Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Hears Violent Video Game Case Tomorrow
SkinnyGuy writes that with the Supreme Court set to hear arguments tomorrow for California's controversial law aimed at keeping violent games away from minors, support for gamers and the games industry is coming from all corners. Writing for PCMag, Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents' hands: "If I have real concerns, it's up to me to argue it out with my son and take away the games or not buy them for him when he asks." Game developer Daniel Greenberg wants to know "how government bureaucrats are supposed to divine the artistic value that a video game has for a 17-year-old," adding that he's "disheartened and a little perplexed to see [his] art and passion lumped in with cigarettes and booze." The expectation within the legal community is that the statute should be found unconstitutional, and the Atlantic's Garrett Epps points out the irony of Gov. Schwarzenegger's involvement with the legislation.
We are DOING IT FOR THE CHILDREN. Why can't you all just get it through your thick heads?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
How exactly is this any different from restricting the sale of R rated movies to minors, or is that legal in California?
Somehow I can't imagine Scalia doing drug runs in GTA 4, but you never know.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
There's a noticeable trend: as the graphics in video games have become "more realistic" over the last decade, homicide rates among 14-25 year-olds (arguably the most potent age demographic in the gaming industry) has dropped over the last decade.
No, correlation does not imply causation, nor would that make in this particular case. Furthermore, homicides can't be construed as an end-all, be-all indicator of any culturally-induced violent behavior. But saying that kids who play Counterstrike and then leave their house with their dad's shotgun and blow holes in their neighbors' heads were inspired to do so from playing video games is ludicrous.
Video games may nudge already-unstable mental states of individuals in a certain direction, but it's nothing that a certain environment wouldn't have done on its own anyway. They don't turn "normal" human beings into mindless rampaging murderers.
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
[cosm] Look. The Supreme Court is admin. Don't **** with admin. Sign in, read the MOTD, stfu and play. LegalHacks will be permabanned. This includes you, Lawyer4Life_Blazin3.
[server] Next map is dm_MarijaunaFields.
[cosm] Sweet ****!
[server] cosm (1072558) was permabanned for language.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
A bunch of blah blah blah and then "...I'm glad to have you on our side, 'cause I agree with you. Leave your game alone. The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right. If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102910/content/01125113.guest.html
http://kotaku.com/5677274/rush-limbaugh-defends-video-games-free-speech-says-this-is-where-the-battle-is
this case has big1st amendment parts to it as if you can ban violent parts of works of art (games) then it makes it that much easier to ban parts of free speech.
We all know how SCOTUS feels about things like "rights" and "human dignity." Oh well. We're fucked.
Leave it to the parents. There is no need for regulation however, being from the first gaming-gen myself... I don't think these shooters or gta that I love myself so much for the pure fun of it are actually good. If anything they do promote violence, even reward you for it. I think my own kids will have to put up with dad reviewing their games. At least in the early ages. And depending on how they develop somewhere between 12-16 I'll let them free to play what they want. Just as long daddy can kick their asses with it.
Hell if I am going to click a link that contains the text "arnold-has-no-clothes".
It shouldn't matter what the game is like. Free speech is free speech. I don't know where people got the illusion that the only thing free speech should be for is saying how great the government is and how great things are now.
Free speech, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else and their property rights should be 100% legal.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Isn't appropriate for any age group... That's kinda the point of his writing.
And Dante might just fall into the same category.
Fuck politicians, that's why private industry funds art and they can have their state funded art programs that are "hard" art.
This does not mean there are not consequences. I don't believe in requiring helmets, but I would hate to be in the insurance pool with a person who rides a motorcycle and does not wear a helment. Such a person is stealing from me. Likewise, if a parent is not serving a child appropriate amounts of alcohol, that parent is libel for the resulting damage. This consequence based model makes much more sense than the big government telling us what games we can play in our own houses.
So I would say if someone is offended by beer and cigs, then it is perfectly acceptable for other people to be offended by video games with gratuitous violence. If however we realize that everyone is going be be offended by something, and will tend to group all those things under one umbrella, then we can reach a point where we are confortable letting other people doing things that we find offended without getting offended by that fact that other think differently that we do.
The damage, of course, comes when one person thinks what they do is protected speech, maybe even art, and what other people do is simply random acts of terrorism.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
A parent who is capable of confiscating a game that he doesn't want his kids playing should be just as capable of going out and buying a game for his kid that the kid can't buy for himself, right?
Not every parent wants to run their household like a freakin' gestapo camp (forgive me Godwin)... if the retailers face fines for not checking ID before selling a game with a mature or adult rating, there's at least a minimal level of assurance for parents who have problems with these sorts of things that the number of times they are going to have to bring down the banhammer on their kids' activities for stuff like this is few and far enough between that it doesn't end up creating more household conflict than what could easily already exist just because teenagers think that their parents can't possibly understand them. Meanwhile, parents who don't have a problem with this sort of thing should be perfectly free to go out and buy their kids these sorts of games as they wish. I have no problem with legislation in this department, and I would suggest that parents who might think I want to be a lazy parent simply because I don't want to fight with my kids may be guilty of being lazy themselves... for reasons I cannot even begin to imagine.
Of course, if video console makers actually made halfway decent parental controls that allowed things like blacklisting and whitelisting, in addition to using the general guideline of the video game rating, and said parental controls were not easily bypassed by any remotely bright kid who bothered to google how to get around them, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other. If he wants to waste his money on stuff he can't play under my roof, that's his own problem.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If it means that more developers put focus on solid gameplay over graphics and realism, you won't hear me complain. I hate to say it, but it's true.
Violent crime as a whole has been dropping fairly steadily for about 2-3 decades. Despite the "We are less safe," hysteria from the media we are actually more safe. Violent crime levels have trended downward. Not every year, not every place, but you look at the over all trend and it has been on a decline for a good bit. Well guess what? That neatly maps with the rise in videogame popularity. In 2-3 decades they went from things only geeks played to something everyone does. As their popularity has risen, crime has fallen.
There you go! Clear correlation! Games cause crime to go down!
Or course Steven Levitt has some pretty compelling evidence that legalized abortion was one of the major factors, not games, but then the kind of people who say "OMG games cause crime!" aren't in to good evidence.
It is completely legal for any child of any age to go out and buy the movie "Silence of the Lambs" and watch Hannibal lector cut the face off of someone and use it as a mask. For some reason Music and Video games are considered to have more influence with children. It's a silly distinction.
3 Million children are treated for sports related injuries every year:
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site1112/mainpageS1112P0.html
If you want to protect your children, lets start with the place they are most likely to be hurt. School sports programs.
The SC justices are pretty good at being able to understand the details of a case and apply the law to it in a theoretical way, even if they themselves have no experience. Remember they have to deal with that kind of thing all the time. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily agree with their opinions on an issue, but they are pretty good at getting informed and making informed rulings. In fact some of the least tech savvy court members often seem to write the best opinions on tech rulings.
Video Games are a reflection of our STRUCTURED SOCIAL SYSTEM. Same with a child's behavior. It is a reflection of our SOCIAL STRUCTURE. And it is NOT the child fault, it is our own fault as adults. Here is a video about Bullying by a gentleman who holds degrees in History and Philosphy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KxUkRdjD3k
Obviously, the activist neocon Supreme Court will rule on the side of Corporations, since they are People, and we "citizens" are only their serfs and must be subjugated to their iron-clad rule.
Resistance is Useless.
Now, pass me my +5 sword of Undead Strength.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The huge guns that he shot in movies which were all rated PG-13 or well above?
PG-13: The 6th Day, Last Action Hero
R: T1, T2, T3, Collateral Damage, End of Days, Eraser, True Lies, Total Recall (secondary rating), Red Heat, Running Man, Predator, Raw Deal, Commando, Conan the Barbarian*
X: Total Recall (original rating)
* Conan the Barbarian wasn't guns.. but what the hey.
There is no particular irony here on the part of Arnold Schwarzenegger even if he would have had a say about the ratings of these movies and whether or not legislation would be allowed to prevent the sale of these movies to 12-year olds.
The real irony is that despite these clear ratings that have been on the boxes since VHS and in many instances even included prior to the movie's starting, these 12-year olds and younger end up watching them anyway.
What that says about ratings and the proposed 'violent video game' legislation I'll leave to those who care. I just wish news sites would quit suggesting it's ironic that Arnold Schwarzenegger would be putting a signature under this thing and go back to watching Alanis Morisette videos unless they dig up a statement from him in which he encourages 12-year olds to watch the aforementioned movies.
The real irony is that despite these clear ratings that have been on the boxes since VHS and in many instances even included prior to the movie's starting, these 12-year olds and younger end up watching them anyway.
Heaven forbid that some people mature faster than others and can easily separate reality from fiction.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If you think he's anything but a Hollywood sock puppet, you're overthinking it.
I didn't know that they had a case to begin with! I guess I was foolish to assume that you needed some sort of evidence before you, you know, ban something that many people enjoy.
"Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents' hands"
No, the decision (unless the parent is the one paying, but even then, it's pointless to not buy violent video games if they would buy another game for them anyway) should be in the hands of the person who wants to play the game. If you truly believe that video games have no effect, then why say it should be in the hands of someone other than the player? In reality, the only people who are 'detached' from reality are the ones who believe that people can't differentiate between reality and a video game.
There is no need for parents to censor what their children play, either. They are just games. Even a five year old knows this. No harm comes from playing a game.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I don't see why so many people have a problem with this law.
But first, let me explain a few things about violence in media:
Violent games or movies do not have an effect on people past a certain age (around late teenage years, so 16-17). If you have heard "It's never been proven that violent movies make people violent", that claim is correct. But only for adults.
It has been proven that young children replicate violence they witness. Albert Bandura, a researcher in psychology, did an experiment where children were shown a video of an adult physically abusing a toy doll. Children were then left alone in a room full of objects. Those who saw the video abused the same toy, and replicated the same violent actions as in the video. Children who did not see the video came up with their own form of violent acts, chose different toys, and overall were less violent (Google "Bandura Bobo doll" for videos).
Now obviously, there is an age when children won't replicate violence they witness anymore. I guess that limit is around 8-10. But at age 10, violence in games and movies can still have negative effects on children. First, witnessing much violence can desensitize them to violence. This means they will think violence is more acceptable than it is (or should be). A teenager desensitized to violence may, for example, not report a student physically attacking another student, because that won't seem to be such a big deal to him. At worse, a teenager desensitized to violence may be more likely to resort to violence. Not because games made him hungry for violence, but simply because he does not think punching someone he is angry at is an excessive reaction.
Second, violent scenes can be shocking to children and teenagers (even to adults, but children have more trouble coping with something that shocked them than adults). Even children who handle violence well can be shocked by a violent scene. Usually it's not general violence that shocks them, but a specific form of violence (for example: a woman or child dying, someone tortured, someone being eaten (even if the scene is not very graphic), someone dying in a specific manner (burned, cut to pieces...). So some kids can play a violent game without problems for hours, until they finally see a child die or a man burned with a flame-thrower and it shocks them (which is not pleasant at all, in fact it can be very distressing for a child - I've been shocked by some scenes in movies I saw as a child (in fact most people have), so I know how it feels).
Back to the law:
The law does not make it illegal to make violent games. These games will still be out there. The law also does not affect adults, who are supposed to be able to make their own decisions, so no problem there.
What the law does however, is prevent kids from buying violent games without consent from their parents. I think this is great, for several reasons:
1) It will help parents decide what games their children can play. Without the law, children can buy a violent game without their parents knowing, which either forces parents to play CIA at home or parents simply quit bothering what their kids play/watch because parents can't win that fight.
I should add that as a parent, I do not want somebody selling a violent game to my children if I feel they should not play that game. Just like I don't want someone selling them (or giving for free) cigarettes or liquor.
So the law will help parents control what games their children play, and it will also help remove the idea from parents that taking your children's education seriously is hopeless.
2) Parents will have no choice but to go to the store with their kids if they want to buy them a violent game. Once at the store, I'm sure many parents will look at the game before buying it, because if you tell people "This game is so violent we won't sell it to you kid if you're not present", they'll be curious. So it will force parents to be a bit more serious about their children. We all complain about people who let TV educate their child
Arnold is from the competing industry - movies and games are both competing for the same audience. So NO irony here, and I am not at all surprised that he is taking a stab on the rival media.
Or is it about a bunch of people that are basically terrified over pretty much anything that might be dangerous?
I don't mean for this to be partisan or inflamitory, so please bear with me.
Look at say-- Gun control. Study after study has shown that gun control measures do not positively effect the rate of violent crimes involving guns. (in fact, several studies have contraindicated this assertion.) This is because gun control laws only impact law abiding citizens, who, being law abiding to begin with, do not engage in violent crime with their guns. Why is there such an impetus against people owning guns then? Could it be because at least some demographic in the population feels unreasonable fear, if not outright terror, over the idea that somebody else "MIGHT" be carrying a gun? If so, why does this fear exist, and is it really justified to indulge it?
You can find this same apparent pattern at work in the public school system as well, as the institution more and more resembles a cross between a concentration camp goulag, and a prison complex for children- complete with guard dogs, random searches, and systemic abuses of basic rights. Have these measures actually made schools "safer" for children, or do they instead make school administrators feel more secure themselves? (From the students.) What is the REAL motivation for such a trend?
As for the primary topic of violent video games, the only possible corroberating study I can think of that might indicated that exposure to violence can induce violence in young people is the infamous "Bobo doll" study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment which showed that there was a positive correlation, but the scope of the study was with the EXTREMELY young, and not with the typically implicated target audience of teenagers and young adults that this particular ban is intended for. As such, I would tend to think that it would be more apples and oranges. Sorry, don't have any studies off the top of my head that were performed on teens, so I can't really be certain.
Still, you cannot escape the question of weather or not this is really to benefit CHILDREN, so much as it is to benefit the current administrative officials (at all levels; Government, school, religious, etc-- that would stand to 'feel' more secure in their positions should such a motion pass.)
It has been my experience that the overly paranoid in power are more apt to impose draconian measures "For our own good", than are those that already feel secure in their positions, and that they are never truly satisfied, even when they have managed to wrangle society into the equivilent of a straight jacket and face mask, a-la hannibal lecter. --they continue to try to find ever more repressive ways to further satiate their unreasonable fear of the people they govern or administer over, and as their oppressions increase, it seems their fears of that population also increases; a viscious circle rapidly ensues.
It seems reasonable to me therefor to denounce such "Unreasonable, purely emotional, and fear inspired" policies, simply out of principle. I really cannot see any positive side to allowing them to be implemented, since they do not satisfy the 'need for safety' that such people harbor, but rather seem to only inflame them. (You can find this behavior trend repeated many times by despots and dictators throughout history.)
For this reason, I would assert that the government is under no obligation to may anyone "FEEL" safe, but only to ensure that people actually ARE safe-- which is a really big distinction. The first one puts society into a straight jacket-- the latter passes laws to protect rights and property, and ensures a police force. When the two are confused, the dreaded nanny state is soon to follow.
Writing for PCMag, Lance Ulanoff says the decision should rest in parents' hands: "If I have real concerns, it's up to me to argue it out with my son and take away the games or not buy them for him when he asks." If you're already buying the game for your kid, then a prohibition on sale directly to minors would be irrelevant. If anything, this law supports Ulanoff's point - that the decision should rest in parents' hands, and that they can freely buy the game if they want.
Not that there aren't other arguments, actually based on the Constitution, but that argument shoots itself in the foot from the get-go.
The Supremes already ruled that they're not going to create a new category of "unprotected speech" (the common ones that already exist include incitement, AKA "fighting words/fire in a theater"-- which has become weak sauce in the face of moneyed media corporations-- and defamation), so the Court watchers are scratching their heads, saying "if the current interpretation of the First Amendment was correctly rendered by the lower court, why did the SCOTUS bother to grant certiorari?"
In any case, we should expect to see a Jack Thompson clone (with a few aggression inhibitors installed) trotting out tired old "kids are programmed by what they see" studies without any sort of nuance whatsoever arguing for California, so any arguments we make here will get modded up, but won't reach the justices' ears or eyes. Thankfully, there are amicus briefs with the common viewpoint here filed (the idea that violent games directly cause kids to be violent is disputable at best), so it's not like the CA counsel will get a slam-dunk.
On the other hand, the legal system in this country as a whole has been trending towards the heavy prosecutorial power of the police state for decades now, so I wouldn't be surprised if former prosecutors like Sotomayor side with California on this.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Well, it's not really that big as some proponents of the ban claim that video games aren't art- as in there is no quantifiable speech or artistic value in them to fall under the first amendment.
So if they get their way- the ban can stay without any transferable first amendment problems unless you consider classifying something that can be copyrighted as not being speech.
All I know is that if I didn't have an outlet for my anger at home, I would have let it out at school.
Not to say one way or another - it's really hard to prove causality in media/violence cases especially in video games - but I'd like to refer you to Albert Bandura's famous Bobo Doll study (video). The belief that an outlet for violence (particularly violent television) was good for satiating people's natural aggressive tendencies was widely believed up until this study was published in 1961. I am shocked nobody else here bothered to cite this study.
I attended a lecture the attorney against Cali gave a few weeks back where he was discussing this case. I found it very interesting that he was relying exclusively on the fact that the court, conservative though they may be, has been as of late giving the first amendment strong leeway in what it encompasses. He's relying solely on the first amendment in his case. Were it my case, I'd invoke the commerce clause, as such regulations are clearly the realm of Congress, as they can have a major effect on interstate commerce, and we all know how broadly SCOTUS has interpreted that particular clause.
I have a feeling that SCOTUS will strike this as unconstitutional, and it may resound with the pornography industry as well.
When you think about it, why should a government tell the populace when their child is old enough to hear, see, or read certain music, films, games, or books?
If a parent wants to shelter their children, that's their choice. No government should force them to be sheltered.
My #1 beef with these moves is that they try and come up with definitions for "violent video games" or the like that completly ignore the ESRB ratings system.
If they worked WITH the ESRB and its ratings system, there might not be such an outcry from the industry.
Although I suspect there is a lot of concern about the ESRB being "the fox guarding the henhouse" (and not being strict enough when it comes to games that should be rated M or AO but get rated T or M instead after pressure from the publisher), especially given things like the Grand Theft Auto incident (which was blown way out of proportion since you needed to modify the game to get at the content AFAIK)
Bingo!
'R' or 'X', or 'XXX' -- any of them. How is restricting violent video games any different?
For that matter, why not just apply the same scale to video games as is applied to movies? I think that would make arguments of legality more clear if they were treated as any other age-restricted activity, such as alcohol or X/XXX rated movies. or renting 'X' and 'XXX' rated movies.- an advertising rating more than a real rating, as 'XXX' isn't a real rating -- they just used it as a superlative of the old 'X' rating (now NC17).
Someone should definitely mod the parent up...
The other part of this argument. Why is it, in the US, that scenes of violence and murder (that are often illegal if actually done in person) get the PG, PG-13 or R rating, while sex -- usually a legal activity gets the R, NC17(X), & XXX?
My perception is that in other modern, countries, with similar standards of living, those things that are 'illegal' are the ones getting the more restrictive ratings. How did we end up with such a perverse system?
Yes, we ARE doing it for the children. For one, I'm tired of a**hat game companies producing violent shit when they could be producing stuff that doesn't lead young gamers to model violence and other anti-community values. And please quit making the slimebags who create violent games look like victims, Throw the lot of them out into the public square so that we can see where they live and let theur neighbors know what they're doing. Screw the greedy bastard game, movie and music producers who think it's cool and "art" to challenge mores in a way that is designed to *sell* stuff, instead of enlightening people, or simply entertaining a part of their brain that isn't related to Neanderthal impulses. Anyone who lets a pre-teen play some of these games is just plain ignorant, or stupid. Sorry, I've had it with commercial interests helping to rip apart the fabric of worldwide culture with their crappy, so-called "entertainment". Now, if you don't like what I just said, go turn on your game console and play out your aggression on a shooter game, instead of arguing the point - the point being that rich alienated fame-producer fucks, along with just plain stupid, would-be "game art" fucks who make violent and other shit content, don't deserve to look like victims. Their *customers* are the victims, many of them jacked up on the imagery they have learned to love, because that's all that gets offered, or talked about as cool. Get a life! Seriously. And try to consider what life could be like without some of these games. Would it make a difference? Maybe not. That said, I can't believe that our world is better off because violent and other lowest-common-denominator games exist. btw, I'm a left-leaning moderate, sick-and-tired of people using the 1st amendment to cry 'foul". Screw people, like Scientologists, who use that amendment to fuck with the minds and lives of our children, and vulnerable adults. I don't like it when my kid, who has been exposed to crap at his elementary school, comes home mouthing sexually explicit lyrics that have been layered over the sacred beat. You know what? Screw the so-called "artists" that do that music and let it go to general distribution, or show their low-life selves in music videos that use women bodies to sell their crap. First Amendment? Don't make me laugh. Most of these asshats could care less about *anything* that doesn't make them a few easy bucks, as they score one mind after another in their quest to make a buck/ Screw 'em!
Yes, you're right. The fact that this actually is a valid First Amendment argument doesn't matter because money is involved. The Founding Fathers clearly felt that most if not all of our inherent rights as free individuals are in direct conflict with making a living.
I'll post links to the various parts of the US's founding documents, primary texts, and the Founders' correspondence as soon as I dig it up. Hold your breath, I'm be right back...
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
We are DOING IT FOR THE CHILDREN. Why can't you all just get it through your thick heads?
Indeed, this is why we must ban the abomination that is chess. I have heard this game features uncompromising and completely unjustified, racist warfare between white and black people. Apparently players are actually encouraged to sacrifice the lives of poor people in order to murder more important, blameless enemies. There game encourages violence against women and the common soldiers main goal in life is to eventually become 'queens', which surely sends the wrong message to our youth and corrupts the heart of family values.
Though I have never played these games, I have red the tabloid newspaper descriptions and that is more than enough! Speaking as a mother, I feel the only way forwards is to ban these horrific games thinly disguised as art before they further corrupt our youth.
The 1st Amendment doesn't specify that a reason of artistic value must be needed to allow the Amend. to apply.
It doesn't say, "No laws, unless children are involved!"
This is of course assuming that the gov't can prevent a seller from selling a free speech protected game, or movie, or song, or book for that matter.
I will not mention that the Bible has many killings in it.
To reply to Ares:
I wouldn't invoke the Commerce clause.
They already said things like, "Even if you grow your own food in your own state for your own use, it still can be regulated since it COULD affect interstate commerce."
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
he's "disheartened and a little perplexed to see [his] art and passion lumped in with cigarettes and booze."
I've been to many breweries, wineries and distilleries and samlped many of their products. There is quite a bit of art and passion that goes into producing these products. They also have the ability of having negative effects on those consuming them, though, certainly to a different extent. I can understand that you are disheartened. Perplexed? All they did was move the line between personal/parent responibility/freedom and government control a bit. Are you new here?
Because artists never had to worry about making a living until the horrible videogames came along. What you are actually pissed off about is a lack of ability on the part of gamers to separate real life from interactive media. That's not the artists fault.
If you don't like that your kid:
...comes home mouthing sexually explicit lyrics...
Then the next time it happens, smack him in the back of the head. He'll learn real quick that the garbage people sing about in rap music is not something that is acceptable in general society. Stop blaming poor parenting and childhood misbehavior on artists. It's the kid's fault for acting like a douchebag, and the parents fault for never having taught them better.
And p.s. Learn to use paragraphs. They help you organize your thoughts into something that sounds somewhat more coherent than the crazy homeless guy outside the 7-11.
So game companies shouldn't make violent games that are intended for adults because they could be a bad influence on children?
Kids aren't supposed to be playing games like GTA. If they are, blame the stupid parents for buying it for them, not the game company for producing something that people want to buy.
Technoli
He probably just doesn't know about the br tag, and tried to split it up using newline. It would be nice if Slashdot would auto-substitute that, by the way.
"you DONT want none of this SHIT dewey!.. its a fun game, doesnt hurt anyone, and is very entertaining... BUT YOU DONT WANT NONE OF THIS SHIT!"...
Having a game designated as such will make it an instant hit among the youth... much like the "EXPLICIT LYRICS" stickers on CDs... Who bought the NWA cassette in 1990 ONLY because it had that sticker...
Actually, the argument that will be used in the hearing is that they fall under and newly developed test to prove that they are obscene. Thus, as obscene material, they can be restricted. Which means if they get their way, they can make the same argument for any entertainment medium. That the violent portions of that media fall under obscenity and thus are not worthy of protection.
Yeah screw rap music. Your child should be turned on to metal inspired chiptunes ASAP.
Yes.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cfacga1995596/s20.html
"disheartened and a little perplexed to see [his] art and passion lumped in with cigarettes and booze."
Welcome to that slippery slope that has government trumping individual will and freedom.
The real joke is that the established media goes out and whines about violent video games, when they are, of course, making plenty of violent movies.
And the reason is that kids want violent video games and get them, whereas they don't get violent movies. And the reason parents buy violent video games? Because the media stands there and pretends that all video games are for kids.
All the parents now with 20-25 year olds, who are 45-50 years old, just missed the cutoff for game consoles. The NES came out in 85, when they were 20-25. They've never had video games. Video games were always what 'kids' were playing. Maybe they played a NES a few times, but they've never, since 1990, actually gone out and purchased a video game.
Those were the people who were bitching about 'violent video games', a decade ago, when their 11 year old got them to buy GTA.
And the media never bothered to update their view of video games, because TV writers were the same age or older. Video games were for kids.
So now there's an entire range of people who were utterly misinformed about video games and got upset because they're wrong. And the media, who have happily misinformed people about video games until very recently, get all weepy and won't-anyone-think-of-the-children-y when it's their fucking fault.
We've been putting up with this shit for two decades now, and the video game industry keeps trying to fix it. Absolutely no one can buy age inappropriate games anymore, but that doesn't help because the parents buy them, because the parents are totally uneducated about video games.
Although that's not true, either. Those people, the uneducated people, now have grown children. 99.999% of the people with currently underaged children are under 40, which means they almost certainly grew up with computer games.
So the good news is the newest parents, the ones with kids who are now trying to buy violent video games, grew up playing video games, and know damn well that some are age inappropriate. I have a nephew who's turning one in a few days, and his father sure as heck will be buying only video games he can handle as he grew up, because his father has played Quake and other games and currently plays WoW. (I don't know about his mother, but I suspect she did the same thing.) He actually knows video games are aimed at different ages. 35 and under all understand this, probably 40 and under. (And no one older matters, statistically.)
In fact, this problem is already solved, as the video-game-knowledgeable people grew up and are now in charge of children.
So, of course, it's exactly the time for this court to assert it's legal to ban violent video games, and have numerous states do so. The really ironic thing is doing 'Won't someone think of the children?!' when actual parents of actual children now utterly disagree on this issue.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Perhaps the smallest group is the one that believes in the rule of law and that the Constitution is a contract which should be followed based on the meaning of the agreements when ratified, including amendments. Of course this would mean that all first amendment cases would be out of jurisdiction of the federal courts, something those power-grabbing, legislative and executive branch appeasers will never go for.
And for those who are going to argue that the 14th changed all that, you're simply wrong. If we look at what the amendment meant to the people who passed it, we find no evidence anywhere that the amendment was ever considered to do anything more than give freedmen the right to enter contracts, to sue, and to own property. If you really care about this, read Government by Judiciary by (liberal) Raoul Berger.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Considering we're discussing the constitutionality of a law in the US and that we're discussing whether laws exist in the US that do this, a law from Australia is irrelevant to this discussion.
Everyone indoctrinates their children; you sound like that if you had children (which you apparently don't) you would indoctrinate them to believe strongly in personal liberty, freedom of speech and individual thinking. Many people indoctrinate their children into getting an education, finding a job, and learning how to budget money. The only way you can raise a child without indoctrinating them with your own attitudes and beliefs is to simply abandon them and not raise them at all.
It's also perfectly reasonable to keep kids of a younger age from watching certain kinds of media. While I kind of agree with what you're saying, and I don't think that most people allow their children to grow up and become adults nearly as fast as they should, there is absolutely no reason for an 8-year-old boy to watch the movie Hostel and then play the video game Manhunt. Both of those "art" pieces are gratuitously violent, perhaps traumatically so, and offer nothing to enrich the mind. It is also true that violent media does at least something to model the behavior of those who are exposed to it, for better or for worse, and while I don't think that aggressive behavior can be caused solely by violent media there is certainly a relationship between the two. Denying this outright is not helpful to the collective debate and furthermore, it makes us seem ignorant as a group when we are attempting to argue for the right of adults to create and admire violent artworks and video games.
This piece should have come with its own little FAQ so the same tired old discussions werent all rehashed. Like "what makes this different than rated r movies" "what about pornography" and all the other questions and debates noobs will have about the topic. My head just exploded.
If this passes, you can expect movies, books, music, and artwork to be next on the list of laws being created on a state by state basis.
It will be a not so slippery slope if it goes through because the flood gates of "morality" will be opened on every piece of media.
This nonsense is trotted out everytime there's any law that comes in to control outrageous behavior. Just like saying you can't yell "fire" in a packed theater anymore -- oh my, next they will take away your right to talk about the weather!
Laws are a balance between curtailing freedoms that do more harm than good. That balance itself changes over time. That's why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If we didn't have police, we wouldn't have the freedom to goto the store without getting robbed, but if we have too many, we become a police state and lose other freedoms (IMO, we're closer to the 2nd right now than now, but if I lived in some more dangerous areas of the country, I might have a different opinion).
This is a law that simply says parents have to get involved to buy certain 'extremely violent' games for their children -- same as for porn or alcohol. But really, do we really think some older kids won't find ways around this law (if it sticks) the way they do with booze and skin mags? It's a line in the sand. Nothing more.
you know that this has been tried for different media such as comic books, music, movies, etc. it is what one adult who thinks that there is only one way to raise children and think that parents are not responsible enough to determine what is in the best interest of their children. As a parent and a gamer i think that i know when my kids are mature enough to play certain games.