole. I meant the search engines who gloriously are believed in like religious rules (which include that site from Google), wherever they may come from. I hope you can forgive me, as I respect every eye that is now gouged out because it read that word.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
What evidence do you have for this untapped demand for AO games? There are AO games, porn games and Henai games which have sex and they don't sell in any kind of high numbers. Games with lots of sex seem at this point to be a niche product. What evidence do you have that there is some untapped market. As for profanity I believe M games can have profanity.
Tonight's Penn and Teller Episode is supposed to tackle video game violence tonight if you're interested. Apparently Jack Thompson is supposed to make an appearance. I cannot wait for them to talk to that crackpot.
My work here is dung.
Alternatively they could cut it out for the American market and sell it as it was created in Europe, where many popular games are given the highest 18+ rating and are still sold in shops.
I wish to remain anomalous
And the baby boomers are all vindictive because they're not getting it now. Big improvement. Not.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
We're waiting on the AARP crowd to die off so we can take control.
Are you fucking kidding? Thats what we said when we were your age, and look at any of the movies that came out in the 70s and 80s when I was still young. Ever seen Fritz the Cat? How about Total Recall? I loved the mutant with three boobies. Terminator with Sarah fucking Kyle?
What movies have your generation produced like that? NONE. Jesus, you young punks even made HHGTG a G movie, WTF? You think boomers are on the ESRB? Quit blaming us geezers for your own failings. It's your generation that is censoring us, not mine.
Free Martian Whores!
By then their AARP crowd will be dead and they'll be more "relaxed". I need to watch more British movies...
In America, it's better to make a game where you can stick a spike into somebody's head and spray blood everywhere, than it is to stick a penis into a vagina and spray semen everywhere...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
There are AO games, porn games and Henai games which have sex and they don't sell in any kind of high numbers.
AO != porn. The whole crux of the current situation is that games are rated harder then movies. The sex scene that gives you an R in movies, gives you an AO in games. And as there certainly is a big market for R rated movies, so why shouldn't there be one for the same content in games?
AO? Anal Orifice?
Doesn't censoring stuff from kids usually spark and even more interest in it? Because when i was growing up when ever i couldnt "do" or "see" something i have always wondered, "Why?". And then just got on the internet and found out for my self, and then got into toruble. Would i have gotten into trouble if my parents just told me in the first place? p.s. I think we all know the answer to that.
I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.
And they also seem to believe that the two are morally comparable.
Alternatively they could cut it out for the American market and sell it as it was created in Europe
Fahrenheit did that, but that is the only game I know of that did that. Most other games censor themselves from the start, as its easier to do one game, then two slightly different ones.
where many popular games are given the highest 18+ rating and are still sold in shops.
The highest rating in Europe isn't 18+, thats just the highest rating you get from the rating organizations, many countries have additional laws for banning games (in Germany its: 0, 6, 12, 16, 18, indexed, banned), which causes the games to be just as absent from the store selves as an AO game in the USA. The real advantage that you have in Europe is that sex in games won't get you near an 18+ or worse rating in the first place, Fahrenheit was 16, stuff like Lula 3D is 16 and nobody cared about Hot Coffee to begin with, thats all AO in the USA.
I seem to recall that in the accolade affair, they managed to circumvent the loading code so as to avoid to include any sega material whatsoever. I believe that it's actually why sega on the dreamcast later explicitely made the firmware do a bit by bit comparison of a logo picture stored in the CD's bootstrap, although there was no cryptographic key involved yet afaik.
You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex. I think violence is a lot worse than sex.
Americans are far more relaxed about sex than a lot of other cultures. Look at India, or the middle east, for example.
Of course, in American movies and series, violence is rampant, even in family-rated stuff.
Uhhh..examples?
Disclaimer: This is an opinion, not legal advice. Jurisdictions vary wildly and so do cases, particularly in this field. Get your own damn lawyer. This in no way reflects the opinion of my employer/partners.
Actually, it may very well not be illegal to circumvent cryptographic code signing. Particularly as used by the consoles, if you're trying to (for example) publish your own console game, or publish a homebrew app for the iPhone or some other tightly controlled platform.
According to the DMCA (USC 17 ss.1201), and related provisions borne from the EUCD, it's illegal to circumvent (or "...traffic..." in a "...device..." {et al} intended to circumvent) a measure which effectively control[s] access to a [copyrighted] work [protected under this title].
The ss.1201 provisions clearly only apply to "a work protected under this title". ss.1201(3)(A) allow the 'copyright owner' to bypass; (B) specifies the exact provisions, that a measure which effectively controls access "requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work".
What did Sega -v- Accolade (as you quoted) say again? That the code signing keys, and general algorithm, are not copyrightable, essentially because they are access control mechanisms. This is now firmly entrenched case law (Atari -v- Nintendo, Nintendo -v- Codemasters et al).
This extends also to trademark law - neither a copyright nor a trademark is protected when used for this purpose. (Whether it extends to patent law is jurisdiction-variant, however actually relatively few modern jurisdictions, except the US, permit pure software patents, or would permit a patent for this reason; at least, not a patent that would survive its day in the glare of a Courtroom.)
If they're not copyrightable, clearly they cannot therefore have a copyright owner.
This raises the interesting point that a measure, say, controlling the execution (or otherwise) of code you wrote does not "effectively control access" under ss.1201(3)(B), and is thus not in violation of the provisions of ss.1201 to circumvent (or traffic in circumvention devices)...
Your attention is particularly drawn to ss.1201(f), which even codifies this as specific, if narrow, exceptions for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. There they are. Read them carefully, however, they're rather complex and tangled.
Although, say, modchips would be rather hard to argue for, if you were an indie publisher publishing for a major console without permission, or if you were, say, purplera1ning your iPhone, I'd say you have a reasonable, albeit hard-fought, case.
This is, however, a very complex issue, and certainly an absolute minefield, and I would strongly advise anyone thinking about tackling this issue to seek an extremely good team of intellectual property lawyers, because you can bet your ass the other side will.
I agree that we are too concerned about nudity. It's bizarre that the 70's were more open and accepting of nudity in film, for instance, that the 2000's are.
However, you can't directly compare it to violence. Explicit sex is media is frowned upon for entirely different reasons than violence. I'm not worried about my son, my daughter, or 99.9% of anybody else's kids wanting to go out and commit murder because they see it in a game. However, sex is a temptation. The kids would be weird if they DIDN'T want to go out and have sex... or lock themselves up in their bedroom and watch sex all day.
Yeah, I think it's too restrictive. I don't see anything wrong with a child seeing a breast. But in fairness, the current stigma is not because sex is considered WORSE than violence. It's considered more SEDUCTIVE than violence.
[quote]The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board.[/quote]
Did you play GTA4? Even next batman game has nudity!!!!
What movies have your generation produced like that? NONE.
Watchmen had a faithful reproduction of the amount of sex from the book. I seem to recall there were a run of movies like Zack and Mimi and others which were even more raunchy than Total Recall. To be more to the point though, I don't think censorship is necessarily the problem here. I think that the problem is that there is very little content being produced with anyone over the age of 20 in mind. Back in the old days, kids had cartoons and they had disney movies. Now that people realized that kids are the only demographic worth catering to, that's all that's made. Don't hate the baby boomers. Don't hate the "pepsi generation". Hate all those overbearing marketing assholes who decided to prey on children with their inability to differentiate content from advertisement. Now that this is the standard operating procedure for anyone looking to make a buck, that's all you'll see anymore. Me personally, I just solve the problem by downloading kids movies, splicing in individual frames of sex scenes, and then posting them back out there for download.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
The DMCA does allow reverse engineering to allow interoperability. The caveat is that you cannot sell or otherwise disclose how you do it.
On the other hand, it would still be an uphill battle, and you can bet your ass that the console developers would drag you into court.
The Japanese seem to have no trouble delivering on this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroge
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Umm, do we have the same problems with rock music being characterized as devil music? No, I am sure there will be something stupid my generation doesn't like or "get", but we hopefully won't care so much about nudity. I am starting to show my age, though, as I can't believe Twitter is so popular.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Their age? Not quite. A few friends from high school have political careers now, and they're not as open to these type things as you'd think. On a personal level, yea, they're cool with sex and violence, but politicians are trying to please everyone. While I may have more liberal views on sex and violence, I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who disagree with me. And it's not like a politician is going to look good saying something about "it's just sex.." The opposition will warp, twiste, and manipulate it into "Candidate X is a perv who won't protect your small children from sexually deviant material."
and so, "Won't someone think of the children" was born...
Umm, do we have the same problems with rock music being characterized as devil music?
I think you'll find that was rather earlier than the baby-boomer generation.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Actually, the problem generation is 65+.
Until two years ago, we had to wear dress shirts at work (in 95 degree weather at lunch) because of some ancient guy. The second he retired, polo shirts were finally allowed.
Sexual and racial attitudes have a very sharp line generationally currently at about the top of the baby boomer age.
Violence is a different thing-- since we grew up with it- it's cool at all age levels.
But, considering it- you do have a point, there was a ton of nudity in the 70's in films (including full frontal) that no longer happens.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I have a different theory on old married couples.
I think they are a classic skinner box type training.
Every time you ask for sex, you had a good chance of being rejected so you ask less over time and have less interest and desire to avoid the pain of rejection.
I say this because I was in a long relationship with a lady where six times a month we got together and it was always a "sure thing" and the sex got better over time -- just walking in the door we would both be ready and we felt "safe" that it was going to happen and we were not going to be rejected. Other times were a "sure thing" that nothing would happen and that also felt safe and relaxed in a different way. People talk about liking spontaneity but it brings with it a risk of rejection and the subsequent ego hit.
I could ask him/her, but I have a 75% chance of rejection-- never mind. besides he/she rejected me and made me feel unattractive last time I asked.
OTH, a lot of affairs are smoking hot because-- the people know they are getting together for hot sex (tm).
Plus, then there are the bonus rejections for "I don't want to have sex because you didn't take out the garbage", "I don't want to have sex because my boss chewed me out and I'm worried about getting fired", "I don't want to have sex because you embarrassed me in front of the Jones."
---
As far as the watchmen went-- I felt the violence was beyond the book. And even where it was the same, it seemed more extreme because you could hear it and see it at the same time.
I think the watchmen was ruined by lacking a good soundtrack. It had a good score, but the soundtrack was weak and, at times, misleading. A good sound track cues your emotions appropriately for what is on the screen. The watchman soundtrack failed in that regard.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
but again, the baby boomers are the ones that vote, or even worse, some of their parents are still around voting. A politician can't try to appeal just to the 20- and 30- (and even 40-) somethings, because the people in their 60s and 70s have all the time in the world to follow politics and go out an vote (why do we vote on weekdays again?).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
It's pretty crazy that sexual things are frowned upon but violent murder and acts of aggression are typically seen as ok in movies and video games. Just goes to say what type of country we are when we can't handle things like a woman's breast being shown during the half time show of a sport that revolves around people trying to beat each other up. I'm not against violent movies or games though, I just find it funny that it's okay for impressionable teens to sit around killing each other, but if there's a sex scene the country throws a fit.
If anything, the strategy of hiding sex in the US media during the last 2 decades did backfire: teenage pregancy rates are the highest among the "developed" countries. Spain for example is second lowest, I lived there during my teens, and the TV program there was very, let's say, educating (after 10pm).
I guess that openess and explanation works better than obfuscation, as always.
I've always thought it was odd that its fine to go on a digital death spree, but if there is so much as a pixilated nipple people go ape shit. What does that say about us? Bunch of sexually repressed violent &^*&^ers
The problem is that sex in games usually doesn't provide good gameplay. If you just want to watch porn, that's easily available. Besides, simulated porn doesn't look that good.
That said, the big flap about the "hot coffee" scene in GTA was sort of silly. The GTA world ought to have sex in it. In fact, it's inconsistent that a game with strippers and hookers doesn't have sex in it. There's so much unrealized potential there, for seduction, power games, devious girlfriends - all the basic male/female drama elements.
The key is integrating sex into gameplay without having the sex dominate the game. That's a design challenge. It's not impossible. Second Life has sex, but it's not primarily a sex-oriented MMORPG. What we need are R-rated video games, dramas where sex plays a role in the plot. That could be fun.
If by family rated he means anything PG-13 and below then I think it would be easier to just list the movies without a lot of violence.
I wouldn't say that. Its an application of expected value.
M = Lets call this immorality, with higher, positive numbers being more immoral.
P = Probability
M-total = P-sex * M-sex + P-violence * M-violence
In a lot of parents' eyes, you'd probably end up with 0 > P-violence, so you end up with P-violence * M-violence P-sex * M-sex, simply because sex is far more likely.
Along other lines, you have issues like teen pregnancy, which is far more likely to negatively impact a kids' life than violence.
Now, I don't agree that sex is immoral. Provided you give your kids education about safe sex, its safe too, so for me M-sex is pretty much non-existent. But a lot of the driving force behind these kinds of "People worry about sex but not violence," is to portray people you don't agree with as stupid, incompetent, and immoral, which is not necessarily the case. I'm sure that if you asked many parents, having a kid who murders someone is a far worse outcome than having your kid sleep with his girlfriend. However, they simply don't see the former as very likely, and thus not worth a lot of concern. To simply state that this is proof that they see sex and violence as morally equivalent is bullshit.
Why do you think old married couples don't have sex as often? It's not just because they are busy. It's because they have lost the curiosity.
Because women aren't as attractive at age 50 after 3 kids, as they were when they got married? Don't know about you, but where I live, sex isn't fueled by curiosity.
In a lot of parents' eyes, you'd probably end up with 0 > P-violence, so you end up with P-violence * M-violence P-sex * M-sex, simply because sex is far more likely.
Slashdot ate my formatting
That is, In a lot of parents' eyes, you'd probably end up with 0 < P-violence << P-sex, so while M-sex << M-violence, you still end up with P-violence * M-violence << P-sex * M-sex, simply because sex is far more likely.
The ability to have sex with whores is more obscene than the ability to beat them to death with baseballs bats.
"sudo rm -rf your-face"
As you can see from the above post, it's not just the AARP people, unfortunately.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Pretty much would fail. No company is obligated to let anyone and everyone develop for their system. Especially if they aren't a licensee.
Nor can they prevent them. There are cases going back to the Atari 400 & 800 and more recently with Lexmark and the 3rd party ink companies that says they can't prevent you from reverse engineering.
For the DMCA to actually apply they would have to break the protection for other software, just allowing access to one application doesn't break the protection on the console.
If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG.
Jack Nicholson
What humanity could stand to lose is the "we know what's best for you" mentality. Humanity could stand to lose that, the same way that a cancer patient could stand to lose a tumor.
...So you know what's best for us?
Except that you generally need custom-burned discs from custom factories to be recognized by standard consoles... so you either only sell to hacked consoles, owners of which generally download cracked games anyway, or you go through the standard sources, and get yourself licensed. And don't sell unrated stuff.
The big reason for that is because, whether people want to admit it or not, kids/teens are still a huge part of gaming and this is because most retailers, publishers and everyone else involved is ok with that. Kids are more likely to buy any old shit because they don't know better. This is why more and more things are marketed towards kids despite the fact kids don't have jobs and can't get credit for when they want to buy things they can't afford.
This also stems from bad parenting which there still aren't enough punishments for. Bad parenting has such a huge knock-on effect on society yet, aside from beating you're kid, you'll probably get away with being a horrible parent and if you kid does do something stupid blame it on everyone except yourself and you'll get support from all the other bad parents. Unfortunately bad parents vote more often than the young and the single so their rights get trampled on and the bad parents are given priority and why not? Even corporations love bad parents because they do get the sell junk to their kids and that makes their job easier.
As long as a huge portion of games are aimed at pre-teens or 13 year old boys and they're primarily sold in places like Toys-R-Us and Wal-Mart then nothing is going to change. Game publishers won't push to change this because they're happier to shovel out rehashed rubbish to prop up a flawed business model rather than spend a bit more money to innovate and yes, maybe suffer though a bad patch, making the adjustment in making gaming more of a hobby for everyone.
There was nothing wrong with Mass Effect's sex scene but I actually understand, to extend, why people get upset. It's because Mass Effect will be sold right beside the likes of Nintendogs and, if given a chance sold in a shop like Toys-R-Us.
This is unlike books or movies where books/movies for adults are seperate from the children's stuff. You would be hard pressed to find a place selling Playboy or Stephen King novels right beside colouring books.
Games need this separation (even if it's actually insignificant like they're on opposite sides of a shop floor) so there is a clear line drawn between the kid's market and the adult's market. Publisher's won't do that because they aren't actually that bothered about selling adult games to children. Like I said, their business model is flawed and they just need to sell as many titles as possible. They don't care who buys them even if it's causing harm to their business' rep. So the industry brought it on themselves and gaming will continue to be held back for the foreseeable future.
Yeah well unfortunately you just made sex more appealing and made it so kid's are less likely to wait and be sensible because it's taboo which means it must be the best thing ever.
Kid's need to be exposed to sex and along with the good, show them the bad, like how sex will never last as long as a woman's ability to nag and spend money like it grows on trees.
Us young folks ain't censoring your generation. This isn't a generation thing. This is a regional thing. The United States is split into two (really three, but we're simplifying) cultures heavily based on region: the really-laid-back West Coast urban culture, the businesslike but still liberal East Coast urban culture, and the rural, moralistic culture of the Midwest and South. Unfortunately, somehow people from that last group seem to come to disproportionate prominence in the entertainment industry's morality self-police and in the governmental lobbies that police said self-police, ensuring that the rural Southern Christian (it always masquerades as Christian) culture gets to hold the entertainment of the other two hostage.
Yes, you're right. You can't watch a kid 24 hours but I'd rather my kid (if I had one) was watching porno at his friends house rather than getting drunk or doing drugs.
Face it, most of us looked at porno and jerked off to porno when we had the time to and we must assume we've all turned out ok. Surely if you're not ok, what are you doing being a parent? So if the older generation can turn out after looking a nudity then I think kids will be just fine.
Tell that to Christopher Handley, who was recently sentenced to 15 years for possession of animated Japanese (underage) porn. Dude, obscenity is whatever the hell somebody else doesn't like.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Slashdot must be full of pedophiles lately. Every time someone mentions something about child pornography being ok, they get modded sky high, while when people go, "uh... what?", they get modded into oblivion.
Why do you think old married couples don't have sex as often? It's not just because they are busy. It's because they have lost the curiosity.
No, it's because it's having sex with the same person over and over again. There's only so many times you can have chocolate cake for desert before you say goddammit I want some cherry pie!
If your logic was correct, you'd think murder was mundane. Hopefully, you don't.
That was my point. You get bored with it, there is no more excitement. In the US we have Teenagers in record numbers getting pregnant because we only see so much sex on TV and Movies, Teenagers get curious, curiosity is exciting. I like chocolate cake, but I agree with you on that. I won't stop liking chocolate cake, but I will get bored with it. Sex gets boring with old couples because there is nothing new. Sex is exciting to teenagers, because it can always be new, and they see enough to start guessing what is out of frame.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
Jesus, you young punks even made HHGTG a G movie, WTF?
The director was born in 1972. He's not a part of my generation! ;)
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
He's a year younger than my little sister's oldest son. Jees, he's only 37.
Free Martian Whores!
Maybe, but standards do relax as the generations progress. Rock music used to be evil. Elvis wiggling his hips while dancing was deemed too suggestive to show on television.
The boomers may have had their hippies for a brief period, but I think in reality most of them grew up with Ward and June Cleaver as role models for what's "normal" and "acceptable". By contrast, my generation grew up with Peg and Al Bundy.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
What humanity could stand to lose is the "we know what's best for you" mentality. Humanity could stand to lose that, the same way that a cancer patient could stand to lose a tumor.
...So you know what's best for us?
Way to go after the low-hanging fruit. As in, that has to be the least useful interpretation of what I said.
To answer you, I know what's best for *me*. I expect other adults can make a similar determination *for themselves*. This concept can't be that hard.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
You Europeans need to relax a little bit concerning violence. I think sex is a lot worse than violence.
OK, maybe not a lot. In either case it depends on the precise details. My point is that each person or group thinks that their own moral code is the One True Way.
The reality is that blurring or bleeping out portions does nothing to shelter the viewer. Prime time TV has all sorts of inappropriate sexual situations even if they don't show any nipple.
We don't always get the ability to audit everything available in that house before they stay there.
So don't let your kids stay at someone's house if you don't trust the parents.
some times you can't reasonably avoid them being exposed to something you'd rather they weren't.
That's part of growing up. How you deal with it demonstrates how good a parent you are.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
That only tells me you have no imagination and is about your sex life, not mine.
I've always struggled to understand this. Being from the middle of Illinois (the proverbial asshole of the Union, let me tell you), I've often wondered how this moral minority has such great pull on culture. Trust me though, we're not all uneducated superstitious Bible-Beaters.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
If you don't like what the current generation is doing, consider that your generation was their parent / role model...
I've been trying to reach her but I keep getting "email account does not exist" from her Governor account.
" I'd rather have my son watch a video of two people making love than two people trying to kill one another"
My Carlin the comedic genius rest in peace.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The reason they are rated harder is that there is a belief that interactivity is more absorbing than simply watching. In the same way that movies are rated harder than books. Very few books are rated 18 or over while movies containing the material in these free to sell to any child would certainly be NC-17 or X.
As for why it shouldn't exist. At least for several decades when movies were released R and PG (or later R vs. PG-13) the PG versions almost always outperformed the R versions. Today there is almost no market for NC-17. So it appears that even in movies there is a cut off at which people's interest drops sharply.
37 is still old enough to put him real close to the baby boomers. The war ened in 45. Someone who fought in the end of the war could have been 18 in 1945 and could have sill had children 27 years later at the age of 45 in 1972. Granted thats not the norm, but depending on how you define the generation (children born directly after the war or as children born to parents who served in the war) its not such a huge stretch.
All I have to say is I hope they don't cancel Puppy Wars 2: Furmageddon. I just can't get enough of that shooting puppies with shotguns. Just kidding, I made that up (unless it's a real game, in which case I wouldn't be that surprised). But seriously, that Japanese rape game that was just mentioned on slashdot in another recent story and games that have you shooting or otherwise harming real, existing people definitely shouldn't be made. You don't need to go through a bunch of constitution reading and legal song and dance to know people shouldn't be allowed to write freaking rape games. I mean what's next, Child Molester 3000?
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
No,they were the "wretched, centered only in self" generation. As soon as it wasn't convenient or pleasurable to accept sex in society, they dropped it (along with all of their other values).
No,they were the "wretched, centered only in self" generation.
If anything that was Generation X, not the baby boomers. The baby boomers were all about community, "love and peace", give everything you have away. The hippie 1960s were nowhere near as selfish as the greed-is-good 1980s.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
i'm a little disturbed at just how familiar you are with the sex scenes in this game..
Except that the data on the Wikipedia page you cite doesn't support your assertion - teenage pregnancy rates in the US have been falling since peaking in 1990: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/02/19/index.html (Linked from the Wikipedia page). In 1990 it was 116.9 per 1000, in 2000 it was 83.6, and in 2002 it was 75.4.
Yes, it is still way higher than Europe (so is our overall fertility rate btw, Europeans are reproducing at below replacement levels), but the reasons don't boil down to something so simplistic as "no boobies on TV". From the above article:
"Declines also occurred among adolescents in all racial and ethnic groups. The pregnancy rate among black women aged 15-19 declined 32% between 1990 and 2000 to 153 per 1,000 women; among white teenagers it declined 28% to 71 per 1,000. The rate among Hispanic teenagers fell 15% from 1992-2000 (following a brief increase from 1990-1992) to 139 per 1,000."
So black and hispanic teen girls in the US get pregnant at about twice the rate of whites. Are they watching different (and by your theory, more repressed) media than white girls? Should we blame BET? Telemundo? Or does it maybe have something to do with other factors altogether?
This is unlike books or movies where books/movies for adults are seperate from the children's stuff. You would be hard pressed to find a place selling Playboy or Stephen King novels right beside colouring books.
Try your local mass market retailer, like Target or Wal-mart. I don't think you'll see a significant separation between Stephen King and the kids' books. At least, I don't in mine.)
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
What? Did you even read what you linked to...
This is marked as interesting, but isn't this the exact line of thinking that we endlessly mock? Violence doesn't bother you because, well, no one is going to kill anyone hurr, that never happens.But OMG KIDS MIGHT WANT TO HAVE SEX THIS IS TERRIBLE WE HAVE TO STOP THEM SEEING THIS.
It's still about control then, surely. Sex is considered more 'seductive' than violence because it's not overtly illegal. Yet. You can't go out and hit/shoot/kill someone because that's against the law, so sure, let people watch people murder other people because that's fine, they aren't actually allowed to do it anyway. But let them watch sex? But ... but, that might make them curious about what it's like and then they might actually go have sex and that would be ... bad? I guess? Because we can't directly control that, maybe?I don't know, it's not my own stupid point I'm trying to back up here.
Then there is the awesome logic that I've heard where violence is okay because violence is a fact of life and kids need to be exposed to what can happen. But sex isn't?
I really do have trouble getting my head around all this crap.
I seem to recall that a large part of the Accolade problem was that including the necessary magic copyright signature in the ROM caused a "Licensed by Sega" screen to appear, which was known to be untrue in this circumstance, so Accolade decided to follow it with a "This product is NOT licensed or endorsed by Sega" screen to undo the effects of the misleading information.
I'm not sure I see where you jump from the permission to do whatever is necessary to circumvent the protection on a DMCA work to reproducing the a DMCA protection mechanism on a new work. These (sadly) still seem to be very different things in my mind. I'm a European though, so maybe I just don't get it.
I'm not even sure that the EUCD has circumvention provisions yet! :-( I hope someone can enlighten me...
I disagree that it is a chilling effect. The censorship is voluntary, requiring no government intervention. The market basically did its job, and I think there is a lot less of a market for adult content then some would like to believe.
I guess it's time to change my bumper sticker to "I read banned books AND played AO games"
I believe "The Witcher" is slightly modified for the US market as well
first, games are protected by the first amendment.
second, games are not meant strictly for kids.
Legislators, realize this please. Games don't mean kids.
They're using their grammar skills there.
There are fundamental differences between a video game and a movie:
The movie lasts 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Your minimum "investment" in a video game is likely to be ten times that.
The theatrical feature is not interactive.
You are distanced both physically and psychologically from the action. That is the fundamental reason why graphic violence/extreme violence in a video game is distrusted.
Hot Coffee was adolescent button mashing - and ultimately as trivial and offensive as Custer's Revenge.
If this is the best you have to offer - other than beating up a prostitute - than you might as well exclude sex from your RPG.
Because you haven't got a clue.
And like what they do with games, they won't carry anything too offensive.
It is interesting that we are ok with violence, but fret over sex (At least in the US).
It's not just interesting, it's mind boggling.
Violence is bad, murder is generally considered to be the worst thing you can do. Sex is great, and actually required for human survival.
And which of these do we freely display in movies, while the other is only hinted at or avoided?
I lost my sig.
The reason is even simpler than you propose. They make more money off a move with a R13 or less rating than R16 or whatever, which is why even die hard 4 was a R13 IIRC where the original die hard was an R16... They main goal of the investors is to make money...
But you know there are plenty of movies that go out of these bounds. You only have to look around. And if all everyone is really after is boobies then why not just rent/go to a porn flick?
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
He's the kind of person who gets nervous watching a sex scene with his wife. That seems totally off to me but then I'm not a puritancial american.
It's to match his low-hanging jaw...
I think sex is a lot worse than violence.
Ever considered consulting a psychiatrist?
Not very loudly. There's still pr0n, and making it interactive... *mental image* doesn't mix...
Yes, but NO distributor is going to touch a sex game with a ten-foot-pole.
1. Profitability. Indie games are dead. Yeah, I know, "long tail niche market". The banker you'll talk to about how you need $$$ to develop a product that has a projected market penetration of near zero doesn't.
2. No official blessing = no official marketing. For Sony/Nintendo/MS, marketing one game is free. Included in ad buget. For an independent, it's an arm, a leg, all his internal organs and a loan on seven generations, and that's for *marketing* ONE game. Oh, and you'll be sued to Hell and back by the console companies, too, both for obscenity and for using their tech illegally. Fair use, what's that to a full-time lawyer team on salary? And judges are all too old to get it up, so they'll hate the game makers and clients. Or they'll be aroused, whicÈY will make them hate you even more, because they're all hardcore puritans.
3. Sell it online? Interactive online sex is called webcam chat and it's paid by the minute. (And now *that*'s a game company's wet dream...)
Hot Coffee was adolescent button mashing - and ultimately as trivial and offensive as Custer's Revenge.
Uh, wait. I haven't played GTA, but the sex in the Hot Coffee minigame was consensual, not rape, wasn't it?
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Like they said in Eurotrip, the US was settled by religious prudes. I don't know if its true, but it seems to be in line with all the censoring you mention. I always thought it was funny how movies are rated M in the States then in Canada it would be rated T (Matrix).
As anybody that has walked in an Spanish beach can attest, sunbathing in the nude (both men and women) is common place and nobody bats an eyelid about it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Since when showing a breast is having sex?
The reality is that the puritanical nature of US society permeates every aspect of daily life.
That nonsense will not stop until people with a clue stand and challenge the general assumptions of society as a whole.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Game design is story telling. So far, I haven't seen or played a game where sexual content is critical to telling a game's story. Not saying this doesn't exist or isn't possible, but short of games where prostitution, bondage, or exploitation are central components of the game play, it seems to me that sexual content is something that is easily be factored in or out of a game's story. So why not make it an option? It certainly is extra work for game developers, but it seems it could prevent a game from being banned, and would allow both adults and non-adults (or people whose tastes would prefer it that way) to enjoy a game.
It's not just interesting, it's mind boggling.
It's not all that mind-boggling. Let me throw out some counter-points... Sex isn't exactly free of issues either:
* It's one of our more primal motivators, and tends to get people in a lot of trouble.
* It has the potential to be highly risky (STDs)
* It carries with it potentially life-changing responsibility (creating a new human life).
If sex had no consequences, it seems unlikely our society would have placed so many stigmas on it.
Violence is bad, murder is generally considered to be the worst thing you can do. Sex is great, and actually required for human survival.
And which of these do we freely display in movies, while the other is only hinted at or avoided?
Keep in mind that violence, when shown in movies or TV, is quite often shown in a *negative* light. Or, if shown in a positive light, is often in response to unwarranted aggression. If you use violence to end a country's oppression and save the lives of millions of people, is that bad? Is violence bad if you use it to defend a woman from being raped by a thug? The answer is still probably 'yes', but we're often faced with choosing the lesser of evils in this life.
Not trying to be argumentative (well, maybe a little)... Just trying to point out that the 'sex and violence' issue isn't as black and white as 'sex is good, violence is bad'.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Someone is not psychologically damaged for having different moral values than you do, and except in certain limited areas you're not allowed to impose your moral values on me. Nobody can prove that their moral code is the One True Way. It's not true that someone who disagrees is either evil or insane.
In case you were reading my previous post literally, append "in entertainment" after the words "sex" and "violence". Actual violence and actual sex are both sometimes wrong and sometimes OK.
Dude, I was born in 89 and I can't believe Twitter is so popular.
My kids turned out all right. It's the rich folks' kids who are fucking up the world, they're the only ones with the power to do it.
Free Martian Whores!
to protect organic creatures from themselves the machines are bound to to prevent such obsenities, and replace the woman with a plastic stand in.
Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.
I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."
Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)
I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,
Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!
-Tom Lehrer ("Smut")
If you could completely control the content your kids were exposed to - restricting sex from them Might prevent them from the temptation of sex. Might. Here's the problem - smart people are telling your kids about safe sex, because kids have something called Hormones which make them want to fuck like rabbits all day long. If you put two kids in a room with no outside contact their whole lives, they'd hit puberty - figure out sex - and start doing it.
That's why restriction of sex isn't effective, you're fighting their pre-programmed base nature. Good luck. Unparented birds figure out how to fly eventually, and that's even if they are entirely restricted of flight education.
Do you kiss people (your wife)? That is an act your children see and can emulate just like sex, and once they are kissing, they can figure out the rest themselves - safety by ignorance doesn't work - the birth rate in your country should be evidence enough of that.
The BEST solution, far and away without comparison, is sexual education. Teach your kids about sex, teach them about STDs and pregnancy, and teach them about safe sex and what they are risking by having sex (ie. lifelong diseases, how young pregnancies ruin futures) and you Might see more sex, but you Won't see more babies, ruined lives, and rampant disease. I say might there, because it's not even determined sexual education causes more sex, many kids who are educated about the risks of sex are terrified of the consequences and abstain.