Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Free Speech Ruling Aftermath
On Monday we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that a California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors was in violation of the First Amendment's free speech protection. By now, both sides of the debate have had a chance to respond to the Court's ruling. Congressman Joe Baca and CA State Senator Leland Yee pledged to continue the fight for stricter controls on the distribution of violent games, while others cried, "think of the children." Game industry groups were unsurprisingly pleased with the decision, but warned that this won't be the end of it, and asked lawmakers to stop wasting time with such legislation in the future. An article at the NY Times points out how the ruling highlights the lack of clear evidence supporting either side of the debate, and Time notes the Supreme Court's double standard, asking, "Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?" Finally, an editorial at Gamasutra reminds us that even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
and asked lawmakers to stop wasting time with such legislation in the future.
The "with such legislation in the future" part is redundant. Politicians are very much like diapers.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Other than for politicians who like to say they voted "against" sex and violence, and retailers and producers, do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids? I have seen opinions that it "desensitizes" kids to violence. But I've also read that access to porn has led to less sex crime. It kind of feels like violent games would reduce empathy in kids, but I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior than political posturing and opinion about the ruling.
Gently reply
Why does the industry have to SHIFT towards anything? Is there some sort of quota that prevents the publication of more than one type of video game? Jesus Christ, I'm so fucking tired of everything being black or white and thing else.
Why does the Supreme Court treat violent video games differently? Its a double standard...blah blah They acknowledged that and said why in their ruling. They pointed out that not just in American history but in western society leading up to American, we have always done so. Our oldest fairy tails and even our Bible stories depict rather graphic violence even though they are intended for presentation to children. Meanwhile we have always restricted the presentation of sexual images, when not presented in away that society broadly recognizes as high art.
They said all this in their ruling, maybe these people should try reading it and then respond.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The thing newspapers keep missing is that there is already a voluntary rating system out there, which all game retailers adhere to. Console makers have already banned Adults Only games from their consoles, and violent M games are kept away from kids by retailers already. By most tests, the system is more effective than the Movie rating system at keeping kids away from M (R) rated content.
So really, the court didn't rule that you can't have a ban. The court ruled that to overcome the first amendment challenge, California had to prove significant interest in a government-enforced ban above and beyond the already in-place industry ban. Since the California law was only going to add legal confusion to an already working voluntary system, the supremes ruled against them.
The ______ Agenda
There is also lack of clear evidence that rules restricting the sale of tobacco, alcohol, and porn to minors is making a difference. For that matter, the closest analogue is probably R-rated movies, and there isn't any evidence that restricting those at the theatre is useful, either.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
To call it the 'court's' double standard seems rather unfair. The justices specifically noted that it was rather odd how American tastes in media, past and present, were highly permissive of violence, even for fairly young children; but much less permissive of sexual material. However, in keeping with their job description, they couldn't really do much about that. 'Miller-test obscenity', while pretty unsatisfactory in a number of respects, is one of the few ways to successfully exempt something from First Amendment protections. For reasons having to do with American culture in the past, continuing into the present, that one doesn't mention violence.
Perhaps more importantly, the court argued that the law was attempting to enforce an (unconstitutional) double standard by imposing special restrictions on violent media that happened to be video games, restrictions that were not imposed on violence in other media: had the law flipped out at violence per se, as people often do about sexual content, regardless of medium(except for stuff old enough to have a gloss of cultural respectability, which is why 120 Days of Sodom is on the shelves and Playboy behind the counter, wrapped in plastic...), it would have at least had a shot at getting some Miller-esque test carved out for it. Since it specifically targeted video games, it was quite arguably an attempt to legally silence one specific class of speakers, rather than a specific perfidious topic(which might not have necessarily succeeded; but would have had a better chance...)
The court, for the most part, was just repeating back to us an observation on our own standards.
... violence. Raw violence, controlled violence, channeled violence... it's all the same. "Competition", that poster boy of capitalism, is really nothing more than a highly channeled and almost symbolic form of violence. Competition is all about putting your figurative foot to the other guy's figurative throat and squeezing until he cries uncle, right? Would somebody please explain how that is really so much different than the caveman version of that scenario, where it's actual feet and necks in play rather than sales figures and balance sheets and quarterly reports? Then there's the ubiquity of literally violent team sports, which curiously no one is rushing to banish from schools and universities and the airwaves. Violence is violence, when the intent is the same, to put one's figurative foot on the other guy's neck.
So "competition" isn't that different from game violence in terms of the intent, but once again the ruling class/elite/whatever wants to make sure we're all restricted to playing this game of life by their rules only, by which they hope to have an incumbent advantage. They've been playing this game with systems of laws for centuries, using "the law" to their primary advantage. They perhaps don't want these games reminding a generation that they in fact do have other options for playing The Game. Vive la revolucion!
Why are/were parents relying on the legislative/judicial branches to protect their kids from buying stuff over the counter anyway?
Why always make laws about everything?
Why not let parents decide whether they want their kids to play violent games or not?
If the problem is that parents don't understand the ESRB age ratings, start by replacing those big letters (T, M, R...) with numbers, like in Europe (10+, 15+, 17+...). Also, campaigns and advertisements to educate parents about age ratings would cost much less time and money than drafting new laws.
If the problem is that parents don't realize why violent media is bad for kids, then educate them about it! If really violent games are bad, you should have evidence of it and you could use that evidence to convince parents!
And if you think parents are too stupid to understand violent media are bad for kids, even when strong evidence is presented to them, then at least have the honesty of saying it! "You are complete fucktards who can't take care of a goldfish, much less children. The government should take the education of your children out of your hands and into its own, because we know better than you what values your children should be taught. We can't even teach you to be better parents because you're just too goddamn stupid to learn anything and it's amazing you even figured out how to reproduce in the first place - frankly, we'd have more success teaching rocks to be good parents". There, how hard was it?
Sex is usually obvious to identify. What actual "damage" sex does to minors is still a bit of a mystery to me. I recall as early as 5 finding girls to be "interesting" and being quite curious about the differences. This is considered normal and healthy for kids. Oddly enough, the interest and curiosity never stopped. And we also know that when something is denied to someone, it just makes them want it all the more. What's more, I also recall my first experiences with alcohol -- I was also quite young and guess what? I hated it! I didn't learn to like it until my early 20s. I can't say they same would be true for sexual experiences for kids because I have no experience to relate, but there seems to be some indication that "protecting children" from exposure to sexual information is probably more damaging emotionally and psychologically.
Violence is really subjective... easy to identify, but we have to approve the cause or justification first. Recall that people weren't upset that yet another war game was created, but that there was a depiction of a playable present-day "enemy" where the player attacks US soldiers. (There would have been no commotion if the game was only about US soldiers attacking the Taliban.) It's not the violence itself that we seek to limit, it's the thinking behind the violence we seek to limit. Of course, we can't say what we actually mean because then it is clear and obvious that what we think or feel on the subject is pretty anti-american ideal-wise.
So instead of admitting that to ourselves and everyone around us, we just say "ban violence! (with the following exceptions: [insert list of things I approve of])"
many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence
Yea, except those that do the purchasing. Though I'm sure it's been tried, "Call of Knitting: Black Yarn", "Mundane Borrowing Bicycle" or "Halo: Frolicking" probably just wouldn't sell very well.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
If something is found unconstitutional and people keep attempting to push the exact same laws over and over, they should be personally fined for the amount of the cost to the system if again found unconstitutional.
Belgian Helper Aardvark Smelling Hammer Snorkel
What an atrocious headline.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Why wouldn't the court treat violent images and sexual images differently? Human brain has a different response to seeing violence and to seeing sex.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
Regardless of whether the "many" in that sentence are the developers or the 3rd part observers, these "many" have an opportunity to either develop other types of games themselves or to patron different types of games. The benefit of for-profit art, just as the the benefit of for-profit anything is that they have to strive to keep pleasing their customers.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
they are about expressing and releasing violent and sexual energies that have no other outlet. much of violent and sexual impulses cannot be released in socially acceptable ways. so on some basic level, this is why violent and sexual media are so successful: they fill a need
it has always been my assertion that violent and sexual media doesn't CREATE inappropriate violent and sexual real life behavior, but instead serves as a form of releasing what is already there. in other words, those who oppose violent and sexual media are working on an inaccurate model of human psychology: we are not empty vessels that are corrupted. we are vessels already, naturally, innately, full of violent and sexual impulses. and we need a way to release them harmlessly, lest they be released harmfully. so violent and sexual media DECREASE real world inappropriate violence and sexxual behavior in my view
of course, videogames don't HAVE to be violent or sexual
but what i am saying, psychologically, is that the most successful videogames will always be violent or sexual. that's the most important need they fill
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
They are treated differently because they are different.
Any toddler can tell the difference between real and "cartoon" violence just from their direct experience of, well, toddling.
No pre-pubescent child can possibly understand human sexuality - they just aren't wired for it yet.
Does this mean that exposure to Janet Jackson's nipple will twist their development - probably not.
But exposure to Michael Jackson might.
I have no problem with my kids chainsawing the heads off of aliens in Gears of War:
I'd have a big problem with them being exposed to puerile blow-job jokes in Duke Nukem Forever (even if it didn't stink).
"We got fences put up around every cheap hotel pool in the country! This first amendment crap won't stop us for long!" - another hysterical middle American 'homemaker' who cares about the 'the children'
I feel it is up to a parent to choose what is best for his/her child. By the standards that some politicians are choosing my son (when younger) would have limited to "age level" reading only, when he was capable of reading adult books. (Note: One of his parents always read every book before he was allowed to read it, as we felt it was our responsibility.) My son is an adult now, but I felt and still feel it is the parent's decision for their child as they grow. Each child is different. Some children can handle different video games at different ages than others.
Accepting the court's separation of sexually explicit material and violent material, does this ruling open the door for letting small children into R-Rated movies, which carry the "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian" text along with the rating, without the "required" "accompanying parent or adult guardian" if the film is only rated "R" for violence and not sexual content? And if so, why have the "requires accompanying parent or adult guardian" text at all. And, what about NC-17, again if rated for violence and not sexually explicit material?
And, is it really that bad, from a First Amendment perspective, that adults have the right to decide if their children can play violent video games? I understand the profit motive, by restricting sales to any demographic the company looses potential profit, but I do not understand how the ability to SELL something to someone is a First Amendment issue, or how the corporations rights outweigh the rights of the parents.
I would actually have liked to see certain computer games restricted to adult sale only. The average gamer is apparently now 37 years old so why should companies not be able to produce games that are aimed exclusively at adults? If a parent wants to show let their kid play Doom or whatever then let them but force the parent to make the choice by purchasing it for them.
By allowing certain games to be restricted to adults we may get more games that were produced exclusively for adults. Some of them might be quite good. Currently if a game goes too far in this direction then it risks the distributor refusing to distribute it for fear of the moaning minnies demonstrating outside their shops or whatever.
Here in the UK we have a ratings system for both movies and video games. This results in many films and games being rated as unfit for children and not for sale to them. They are still available in shops on the high street and supermarkets, its just that the retailer has to look at the person buying it and make a judgement about their age. If they are unsure they ask for ID and refuse sale if they don't see any. Many countries use a similar system for alcohol, guns and many other things.
While this is by no means perfect it does have advantages. The main one is that if something unwholesome is sold to a minor, then the producer's hands are clean. They just point to the retailer who is clearly in the wrong since all adult only material has to be labelled with the appropriate age in big letters on the cover / box / whatever.
I can't help but feel that the current system helps the fundamentalists who feel that this content should be unavailable to everyone since they can use the think of the children excuse directly against the producers of content. If a decent, legally enforceable age restriction system was in place then they would have to concentrate on people letting minors access the material rather than using the same argument to try and attack everyone having access to it. They would certainly find other avenues to attack the people producing stuff they disliked, but by allowing the producers to say clearly that kids should not have access to this as well then it would make it harder to ban it outright.
I dont read
Although I find the double standard for violence vs. sex disappointing (especially being more of a fan of the latter than the former), I'd rather have a double standard than for them to deny them both the full protection of the First Amendment. And the existence of double standards can sometimes be used to leverage equal treatment in the long run (see the civil rights movements, for examples).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids?
Does this DECISION have any effect either? The industry already self-censors, so what practical impact does it really have. It isn't going to make it any easier to get a AO rated game made, published, or sold. It isn't going to make it any easier for a kid to buy a M-rated game (since most retailers won't sell them to a kid anyway). It has no real-world impact at all. I suspect the court only did it so they could *look* like they were championing free speech (after a year of ultra-conservative decisions that DID have real-world implications).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"Gamasutra reminds us that even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence." When I come home after a full day of dealing with idiots I like to blow off some steam by killing people (on my computer of course :-) I don't consider COD Black Ops an especialy violent game. I do my best to keep this away from my daughter so I have to wait till she goes to bed to play. If the industry self regulates who gets to buy these "violent" games why is this an issue. Ok maybe some parents may expose younger children to violent games but that is not the fault of the industry. That's just bad parenting. This whole thing is just a big waste of time.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Is there a lobbying group representing the VG Industry?? I know there's IGDA, but they are more concerned on the inner workings of the industry, not the relations of the gaming industry and the rest of the world (ie. government).
If I were a big-name video game publisher I would want less regulation/restrictions on games so that I can make as much money as possible. Laws can change at any moment and without a dedicated lobbying group with good pockets, they can easily change against the industry and we'd end up like Germany, where everything god-damn-thing is censored.
I sincerely hope all the big-name publishers out there pool their money and create or bolster their current special interest group (aka lobbyist) to keep their profitability high.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
If games are free speech, aren't movies and magazines?
Why can't a minor go and buy porn whenever he wants to?
Why is it that violence is more acceptable than sex?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"while others cried, "think of the children.""
No. Think of the adults that are sick and tired of putting up with 2 year olds playing M games, especially when they have access to a microphone.
"I think we definitely hit the industry over the head with a 2-by-4," said James Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media, a leading kids and media organization in the United States.
So, who has the problem with violent imagery?
The 1st amendment applies to everybody in the states and in each state.. "...Congress shall make no law..." No exceptions, no qualifications... It's too damn easy.. even a child can understand it
If they don't like it, hey must change the written law instead of making up their own interpretations..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
What's wrong with movie-style ratings for video games?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
You should put one hand on your wallet and the other on your gun, for they are coming for your money, your freedoms, or both.
Why it's not Ok to show sexual images (people loving each other) but it's alright to show people killing each other to kids. To me this is a basic problem in the way our society views "objectionable" material. When I was in high school, teachers could show movies that were rated R for violence but not for love scenes... I think the video game makers can make whatever they want, I just don't want the 19 year old cashier at gamestop selling GTA 27 to my kid when he's 14-15 and out with his friends. So again... in light of this ruling, what makes it OK to have laws prohibiting the sale of porn to kids?
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
In the United States, movies are submitted to the MPAA who give it a rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) based on a set of well-defined rules. If a movie is not submitted to the MPAA it is marked as "NR" (not rated). When an individual tries to purchase a "R" movie at the store (or watch it at the theater) they must provide proof of their age.
In my opinion, video games should be submitted to a board like MPAA to independently rate them. Different studios may place more weight on different content so current ratings aren't consistent across the board. Once we get consistent ratings, we can regulate their sale, like we do with movies.
For everyone screaming it's the parents' responsibility to teach and govern the children, I agree to an extent. If a parent is okay with their teen playing rated M games, let that parent buy the title.
LT. Grossman who is a man very much in the know having spent his entire professional life studying the issue of violent media in all forms and its effect on individuals, partly for the military, would likely disagree with the court's ruling. These games are undoubtedly programming/training individuals to kill more efficiently while desensitizing them to violence. This is indisputable and the military is currently using slightly more advanced simulators that very much resemble COD on Hardcore mode. America's Army anyone? The fact is that the knowledge and ability gained from violent and realistic FPS is only going to be utilized negatively by those whom are already unstable and experiencing some other intense issues. It's like saying we should ban cars because some individuals will perpetrate vehicular homicide.
I respect and value Grossman's work, myself being a gun owner and intellectual, but I agree with the supreme court that it is not the government's place to enact laws regarding the content which is and is not appropriate for children. It is up to the parents PERIOD.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
Why would anyone think that sexual images and violent images should fall in the same category?
A child can understand violence, it is not very hard. Everyone has bumped there head or cut themselves, they know it hurts, it is not good. It is easy to extrapolate this to a greater extent, a child can do that. But sexuality, a child by definition has not even hit puberty, sexuality is physically incomprehensible and its consequences are so complex that most adults do not grasp them. Violent and sexual images are two totally different things! Please set me straight otherwise...
Cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others, and this is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]
And, here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]
As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.
(Talk about low, and bogus!)
Cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others, and this is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652
And, here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618
As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.
(Talk about low, and bogus!)
Cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others, and this is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652
And, here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618
As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.
(Talk about low, and bogus!)
Everyone gets their shorts in a bunch when the government tries to step in and "watch out" for the kids. But what they should be doing is looking for the parents that don't keep an eye on their kids. The reason the government gets involved because parents are too lazy to say no and make their children mind them. If the parents said no, and the kids got a hold of the inappropriate games with out the parents permission the kid should get in trouble. But that is too hard for our lazy parents in this country. I am a single father and i keep an eye on my sons internet activity and what games he plays and has access to at home. He knows to ask if he can play a game because if he doesn't and plays a game that i don't approve of the whole system is put away and he is grounded. You want to keep inappropriate material from your kids then BE PARENTS, get off your butt and punish your kids when they break the rules, let them know who makes the rules and that there are consequences if the break them.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?" I think South Park summed it up rather well... "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about! " Granted, they're talking about naughty words, but the message is the same: Showing someone having their brains splattered against a wall is perfectly acceptable. Hearing him curse just before he dies is bad. Showing a woman's boobies is bad, but it's OK to show her get beaten to death. It has always seemed the oddest thing to me. We can show acts that are considered heinous and are completely illegal, but we can't show acts that are perfectly legal and a healthy part of our basic nature. I guess I just wasn't raised right...
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2278936&cid=36612456
APK
P.S.=> I agree with you man, been there-done that too, 100%...apk
You haven't read the Old Testament, have you?
Sorry, no. I just can't really get into the historical fiction genre.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
When I read this guy's name, and note that he's opposing the side of this thing that I support, I can't help but associate his name with the Japanese word "baka"...
Bow-ties are cool.
I'm only going to comment on the question you asked. Namely "why do people keep quoting it claiming that we are violating God's laws?"
The answer is simple. It is because you (you said "we" so I responded "you") are infact violating God's laws. Those "laws" concerning appropriate behavior are not changed. What has changed between the old and new testament is the believer's expected reaction to those who break laws (on accident or on purpose). The entire new testament can be summed up as "love your God, and love your neighbor". Believers should follow the old laws, but they need not be spelled out. If you love your God and your neighbor, then you won't need to be told not to murder. You won't need to be told not to steal. When in doubt, read the old testament, the laws are made pretty clear. It's not out of date in terms of telling you how you are supposed to behave - it's just not necessary if you can remember the "love" rule. The new testament makes very clear that everyone makes mistakes and that NO ONE is perfect, well ONE maybe, and that anyone judging anyone else is just as guilty of some other sin. Laws of punishment then are left to man to control society and maintain order, they are not passed down from on high.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
Jack Thompson would cry for a few hours before having another tantrum. Although a fat load of good that would do him since he is disbarred.