Slashdot Mirror
Switzerland Pursues Violent Games Ban
BanjoTed writes "We hear lots about the issues facing violent games in Australia, but the anti-games bandwagon is gathering pace closer to home — in Switzerland, to be precise. The Swiss government is gearing up to consider a total ban on mature games in the country."
"We hear lots about the issues facing violent games in Australia, but the anti-games bandwagon is gathering pace closer to home — in Switzerland, to be precise."
Are you sure you don't live in Austria?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
This isn't closer to home for me:P~~~~
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Some games are really bad, whether it be egregious content or age-inappropriate content.
But there's no need to get violent about it. A normal rational games ban would work just as well as a violent games ban.
If as an adult you let the government treat you like a child, remember what happened to you as a child when you "said something mommy and daddy didn't like".
With this focus by Swiss leadership on the dubious social dangers of simulated violence, we can at least take heart knowing they've found solutions to all other social issues with demonstrated negative impacts.
I'm so happy to live in a world with such pragmatic leaders. We can always count on politicians for intellectually honest debate of issues and good faith efforts to fix the problems they can.
So nice to sleep easy knowing that representatives the world over don't let themselves get bogged down in baseless populist hysteria or abuse the power they're given to manipulate economies such that wealth is redistributed to their buddies.
I don't know what we'd do without our honest, hard working politicians. May your silver spoons never tarnish, you captains of hypocrisy.
Switzerland has very little regard for free speech. Very little regard for things that are unpopular or disliked and has an aging, reactionary voter base. Frankly, I got far more worked up over the ban on minarets that they enacted last year. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/europe/30swiss.html That was a much more serious violation of basic rights. This? This is small potatoes.
I like how you refer to Australia as some far away land....
It's slightly amusing that anyone who disobeys the censor on violent video games will be quickly met with real violence from the very institution supposedly censoring all this violence for peoples safety.
If we look at the youth crime rates in the US, they dropped of precipitously when the PS1 came out and have stayed low compared to previous decades ever since.
If the trend was the same in Switzerland, what happens when you take away that outlet?
Most of the drop in crime likely comes from resolution of boredom, but it probably serves as a panacea for some of the whackjobs out there too.
I'd like to see this much dedication in governments to other, more serious, forms of violence such as hunger, desease, poverty and (there I say it!?) corruption and unemployment. Yes, I realize banning unemployment is futile (some people are incompetent) but I consider it a vile form of violence against 40-something people when they're too old for employment but too young for retirement. But if they can get it right with some little things, maybe they can figure out how to get it right with bigger, more important things; but that is just a silly dream of mine.
My sig is better than your sig.
There are Flash games and soon there will be HTML5 games and then they will be discussing the introduction of internet censorship.
Some of us are Australian, funnily enough.
"Mature" games? As in, games where the player must kill or rape other otherwise torture other people? Strange definition of maturity...
Switzerland has more direct democracy than most countries. Even if the legislation passes parliament, if someone gathers 50k signatures against some law (in 100 days), he can cause national vote on this matter. In this vote all citizens decide whether the law should stay or be rejected. So to get rid of it they just need to convince normal people (and not politicians) that this is a bad idea.
...to preventing real violence. Thank goodness the Swiss are taking care of that too. Soon shrub assault will be a thing of the past as they codify plants' rights.
Of course this stupid idea has been bundled with some child porn legislation to ease its way into the parliament. :/ Here is the original press release (in French, also available in German and Italian).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more. Junta
... that idiotic parents, that go out and buy their kids GTA I thru IV and then complain about videogame violence, are causing this kind of reactions all over the world. I mean sure, for now it's only 2 countries, but then others will follow the example.
Those parents need to be dealt with, because I agree that mature games are bad for kids! Parents need to learn about ratings and age restrictions! They need to THINK before buying their 8yo a game with hookers, violence and drugs. Make it mandatory to present an ID to buy mature games, just like with alcohol, cigarrettes and pornography. After that, it's all the parent's fault and they should be held responsible.
"You know what the fellow said - in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Don't know if story repeats itself, but maybe...
Only geographically closer to home. Switzerland isn't part of the EU, they just happen to be surrounded by it.
Since more than half of voters are over 65, there is little chance for that.
This is just wrong: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/22/publ.Document.89803.pdf Turnout of voters by age (in 2003): 18-24: 33% 25-44: 35% 45-64: 52% 65-... : 57% (and average age is 31)
If we look at the youth crime rates in the US, they dropped of precipitously when the PS1 came out and have stayed low compared to previous decades ever since.
The Playstation was released on December 3, 1994.
The US price was $300.
$580, adjusted for inflation. CPI Inflation Calculator That makes the market middle class and, stereotypically, suburban.
Windows 95 was released in August 1995. In 1996 AOL went to flat-rate monthly billing. IE4 arrives in 1997. The [middle class] kid in the mid-nineties was getting his first real taste of the interactive, on-line, world.
Denken Sie bitte an die Kinder?
Pensez svp aux enfants ?
Pensi prego ai bambini?
Please think of the little wallabies eh mate? Now let's throw another shrimp on the barbie.
I never understood why adult games should be banned. "Cuz gamez r for childr'n"? Here in Russia, there was an attempt to ban adult cartoons, with the same motivation "c-toons r for childr'n, Amerikka spoils our youth".
This won't prevent me from driving 15 minutes to enter France and buy my games there. However, as Swiss Citizen, I feel concerned since: 1. This law will infantilize me and strip me from my adult judgment over what is good or bad for me. 2. This law doesn't deal with the real issue which is the lack of liability of today's parents in their progeniture's education. They tend to rely more and more on school & State to raise the kids they chose to have. 3. Child Pornography and Video Games are put together in this extract while they are different issues to be adressed. 4. What about other medias carying violence such as TV, Theatre, Sport, etc?
. . . then shouldn't the NHL currently own the North American sports market, based on sales of NHL 94?
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
here in britain the majority of people want capital punishment brought back
Citation?
having the beliefs of the minority imposed on the majority CANNOT be justified
The point you're missing is that it isn't about majority or minority. As soon as you're talking about imposing one group's beliefs on another, the first group have no absolute right to that, even if they outnumber them. That's nothing more than "But my gang's bigger than yours". When you kill someone, or criminalise them because of a minaret, you are severely infringing upon them. Trying to suggest that by not doing so, it's somehow infringing on your rights by anywhere near the same level, is nonsense (are you the one being killed, or being criminalised? No).
That's why we put the burden of argument upon those who want to criminalise something - simply saying "But there's more of us" is an appeal to popularity fallacy.
A country that has compulsory military service is trying to ban violent video games? I guess training to actually kill someone is okay, but moving some pixels around on a screen to get a high score is down right not acceptable.
It must be the season for book burning and the like. And I am confused. First I thought that I had to hide under my bed to avoid the terror called pornography but now I am supposed to tremble at the idea of video games. I'm getting so confused I had best get a rifle and ...
So, a swiss ADULT who might want to BUY a violent game will have to resort to torrent it?
Nice way to push the paying customer into the open arms of "piracy" ehehehehehe
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
How's not being allowed to build a tower (or four) a violation of human rights ?
The way the ban is written is a violation of freedom of religion.
Human rights (of which Switzerland is a signitary) say that you should be able to have the religion you want and nobody should discriminate against you because of that religion.
The way the ban is written, anyone is allowed to build 1 or 4 tower anywhere. Except in the specific case where these towers are the religious construction known as "minaret". Then it's forbidden.
It's not forbidden because it's a tower, it's forbidden because it is a specific religious construction.
Suddenly, not every construction is equal in the eyes of the constitution. But some suddenly become illegal, solely based on the religion they are associated with.
God won't listen if you've got a flat roof ?
The minarets have nothing to do with the *prayer* itself, but the *call to prayer*.
(I'm not a muslim neither but at least I try to get informed about it)
In Switzerland this specific point is moot because the Muezzin aren't allowed to sing the call to prayer.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Is this for real? The link in the article returns a 404 error. Here's a somewhat more useful link. The actual bill going forward is considerably less restrictive.
Switzerland is rather liberal about sex. Prostitution is legal, and hookers charge VAT and take credit cards. Teen porn is available in mainstream video rental stores. While Switzerland isn't very violent, Swiss citizens and most permanent residents can own guns, and almost everyone in the military reserves (a big fraction of the population, since Switzerland has a draft) has a military-issued assault rifle at home.
On the other hand, actually doing anything violent is considered un-Swiss. Violent crime is rare in Switzerland. It tends to attract too much attention. With a big army for its size, a well-organized police force, a large number of people who not only own guns but regularly qualify on the range, and a tendency to bullet-proof banks and even railway ticket offices, violent crime tends not to be successful.
Seems to me that it is forbidden because it is a tower of a certain type (minaret) that residents feel wouldn't fit in with the rest of the environment. {...} Prohibiting the building of a middle eastern type structure in a traditional swiss town isn't that far fetched to me and certainly NOT immediately evidence of discrimination.
And there are already laws for that in the Swiss Constitution (widely used by some communities to ban minarets before this law).
This law is different. It forbids any tower which happens to be the specific religious construction "minaret". Indiscriminately of the environment. Just because it's a minaret. For fucks sake, they could still build a *watchtower* at the same exact location. (Or build a giant dome, and then hide the minaret inside, on their private grounds).
It's even more ridiculous because the whole story only concerns 1 single mosque which was asking for an authorisation to build 1 minaret. And it wasn't in a place were it would contrast with the environment to begin with.
(That's also why the xenophobic right-wing proposed this law, because the usual "it won't look right in these surrounding" excuse couldn't be used)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Looks like people rated parent down because they didn't like his viewpoint. There's no -1 Disagree. It's on topic, and what he posits may have bearing. I doubt it's a significant portion of the cause, but it could be a contributer non the less.
Why do they not ban all films, books, and CDs
As you've noticed, there's plenty of people who'd like to ban films, books, and music. But films, books, and music have a lot more defenders because the idea that "Great Works" (including great works with violence) can be done in those media is pretty well solidified.
Games don't have that kind of cultural credibility yet. They're seen as trivial pursuits, escapist entertainment that generally doesn't carry enough artistic skill to press the syntax of violence into larger more meaningful semantics. And while there are *some* really interesting works out there that have begun to transcend this, the generalization is unfortunately apt for much if not most of what's out there.
Tweet, tweet.
So, for example, if part of your religion was that you should beat your wife if she doesn't want to have sex with you, that should be okay?
No, beating the wife is not okay.
BUT this should be illegal because :
- Wife beating is not okay, because beating someone is a crime, no matter what religion the beater is (perfectly religion-neutral way to make a ban and 100% acceptable with the human rights)
And not because:
- the sacred act of "wife beating" as done according to the rituals by the "wife beater religion" is banned by a specific law.
That is not okay, because this law specifically targets one religious group, for the sake of targeting them specifically.
It's even a bad and inefficient law, because if you simply beat your wife because you're an asshole (instead of because you follow a religious tradition) you would be allowed without any problem.
Same goes for daughter killing. It's illegal because it's a murder, not because it's performed by some specific religion.
which the Minaret ban happens to be a part of.
There ARE laws which specify which construction someone is allowed to build (you couldn't build a tower if it doesn't tie well with the rest of the rural environment).
But in addition of these legitimate laws, we voted and passed a law last autumn, which simply ban all minarets. With no other reason than being minarets.
The law doesn't say "in rural area, no one can build tower taller than X meters" (and the muslims complaining that this prevents them from building minarets, and asking for an exceptions to be made).
The law simply says "no minarets" (and any other non-religious construction would have been accepted).
Now, that mosque which was asking for an authorisation to build a minaret, even if there isn't any problem with any other law, still can't built one simply because minarets are explicitly banned. The mosque could pretty much build any other tower if they wanted.
To make things short :
the problem is not that action A is banned globally banned for everyone, and members of religion B feel restricted because A is part of their culture
the problem is that religion B is restricted from doing action A, even if A would have been accepted in a non B-religious context.
To translate it into a Christian context, that would be exactly the same if the law explicitly banned the construction of bell tower.
Not because a law bans loud constructions due to noise nuisance.
But because the law specifically targets bell towers of Christian churches.
The church could pretty much build instead any other loud structure, such as a huge tower with megaphones and speakers all-over which constantly blast death-metal the whole day.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I don't want any government telling me what I can and can't do. That power I reserve for myself.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
despite your need to feel that parents are somehow being oppressed that comment is at zero because it's an AC with no ratings at all.
Nobody rated it down.