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.

Comments

How effective are the restrictions?

[retroworks]

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.

Re:How effective are the restrictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHHdovKHDNU

Experiment by Albert Bandura. Shows how kids will reproduce acts of violence they have witnessed.

A few notes:
- This experiment features kids who have unsupervised access to visual depictions of violence. It's not clear if kids still act violent when an adult puts this violence into context for them.
- The experiment does not seem to say much about the long-term effects of exposure to violence.
- Kids will imitate almost any behavior they observe in others, violence is not an exception. It's how they learn.
- It has been argued that letting children explore violence in non-harmful ways (i.e. violence against objects or in video games) might be good for them, as it can make them feel strong and able to defend themselves (grows confidence, reduces anxiety) and lets them understand when violence is and is not appropriate (for example, by playing Cop vs. Thief with toy guns, they'll learn why criminals are bad guys and their actions wrong).

This experiment, therefore, should not, on it's own, be interpreted as a statement for or against violent movies or video games. It simply shows kids will imitate violence they see in media; nothing more and nothing less.

Re:How effective are the restrictions?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Aside from the question of how effective the law (almost certainly wouldn't) have been in terms of changing minors' access to the games it applied to(see the complete absence of minors with access to cigarettes, under-21s with access to booze, and people generally with access to schedule 1 drugs...) there seem to be two 'schools' of result, depending on how researchers approach the question:

In individual-scale studies, people often demonstrate that subjects primed with violent video games are somewhat more likely to act-out violent behaviors, answer ambiguous prompts with the more, rather than less, violent possibility, etc.

In population-scale statistical work, of the 'epidemiological' style, the results usually seem to be that video games, presumably by providing an extremely easy and attractive(and generally quite cheap, too) timesink for the idle and troublesome youngish males who handle most of society's grunt-level violence, appear to reduce the levels of violence sufficiently intense to show up in crime statistics.

Re:How effective are the restrictions?

[MobyDisk]

do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids

I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior

The supreme court ruling refers to articles on both those points. They stated that in California, 20% of retailers will sell violent games to children, which compares to the 18% of liquor stores that sell alcohol to minors. The justices also commented on various studies, basically concluding that they are all very subject and totally inconclusive. The actual opinions are full of interesting facts.

Re:How effective are the restrictions?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd recommend trying to sound less angry, it's dangerously close to being ironic under the circumstances. You might also wish to reconsider the conclusion you drew from my narrowly worded assertion:

When you 'prime' somebody with a violent video game stimulus, in the sense of 'prime' that they use in the psych studies that provide us valuable insights about how undergrads who want $10 for beer think, you can observe an uptick, in the short term, of appearances of violence themes in free-play exercises, violence-related words in partial world completion tests, and the like. That is a quite narrow claim: other priming stimuli have much the same effect in their respective directions, and such studies don't tend to have much in the way of longer-term follow up, or even try to.

This does not imply(and nowhere did I state) that violence in video games has any causal link to violent behavior, outside of the specific priming effect for violence-related terms and imagery shortly after the fact. And, given the population-level studies that consistently demonstrate a lack of appalling depravity, such a link seems rather unlikely to me.

I would ask if you ought to be off teabagging corpses in Halo while shouting into the headset; but your adeptness at leaping to conclusions suggests that a platformer may be more your style...

Re:Wasting time

[c0lo]

Ah, BTW, in regards to

"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"

a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources, this is still "think of the children" but on a longer run. </sarcasm>

Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks

[bmo]

>... 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,

You really haven't read the Bible, have you?

The Song of Solomon is a pretty good bit of literary erotica.

--
BMO

Re:Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks

[Eivind]

Who the fuck came up with the ida that bible stories "are intended for presentation to children" ?

The bible is most definitely *not* written to be child-friendly, it has plenty of gruesome murders and torture, and a fair bit of sex.

Re:Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks

[vlm]

The bible is most definitely *not* written to be child-friendly, it has plenty of gruesome murders and torture, and a fair bit of sex.

We need to ban that book. Think Of The Children!

Re:Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks

[stms]

Yeah and they don't usually teach The Song of Salomon to kids in church... but stories of violence like the story of David and Goliath where David Bashes Goliath's head with a stone then decapitates him are favorites for children. Furthermore The Song of Solomon would be considered art.

Re:Man some of these "activists" are dumb as rocks

[KDR_11k]

It teaches hate, that's not child friendly.

Already have a voluntary rating and enforcement

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Already have a voluntary rating and enforcement

[mewshi_nya]

If if you want to ban violent media sales to children by law it better be all media. There is no legal force behind movie ratings.

Double Standard?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"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.

Re:Wasting time

[Joce640k]

"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"

Politicians can pretend to be dealing with violence by putting on cowboy hats for photo sessions.

People having Too Much Sex is harder for them to deal with.

Re:Wasting time

[vlm]

Ah, BTW, in regards to

"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"

a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources, this is still "think of the children" but on a longer run.
</sarcasm>

Clearly you've never read the bible. Endless killing of people of other religions is "OK" even encouraged by God. On the other hand, extreme societal control of what goes on in "private" bedrooms is mandatory.

Sex and violence?

[erroneus]

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])"

Not likely

[mswhippingboy]

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.

Re:Not likely

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This is why "The Sims" almost bankrupted EA before they wised up and released "The Sims: Noire." and why Nintendogs had to be rebooted as "Michael Vick's Nintendogs: First Blood" right?

Unconstitutional

[Bengie]

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.

Re:Unconstitutional

[chemicaldave]

On the other side of the coin does the same hold true for people petitioning the courts to overturn laws they view as unconstitutional? Should we have started giving fines to women's suffrage activists? Civil rights activists?

Fines are not the answer. The correct answer is to just not re-elect those people.

Re:Wasting time

[xatm092]

No extreme societal control? http://niv.scripturetext.com/leviticus/20.htm Nothing in the Old Testament is mandatory anymore? http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm

Re:Wasting time

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't debated with a fundamentalist, have you? Which parts of either Testament are valid is entirely up to whoever you are talking to, and dependent on what point they are attempting to make.

video games are about catharsis

[circletimessquare]

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

As a Parent

[Nynaeve70]

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.

Re:silly question

[Mods]

The brain has a different response to hearing the word 'free' than it does to the word 'kill' but they are both protected under free speech. Just because one evokes a different emotional response does not mean that they need different rules.

Re:Wasting time

[SethThresher]

I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of history and laws spread out across thousands of years, detailing God's word, etc. Things change over time. Prophecies are fulfilled, promises are met.

Look at it this way: when the God of the Universe himself comes down and says "Hey, all that stuff I told you before has been taken care of. now all I want you to do is to love Me and each other, and to spread the word." that tends to change one's outlook. The Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow. It still reflects the Word of God, and is thus still applicable for teaching and insight, but it's not like Christians are being told not to eat pork, or not leave their houses on the Sabbath, or go to war with the Canadians because that land was promised as an inheritance at some point in the past.

Love God, love everyone else too. That's what it boils down to.

Now let's go back to being mutually happy that we're allowed to play and buy video games where we shoot up aliens, okay? ;)

Re:Wasting time

[jackbird]

Huh? There are a few broad guidelines about homosexuality, masturbation, and some OCD dont-touch-menstrual-blood stuff in Leviticus, but there's tons of polygamy, concubinage, rape, and incest that's treated as an unremarkable part of the scenery throughout the old testament..

Re:Wasting time

[westcoast philly]

The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of stories and anecdotes spread out across thousands of years, before being written down by many diferent people, supposedly detailing God's word, etc. and then translated by an english king, in order to slip in his own desired revisions.

There. Fixed that for you.

Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped, I think the message is pretty clear. How does the context change that? Two men or women in love with each other, are also to be stoned to death? Not the caring, compassionate God that I personally want to blindly obey without questioning. In fact, that's the reason that fundamentalists of ANY religion scare the shit out of me. Love your fellow man, sure, just don't read the bible verbosely.

That being said, the church has absolutely NO place in politics, and never should. Ban the games or not, religion should have no bearing on the decision.

Re:Wasting time

[zeroshade]

Question:

If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws? If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wrong? The Ten Commandments? etc. It would see that you are still "picking and choosing" bits and pieces that you want to follow because you agree with them, and then throwing away the bits and pieces you don't agree with.

Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...

Re:Wasting time

[shadowfaxcrx]

No. That still counts. And gays are still evil and must be persecuted. But it's OK to shave (contrary to Leviticus 19.27). And to wear blended fabrics.

See, Jesus really said that only the parts of the bible that are convenient to our goals of oppressing people who are not like us are valid. I know that's not actually in the bible, but it's true. Honest. The rest of the bible can be disposed of, which is good because bacon tastes good.

Re:Wasting time

[TheSpoom]

Some. Go on, try it. Some Christians. There are literally thousands of sects of Christianity, all believing something slightly different. Painting them all with the brush of, say, the Westboro "Baptists" is a huge, sweeping, unfounded generalization.

Re:Wasting time

[hairyfeet]

Oh please! While you will ALWAYS have a few racist asshats I bet you'll find the majority are just like me and don't give a damn what color he is, we care that he is a lying asshole and a shitty president! Just about every. single. promise. he made on the trail he pulled a 180 on when he walked through the door. get us out of the two wars? nope in fact he started a third! get us out of Gitmo? nope. Warrantless wiretapping? All for it now. The Bush era abuse of authority? Now he says that the office of the president has the right to assassinate Americans on American soil and that this "right" can't even be revoked by congress! hell even Nixon didn't have the balls to pull that shit!

As for TFA it reminds me of a saying I heard years ago (I think it was old Joe Bob Briggs) that went "In America you can't show a tit unless it has a knife in it". For some reason we here in the states have never had a problem with mass slaughter but heaven forbid little Billy knows where his penis goes. Personally I wasn't hung up about any subject when it came to my boys but that was because I actually talked to them and encouraged them to ask questions. Both boys played violent video games if they wanted but after showing how games were actually constructed I wasn't worried about them mistaking reality for GTA. Of course this had the humorous side effect of my oldest having strange "cursing" when playing, such as "You call this level design? I've seen mods with better layouts! And who wrote the AI scripts? Barney? This is awful!"

Sadly picking up my boys from their friends houses on occasion I saw why America is fucked. I saw homes where not a single book resided and where the kids were NEVER read to (while others read kid stories or worse nothing at all my boys got "best Sci Fi of 1975" just like I got when I was a kid) and where the ONLY interaction they got was a few words before the parents went to their idiot box and the kid sat down in front of his. But no matter how many stupid laws you pass (and I agree with SCOTUS you can't have movie access be voluntary and games not, that is discrimination based on format) you ultimately can't have the government raise the kids. Sooner or later the people in the home, that is the PARENTS actually have to get off their collective asses and interact with the child.

Maybe that whole "have to have a license to have a kid" thing isn't such a bad idea. What I saw from watching my boys grow up is there are a hell of a lot of folks out there that are simply letting the boxes raise their kids and don't know shit about their kids, what they are doing, what they are playing/watching, etc. Be it the decline of the west, the fact that so many are single parent households now, that everyone is too tired from working shitty jobs, whatever, there just seems to be a lot of folks out there expecting the government to do their job because they refuse to. But you can't babyproof the planet and you can't send social workers to teach little Billy in his home what is what because the parents are too busy watching their reality TV.

Re:Wasting time

[ArcherB]

Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped

John 8, 1-11

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You have now been educated.

Re:Wasting time

[bberens]

The quote provided of Matthew 5:18 was spoken by none other than Jesus himself. Later in the book, Mark 7:9-13 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their children according to the teachings in Leviticus. Christians are explicitly told by Jesus to kill their children for cursing them. So, essentially none of your points are backed up by the Bible.

Re:Wasting time

[fahlesr1]

Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...

I typically don't like joining the religion threads on Slashdot but this merits a reply.

The Old Testament is primarily about God calling out the nation of Israel to be His chosen people through whom He will bring His son into the world so that His son can serve as a sacrifice to atone for the all of man's sins. Everything in the OT should be interpreted in that context, including Israel's experiment with theocratic rule. In the end it failed because of man's sinfulness, they couldn't live up to God's perfect standards. This is the point of the 10 commandments, they aren't laws to be followed so that you may gain salvation, they are a mirror which reflects your own sinfulness.

When Christ became incarnate He expanded the 10 commandments to include not just actions, but thoughts. He equated hate with murder and lust with adultery. (Matt. 5:22) Obviously no human can ever keep this, we all hate, we all lust. The law of the OT is to point us toward our need of a savior, because we cannot keep the law and are therefore condemned by the law. Christ's death meets that need and thus fulfills God's perfect law.

Its like if I am in court and have been fined 1 million dollars and I can't pay so the judge goes to throw me in jail. Suddenly a complete stranger steps in and says to the judge, "I will pay that fine for him, here is the money." At that point I'm set free. I'm not bound by the law anymore. The grace that the stranger has shown me saves me from the law.

As to why do people pull out OT verses to beat others over the head with? I don't know, probably the same reason someone modded GP (SethThresher) down. His comment isn't worth a zero, someone just didn't like it. There are "Christians" who hate others and misuse the Bible to beat up on them. Just like there are Muslims that misuse the Koran to justify flying airplanes into buildings. Jesus even addresses this in Matthew 25:31 in the parable of the goats and sheep.

When judging a belief system its not enough to look at the people whom claim to follow it. This is because the extremists will always draw more attention than the system's real followers. You must look at the system itself, and then also look at how it effects the lives of those whom follow it.

South Park said it best...

[TheGreatMcCluck]

"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...

Re:Wasting time

[PoolOfThought]

No, you're not being truthful. Why didn't you provide the link fro Mark 7:9-13? Perhaps because it has nothing to do with what you said? Or atleast (even in it's little bit of context) would still not be clearly "pro child killing".

Jesus tells those trying to trick him that they are guilty of the same things. They accuse Him of eating unclean food and therefore breaking tradition - a no no. He then points out to them that they aren't exactly out killing their children every time the children act out of line. He's not getting on them for not doing it. He's getting on them for being hypocritical. And even then he's more telling them to stfu (only in a much more Christly way) because they don't even follow their own teachings than he is calling their teachings correct.