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!
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."
I'm not aware of any law that restricts the sale of 'R' rated movies. I am aware of several corporate policies that restrict such sales. Wal-Mart is notorious for this -- I've watched the Wally World drones card people for 'R' rated movies while letting the next person buy beer without being carded.
Is there an actual law on the books somewhere that restricts the sale of 'R' rated movies?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
Don't shop at Wal-Mart
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
That's legal everywhere (or at least as far as I know) - there is no Law saying that your movie has to be rated, you can choose to go and have your movie unrated if you want - but certain theatrical companies may not want to air your film, or they'll give it their own rating. Basically, when someone says you can't see an R rated movie - its the company policy, not law. No body of the government is responsible for upholding that law.
This being said - its the same way video games are right now. Places like Gamestop are not legally binded to uphold the ESRB ratings system, it's just their company policy to do so.
Now other things, like cigarettes and alchohol, ARE bound by law. This court case is about making video games part of those groups - where distributors can be held accountable for selling video games to people younger than the rating system allows, like selling or giving cigarettes to under-aged smokers.
Right now - if a kid wanted a video game and he did not meet the requirements he could ask his parents to buy it for him, that way they know what he's purchasing and they can check the ESRB rating and look at the box and all that nice stuff. Basically the law being proposed would take that out of the equation - as in the reseller or parent can be liable for letting them acquire that game, just like if your parents were to buy you smokes or if the 711 let you buy smokes underaged.
Now - thats the way it is where I am - in other places of the states, perhaps no company is imposing any restrictions based on the ESRB ratings. If thats the case, I can see where the people are coming from - but they should be lobbying their distributors to impose the restrictions, not the Government.
Exactly.
You should shop Smart... shop S-Mart.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
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.
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone. First off, think about your own morals, the Christian right really needs to look at trends in Europe and stand up against government regulation of morality, because, perhaps in 20 years they might not be the majority and another (anti)religious group will take their place.
Free speech should be free speech. So long as it doesn't interfere with your rights and your property rights it should be perfectly allowed no matter what it is.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It is legal to sell R rated movies to minors, or to allow minors to see such films in theaters. Some theaters may have internal rules disallowing it, but private policies like this have never had the force of law.
That's the difference with the video game legislation at issue. The ESRB was originally intended to be a private ratings group like the MPAA--just an organization to give suggestions on content to conscientious parents. It was never intended to be a government watchdog. Now California wants games and ESRB ratings treated differently--more like the restrictions in place on providing pornography to minors. It'll be an interesting case--several courts have found that games count as speech, though the issue hasn't reached the Supreme Court until now.
As a side note, I don't find it at all ironic that an icon of the film industry wants games treated differently from film. Hollywood can't be too fond of the gaming industry competing for youth entertainment dollars, and you can bet the film studio lobbyists have the governor's ear on this issue. It makes perfect economic sense; from the MPAA perspective, if Timmy can't buy Halo, he can still go see Hostel.
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'
I'm sure the nanny types would have a fit but I let my boys play games like DOOM when they were 12 with NO worries. Why? Because I sat down with them and showed them how it worked instead of using the machine as a baby sitter, that's why. I showed them how to edit DOOM wads, and how the changes they made were reflected on the screen. I showed them how the characters may act like they were 'reacting" to them, but it was all a script that could be easily changed. By doing so I showed them the truth behind the magic curtain, and therefor didn't worry about them confusing anything on the screen with IRL. of course it made for some funny "cursing" by my oldest, things like "Who designed this game? Look at all the tearing! And could they rehash the textures any more? And what about the AI, DUCK YOU DUMMY!"
Now the oldest has just started pre-med and the youngest is deciding whether to go into graphic arts or become a chef. Neither has EVER raised a hand in anger to anyone else, in fact the local pastor just recently told me "I wanted to let you know what a fine young man you have in your oldest. I went to ask him about some volunteer work and watched as he went out of his way to make sure nobody in the cafeteria had to eat alone for felt left out. He is gonna make a great doctor and probably a leader in the community" which made me feel great. In the end it comes down to simply doing the right thing and caring about your kids, instead of using tech as baby sitters. You can't baby proof the world, nor can the government be "big mommy" to the nation's kids.
So I agree with you completely, well except for the "kicking their asses" part. I hate to break the news to ya, but after about 35 your reaction time just sucks ass compared to a teen. If you are gonna play with them you better make sure that age and treachery overcome youth and skill, because on skill alone they'll mop the floor with you.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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
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.
Didn't we just have a story last week that showed how false that is? If they can't accurately predict the consequences of their decisions on the field of politics, which they should be experts at, how can you expect them to make good judgments about anything?
I fully expect the Supreme Court to declare software as mechanical, not speech, which would allow it to be banned just like realistic toy guns. Obviously the wrong decision, but you can't count on the Supreme Court to make the obviously right ruling. Remember, these are the best lawyers in the country. They can find a way to twist the law (and reality) to fit their argument, instead of the other way around.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
By surveying parental and retailer/exhibitor awareness and performing "secret shopper" trials to test enforcement.
+0 Meh
Neither. Kids buying 'R' rated movies are a problem for parents, not Washington and/or Sacramento.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
My opinion is irrelevant.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the constitution which gives the US Government power to overrule the First Amendment. Can you? On the contrary the constitution reserves that power to the 50 Member States, whenever they meet in convention to amend/modify the supreme law. So whatever the US Court decides is irrelevant. Free Speech may not be curtailed for adults.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
An interesting aside to this is that due to the power of the big retailers (Walmart and the like), and their refusal to stock NC-17 movies or AO games, means that it's considered commercial suicide to release a title that hits these marks. Although I don't support the government stepping in on principle, the practical upshot in countries like the UK where there is a legally enforced rating system is that 18 rated games and movies are a big part of the market, thus they are sold by all major retailers without argument - in principle it's more restrictive, but in practise the publishers don't have to spend their time worrying about getting the highest rating out of the black box that is the MPAA.
Which may or may not be related to any societal benefit. A rating system with 100% compliance which causes no decrease in violence can not be accurately described as successful.
Wouldn't that be a reasonable indicator that whatever it is you are rating is quite possibly not the cause of the violence?
Hypothesis: We have X% of violence in children because Y is unregulated by age-restriction ratings.
Experiment: Regulate Y by age-restriction ratings.
Result: We still have X% of violence.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is rejected.
Tentative interpretation: Y is not the (most significant) cause of violence in children. Further study along these lines recommended.
If you don't automatically accept that violent video games lead to violent behavior, then a rating system with 100% compliance can be successful by simply allowing parents to have a reasonable, standardized assessment of whether or not the content of a game is age-appropriate for their child. It can also be argued to be successful, because it may show that access to violent content or not in games does not significantly correlate to violent behavior.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
"Kids buying 'R' rated movies are a problem for parents"
Since movies or games don't cause violence, it's a problem for no one. No need for parents to censor harmless things.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone. First off, think about your own morals, the Christian right really needs to look at trends in Europe and stand up against government regulation of morality, because, perhaps in 20 years they might not be the majority and another (anti)religious group will take their place.
As I've seen it written: Separation Of Church And State is meant to protect the Church from the State
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
You ain't overestimating but two things pal, Jack and Shit. and Jack left town.
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.
You must not be a parent. It's a parent's responsibility to censor everything that they see fit to censor. In this situation, whether you, or me, or the government agrees or not, it's the parents who decide what is harmless.
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone.
So, you are saying that murder should not be illegal? Theft? All laws are about morals, it is just a question of which morals are important enough to be enforced by law.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Or SCROTUM: Supreme Crusading Retards Of The Unintelligent Masses
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
"You must not be a parent."
If you think indoctrination and censorship is good parenting, then you're not a very good parent.
"It's a parent's responsibility to censor everything that they see fit to censor."
No, their responsibility is to educate their child on how to stay out of physical harm and how to be a free thinker, not an indoctrinated drone.
"it's the parents who decide what is harmless."
No, facts decide what is harmless. The parents can't alter reality. What we don't need is pointless censorship and indoctrination.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The point of the first poster is that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" by Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with keeping the church out of the state until 1947 when the Supreme Court re-interpreted the meaning of it. The phrase and concept previous to this meant that the state could not tell the church what to do or believe, nor that there was any established state denomination. The whole concept came about as the state in many causes would outlaw a specific denomination and only allow worship in a specific, state sanctioned, denomination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Jefferson.2C_Madison.2C_and_the_.22wall_of_separation.22
To understand why this was so important you have to look back before the Constitution to the Colonies, most of which had an established state religion, and in some cases, the Dutch colony of New Netherland (New York) had even outlawed anything other than the Dutch Reformed Church and imprisoned people (Quakers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Colonial_support_for_separation
This is so clearly seen in the fact that there is a Chaplin for both the Senate and the Congress, even to this day.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm
http://chaplain.house.gov/
The Senate Chaplin page sums it up:
"Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State."
Yes, that is the thing, governments should stay out of morality, its best for everyone.
So, you are saying that murder should not be illegal? Theft? All laws are about morals, it is just a question of which morals are important enough to be enforced by law.
No, laws are about protecting people's rights. If someone is murdered or stolen from, their rights have clearly been violated. If a minor murders an imaginary person in a game, or sees a nipple on TV, no rights have been violated.