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
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!
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.
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.
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
I've got something that's even -more- interesting than Rush Limbaugh's opinion: my cat just farted, and it sounded like "The wording of the bill is also terrible, 'appeals to a deviant or morbid interest' and has no 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value' can be interpreted as every single videogame or alternatively no videogames whatsoever."
I mean, not only is my cat's asshole just as credible as Rush Limbaugh's mouth, but it also has better analysis as to why the law is a bad idea.
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.
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.