Indianapolis Restricts Display Of Violent Games 366
Darren M. writes: "This CNN article talks about a new law passed in Indianapolis. Apparently, starting the 1st of September, arcades will be required to place games with violence or strong sexuality away from non-violent games, separated by a wall or curtain. They will also be required to only allow persons 18 and over to play them. I cannot imagine how this is constitutional." This seems like a thin excuse to harden and extend the age stratification that passes in many areas of life for "common sense." Remind anyone of jamie's story about age restriction on Soldier of Fortune in British Columbia?
No One Is Safe During An Election Year... (Score:2)
I have seen this sort of political pandering before. The same sort of thing was tried in Longview Washington almost 10 years ago. It lasted a couple of months and then people forgot about it.
It accomplished nothing.
These sort of "quick fixes" get proposed all the time. You see much more of them during political prostitution season. The various leaders need to show that they are "doing something for the community". Of course, the electorate is shallow enough to not question if this will have any effect on youth violence.
If you can find it (and it has not been banned by the local authoritarians), check out back issues of a small press magazine called ""Murder Can Be Fun". They do research into the more morbid parts of history. One of the issues was on youth violence. What they published goes counter to everything we are told about the causes of todays violent youth. The nasty little monsters of yesteryear would give any of the current gangsterbrats a run for their money.
Then Get a Problem (Score:3)
Pros and Cons (Score:2)
Those reading this who have children under the age of 10 will most likely admit to having taken steps to prevent their children from viewing, participating, or otherwise being exposed to violent or sexual content (if parents do not, that is their choice, and I am not one to make a judgement on that). Certain movies are not rented, certain shows are not watched, certain web sites are not visited, etc. Now, imagine that this particular family goes out to dinner at a pizza pit, or other place where arcade games are readily available. The child wants to play a video game to pass the time. The parent(s) have a choice: either let the child go to the arcade to play PacMan (or other non-violent game) and be exposed to Mortal Kombat, etc., or do not let the child play in the arcade.
This law would require a visual barrier to be in place between the violent and non-violent games. Yes, this would require another few steps to be taken by the player to get to the machine. But, I think that players need think about others in the arcade, not just themselves. Regardless of what psychologists say, a child seeing violence does effect the child. Also, as pointed out in the above example, it allows families to choose whether or not to expose their children to such content. Think of it like the password lock-out features of digital cable or satelite TV - those who want it willingly take a few more steps to access their violence and porn in order to prevent the little one from stumbling across "Debbie Does Dallas" and asking "Mommy, what is that man doing?"
If we are in a society that is so concerned about choice, why is it that we are so adamant about denying choice to others?
-er
Why this law will fail... (Score:3)
That being out of the way, I belive that this law is probably doomed to a quick death. Simply put, it will kill arcades throughout the city. Games like Mortal Kombat and its ilk are the bread and butter of these places. Denying the vast majority of the customers access to those machines will seriously hurt the bottom line.
Even should that first supposition be wrong, having a roped off section behind a curtain with a big bouncer not allowing kids in is sure going to be a great draw for families, isn't it? Who in their right minds would have their kid's birthday party in a place like that? Even those who don't play those games will be effected by this asinine piece of legislation.
Personally, if I were an Indianapolis arcade owner, I'd tell the city to frag themselves and move to the suburbs out of the way. Consider the lost tax revenue plus the cost of enforcing the law would be rediculous. There's no way that the city can reasonably expect this law to stay on the books without it having a negative and demonstratable effect on the city. This law is doomed to failure, and anyone with half a clue should have been able to figure it out.
If I were an Indianapolis resident, I'd seriously thinking about a recall petition.
Violence bad, personal freedom good (Score:3)
Personally, I don't dispute this. Children exposed to violence at an early age probably turn out to be a little more screwed up than others.
However, the question is whether you are willing to gradually give up more and more personal freedoms and allow censorship in order to prevent this from happening. I am not. You can either decide to take personal responsibility for protecting your children from that which you feel they should be protected from, or let the government dictate to you how things should be. As everyone knows, freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular ideas. It it to protect the unpopular ones -- or in this case, the politically incorrect ones.
The games are put behind a curtain? Doesn't that seem a little ominous to anyone else?
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Why doesn't anyone complain about movies? (Score:2)
Whats the difference between not allowing minors to view R or NC-17 movies, and not allowing minors to rent violent video games? No one complains when a movie gets an R rating and minors are not allowed in, so why complain about video games?
The difference is that restricting minors from video games is new. Whenever there's change, there will always be people to complain about it. So how long until people see the similarities between games and movies? The line between movie and video game realism is slowly being ereased.
Ooh, great. (Score:5)
kwsNI
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Fsck that. How 'bout the early 80s bloodfest "The Bilestoad" on the Apple ][?
Pictures of a 3-D port to the Mac [continuumsi.com]
I have fond memories of hacking limbs off in the original [classicgaming.com] version, in glorious 280x192 resolution at four real colors and 8 pseudo-colors. It was the bloodiest thing I'd ever seen at the time :)
I first found out about Bilestoad in a full-page print ad in Nibble magazine. I believe the phrases "graphic violence and bloodletting" and "suitable for adults only" were used. I don't think the game was ever released where I lived; I never saw it on the shelves.
One of my happier gaming moments came when someone in our user group got his hands on a copy from some warez BBS in the States. It spread like wildfire. It was bloody, shocked the parents, and more importantly after the first 15 minutes, featured really good gameplay.
Your irony for the day: From the Bilestoad Manual [continuumsi.com]:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Double irony: This is the first time in my life that I'd actually read the premise of the game - a society held together by the use of virtual violence as catharsis. I'm doubly impressed by the designers' insight.
1983, folks. The original came out in 1983.
unconstitutional? (Score:2)
But by the time they are 16... (Score:2)
But by the time that child is 16 (or 14 or 12), if he or she doesn't have a firm grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy, and on the tragic consequences of real-world violence, then it's too late. On the other hand, a 16-year-old 'child' with this fundamental comprehension will not be adversely affected by violent videogames such that they become more violent in real life.
When I was 14 and playing Wolfenstein, there was zero danger of me taking that violence out of the context of being a game. Were I to have played at age 6, that would not have been true.
Does a hard limit of 18 years of age make sense? Do we really need a law to keep 6-year-olds from playing games at arcades? What is necessary is slow exposure over time as the child becomes ready for it, and this is something the government has neither the time nor the competency to do.
Unfortunately, the same can be said of many parents.
Re:I guess that includes all the Football games. (Score:2)
But then we still allow grown men to beat each other senseless, and occaisionally die or suffer permanent brain damage, just for people's entertainment on Pay-Per-View.
Remember though, people who play football are always A-OK, especially when they are violent sociopath's (people figure that makes them more likely to be winners). All non-violent gaming (by this I mean, gaming that doesn't include actually doing violence to a fellow human being) is considered suspicious and evil.
Oh, and bad, tasteless games are becoming ever more violent because of all this media insanity over "violent games warping our kids" (free publicity, they'd never sell on their merits as games. Remember, the people making Soldier of Fortune set out to make the most violent game of all time so they'd stand out from all the similar, better games out there.) while more mainstream games are routinely censored, even if the censorship is of the most ridiculous thing you could think of.
I'd give a source on that, but since a majority of people posting to slashdot these days seem to be trolls or fascists, I won't bother hunting down the URL. God, this place has gone down hill...
Re:Once again... (Score:3)
The Spartans also had a problem with slave revolts. They're slaves wern't happy, and in fact the only thing that kept them under control for the most part was the massive standing army Sparta kept at home. So for politcal reasons they didn't embrace the Athenian strategy. That is not to say that the Spartans didn't play a crucial role in the war. Their most famous battle is Thermopylae, a narrow passage near the sea where 3000 allied greek soliders (300 Spartan hoplites, 700 from other allies, and about 2000 support personal, archers ect...) held off Xerxe's entire army (over 100,000 men, 1,000,000 by some accounts) for 3 days. It could be thought of as the Alamo of ancient greece. Anyway the death toll was astounding, Xerxes lost something on the order of 10k men. Anyway that holding action disrupted Xerxes supply chain and ruined the tight integration between his land and naval forces (the navy could not operate with out the land forces) and likely supplied the edge Athens needed to spank the Persian navy soundly at Salamis and elsewhere.
A couple of good books I recomend about the Persian wars are:
The Greco-Persian Wars [amazon.com] by Peter Green.
and
The Gates of Fire [amazon.com] by Stephen Pressfeild.
The Gates of Fire is a fictional account of the Spartans involvment at Thermopylea, takes a few liberties but overall is a very good piece of historical fiction. I recomend reading Green's book first (it reads like a novel not a text book) for an overall picture of the war and then reading Gates of Fire for a first person perspective of warfare in ancient times. History was never more exciting
I should also note that shortly after the wars, Athens essentially started extracting protection money from her naval allies and sacked a few island cities that refused to pay dues to her defense coalition. This growing Athenian empire is what led to Sparta and Athens fighting (with Athens losing) about 100 yrs later.
A solution to all our problems... (Score:5)
Fundamentally, I have no problem with restricting access to certain materials for children. However, I'd love to see our imperfect system replaced with one which truly reflects the philosophies of the child's parent.
The current US system has two major flaws:
In order to allow parents to exert some degree of control over their children's intake of material, yet at the same time allow them to customize the access based on their personal views and reading of the child's maturing, I propose the following system for all media (TV, print, videogames, video, movies, etc.):
I know this is simplistic, but I do think there are some reasonable ideas that we could use to replace the current botched up system.
-Erik
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:2)
Here's some websites I found which discuss the issue:
Still, it seems that the courts are currently applying First Amendment rights as if the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibited state and local governments from encroaching upon those rights. State and local ordinances are often struck down on the grounds that they violate citizens' First Amendment rights. One of the seminal cases seems to be Gitlow v. New York [findlaw.com], in which Justice Sanford, delivering the opinion of the court, writes "[W]e may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press... are among the personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States." Granted, as the analyses above mention, prior to Gitlow the courts did not necessarily see the Fourteenth Amendment as extending First Amendment prohibitions to State governments, since then the Fourteenth Amendment has, for the most part, been interpreted that way.
For a recent example, see City of Erie, et al., v. Pap's A.M. [findlaw.com]. The question at hand in this case was whether an ordinance enacted by the city of Erie, Pennsylvania, violated the First Amendment. While the eventual decision was that the ordinance was constitutional, both sides seem to implicitly accept that the First Amendment (via the Fourteenth Amendment) applies to laws passed by the city of Erie.
In other words, what I'm trying to say is, if you're asking whether this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment can be defended purely from the text of the amendment and philosophy alone, I don't know. But it is certainly the way the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted in practice for the past several decades.
Unjustifiable (Score:2)
Re:18- (Score:2)
Likewise, just because minors do not have the full constitutional rights of adults, that does not mean they have no constitutional rights at all. One of the classic cases upholding First Amendment rights of minors is Tinker v. Des Moines. [findlaw.com]
I'm not saying the Indianapolis ordinance in question is necessarily unconstitutional. The rights of minors is a very murky area of the law. I'm just saying that the /.ers who are saying "clearly this is constitutional, minors have no rights at all" are just as mistaken as those who are saying "clearly this is unconstitutional, it violates the First Amendment."
18+ only == "Adult" business. Zoning laws apply. (Score:5)
Typical zoning laws do not all adult businesses in all but the worst part of town, in the industrial zoned areas, far out of the way of everything, and certainly far away from schools, malls, and kids. Arcades may be forced to get rid of the violent games or see their business licenses revoked.
If they boot the games, arcades may see their customer count dwindling. So wheather by zoning laws or simple fall off in profits, arcades could find themselves forced out of business.
See what a tiny piece of legislation can do?
Re:Absolutely... this thing is unconstitutional... (Score:2)
Interesting. I can't recall seeing any cigarette ads on television lately, can you? And whatever happened to that delightful smoking camel?
I'm also a little disappointed that, for all those years, I'd been abstaining from reading the articles in Playboy for apparently no good reason at all.
Re:constitutional? Yes. (Score:4)
The issue here is not that the right to play violent video games is protected by the constitution but does not apply to children, but that there is no constitutional right to play violent video games. The vast majority of "rights" in this country have been constructed by the courts or the lawmakers based on the principles of the Bill of Rights and the ninth-amendment protection of "unenumerated rights."
Do, indeed, the constitution or the laws of the land mention anything about the freedom to play violent video games? No. The legal question is not whether children have constitutional rights, but whether a municipal government has the power to prevent children from accessing games it finds objectionable in a public place.
The inevitable lawsuit will be a very interesting one to watch, because the current standard for deciding if objectionable material can be restricted by government decree is whether the offending material is totally devoid of either artistic merit or social value. Certainly this is not the case with (most) violent video games, but it will be fun to see the city's arguments to the contrary!
Re:Digital versus Real violence. (Score:2)
The effect on civillians is obviously not hazardous. The effect on the storm troopers, however, is.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Instant Strikedown, just add lawsuit (Score:3)
change how people behave? Are you nuts? Have speed limits changed how people drive? For the most part, no. Not until they pull every speeder over, every time, and pull their license - and incarcerate for driving on suspended licenses, will behavioral changes occur.
Sorry, but you're wrong about this. When California raised its freeway limit from 55 mph to 65 mph four years ago, average speeds dutifully rose from 65mph to 75mph. Drivers, on average, drive at 10 mph over the limit. Even though only 1 in 700 minor driving offences (speeding etc.) are prosecuted, most drivers stay close enough to the limit. The threat of being caught is part but only part of why the vast majority of people obey the law.
Re:Digital versus Real violence. (Score:2)
Or maybe you are suggesting that local communities should pass anti-war laws, making it illegal for anyone to wage war in their cities, so as not to expose kids to the kind of brutal violence that could really disrupt their lives and cause them to be deviant violent punks.
Ok maybe your not suggesting that violent games are causing these wars, but perhaps suggesting that the effects of violent video games has the same affect on children as growing up in an active war zone!?!?
Your comparison's have no absolutly no basis. Have you ever been in an actual war? Or even a riot like the above poster? Didn't think so. Neither have I. Games are just games and always will be. Every gamer knows that they always have an extra life and no matter how many times they frag their buddies they'll come back for more. On that same token the vast majority of humans know that death is final, and can seperate violence in games from violence in real life.
Re:You can't? (Score:2)
Isn't that weird?
Ahem.. (Score:2)
Neither is right, both go against the 'constitution'. Both are bad.
1\5Athis is no worse. I'm sorry.
WTO Protests (Score:2)
Wow, when I first read this I was amazed and outraged. I why I hadn't heard of this before. Then I realized that I had. The big protests around the WTO meeting in Seattle from Nov 30 to Dec 3. The CNN coverage is here. [cnn.com] Suffice it to say this is not as cut and dry as the previous post makes it seem.
To summarize, some of the protestors on Nov 30 were violent. They crowded the meeting participants when they left and even pulled some of them into the crowd. It was a serious security problem. The crowd was forcibly dispersed using tear gas. Baton wielding riot police retrieved the delegates who had been pulled into the crowd by the militant protestors. On all subsequent days the police enacted a secure no-protest zone. Anyone attempting to enter it was tear gased. Most of the people were non-violent protestors, but the police couldn't take the chance on them turning militant and threatening the delegates safety again. They also warned the protestors to disperse before they gassed them. The protestors should have been expecting it by Dec 1 (the day mentioned in the post) because it had already happened the day before.
The problem is violent media doesn't really effect the victims, it effects those who commit the crime. Many serial killers talk about commiting their crimes "as if it was a game." Soldiers also talk about killing this way. They shoot someone and are amazed at how easy it was -- "just like training." The most common phrase that came up when Mark Bowden was interviewing soldiers involved in the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia for his book Blackhawk Down was "it felt like we were in a movie."
Still think the media has no effect on us? Granted much of the relationship is actually reversed. The "experts" look at the data and say "violent offenders listen to violent music so its the musics fault." Actually, violent people like violent materials so they are more likely to possess them. Quite a difference. Its time parents in this country start doing their jobs though.
Already happens in Australia (Score:3)
I don't know if this weak curtaining thing is mandated by Australian censorship -- sorry, classification -- laws or whether it is self imposed, but I suspect the former. There's no requirement for the game to be set apart from other games as mentioned in this particular law: the machines with the curtain rails poking out oddly from the body of the game stand right next to the ones with the exposed screens.
The article in question quotes someone as saying "the law's not going to do any good." Well, duh! It's political grandstanding, same as usual, and the only "good" it's meant to do is to increase the popularity of its proponents with the moral majority -- and it will work in its own small way. It's also yet another law in the ever increasing pile of the stuff that most Western democracies are miring themselves in. That fact, more than "restraint of free speech", is what I find offensive.
Come on, grow up. (Score:2)
Joseph Elwell.
Re:Don't Have a Problem With It (Score:2)
Re:Instant Strikedown, just add lawsuit (Score:2)
Ban Board Games! (Score:5)
I believe this law doesn't go far enough! We need to protect our children from board games which teach them that enough money will solve all your problems.
Consider Monopoly, for instance. The object of the game is to get as much money as possible and bankrupt the other players. Children see that it is okay to financially destroy other people! And look at the high amounts of money used when playing it. Exposed to routine use of those incredibly high sums, children will see the high sums of money in the drug trade as no big deal!
It doesn't end at board games either! Games like jumping rope and basketball teach children that it is okay to exclude the handicapped. That intolerance is unacceptable! Ban those games and let the eggheads figure out how to make hopscotch ADA compliant!
Don't Have a Problem With It (Score:3)
Re:Will there be any left? (Score:2)
There's "Bust a Move", which wouldn't be very violent if you were to take out the graphic of tiny dinosaurs being squashed to death.
Ummm...
Then there's that "Pro Skater" game. It includes vandalism and skating, which are both crimes in most cities, but very little physical violence.
"Pole Position" isn't terribly violent, although emulating it would certainly be more dangerous than emulating "Mortal Kombat".
And, once in a while, there are trivia games, although why someone would pay to play a trivia game is somewhat beyond me.
This is a suprise......Why? (Score:5)
Instant Strikedown, just add lawsuit (Score:2)
What amazes me is that people think that by obscuring or forbidding access to such things, we will remove their influence upon those who we assume are impressionable (i.e. children). Children may not see rated R movies alone, but they do. Children may not view pornography but they do (and did long before the Internet ever existed).
Why is it that the solution to bad parenting isn't to improve parenting, but rather to make lots of hard-to-enforce laws?
And the problem is??? (Score:5)
If the community deems that these things are offensive, and should have a restricted audience, what's the problem? You're still even allowed to take your kids to the arcade, if you don't mind them playing. It merely moves the decision to play that sort of thing into the parents court theoretically, rather than letting possibly uninformed, immature kids make the decision on their own.
I have yet to see any strong advocacy movement on slashdot to allow children of all ages to see XXX porno freely. It's about the same issue.
There is a fairly long standing acceptance of movies being rated PG, meaning that a parent needs to guide the kids to see it. It's about the same issue. It's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can see.
The Constitution protects the expression of speech. And the game companies are still allowed to express the game however they want. They are merely being limited to who their audiece is, to a group that possibly is more mature, and better able to deal with it appropriately.
Now, if you want to discuss the futility of a measure like this, I'm on board. I don't see this changing anything in terms of what kids play. Not significantly. I went to R movies long before I was 18, and I fully expect Indianapolis kids to skirt this with impunity. And I do feel for the arcade owners who have to deal with this stuff. It's a hassle for them, and they can't win either way. Either the customers will get pissed at them, or the law will be all over them.
It's a stupid law, I think. But far from a meaningful one.
Re:Instant Strikedown, just add lawsuit (Score:2)
We don't have nearly so many fucked-up assholes ripping down the highways at 20+ above the limit and endangering *everyone* with their stupidity.
The roads are safer: more people are driving more the same speed.
We're about to get follow-too-close radar. *THAT* should make for some significant improvements in people's driving habits, too. Thank god.
--
I have a much better plan (Score:2)
Shoot the kids. Or send them off to some island until they're 18. Just enough with the "save the precious children" BS laws. Passing a law like this isn't going to do anymore for kids than passing a law dictating that all children will grow up happy and healthy. It's not like there aren't things that could be done to do all the "save the precious children" BS. I'm not saying that kids need violent video games - I'm all in favor of depriving the little brats of anything good and fun until they're 21. But really, couldn't we (for those of us who live in the US) get our legislators to do better things with our time and money? Like trim the fat out of the budget, get some of that social change action going, and make the world a better place? Bleah.
-end rant-
itachi, who thinks that idealism is a downer
Once again... (Score:5)
Re:It's not unconstitutional... (Score:2)
The 14th Amendment [cornell.edu] has been held to extend the same prohibition to the states.
Notwithstanding the whinging from some "conservatives" (the bogus types who are skeptical of government except when it does something they like, as opposed to the genuine article who maintain this skepticism consistently), it is clear that this is the original intent [2ndlawlib.org] of the 14th Amendment's writers.
/.
18- (Score:4)
This is bad for more reasons than free speech. (Score:2)
Walk into an arcade (or better yet, local pizza joint), take 10 steps from any game, and imagine where the curtain would be. Then imagine what would need to be done to make sure an employee had the opportunity, at all times, to check ID before allowing someone inside the curtains.
Now, those games that are on the "bad" list are still legal, and you can still get a license for them. But you have to spend extra money to rearrange your arcade, put up curtains, possibly have another person on staff just to watch those machines...which won't make as much money if no one knows they're there, because they can't see them...
Yeah, those machines are still legal. But it quickly becomes so uneconomical to have them, that they disappear.
Of course, the Mayor's office didn't ban them. This is the land of the free, remember?
They just "restricted" them.
That's why this is something to worry about.
Restrictions that become so common that they are
accepted get worse.
We should ban Tetris! (Score:2)
Tetris is a dangerous product and as such, I believe it should be kept away from the children!
Re:Ooh, great. (Score:2)
kwsNI
New megamall? (Score:2)
"Yeah, give me a fifth of Wild Turkey, a copy of Debbie does Dallas, a box of condoms, and... what the hell... throw in that copy of Quake III. To go please...
But seriously, this is just another attempt to avoid having to actually talk to your kids about something other than their day at school. Sickening....
Whew... (Score:3)
Or is British Columbia the only place in North America being overrun by retarded reality-based Japanese videogames?
More Prohibition.... (Score:4)
I guess that includes all the Football games. (Score:2)
Oh wait, it's US custom to shove football down the throats of all males. Nevermind.
Re:Instant Strikedown, just add lawsuit (Score:2)
Because "something has to be done" and legislators want to be seen as doing something.
There's a powerful meme going around that says: The State's purpose is to solve all our problems.
---
Penny Arcade's take on this (Score:2)
------
constitutional? Yes. (Score:2)
Why? Because the constitution only applies to citizens. To be a citizen, you need to be 18 or older. Sad, but true. And so the "moral majority" decided that in the best interests of the children, they should shield them from all the nasty things like.. the real world.
Want to make a difference? Stand up for your kid, parents.
The Evil effects of videogames (Score:4)
Errr...
Re:The Consequences of What You're Saying (Score:2)
If a company like Blockbuster wants to make it its policy to prevent those under 18 from renting rated-R movies, that's their decision. If the GOVERNMENT wants to make Blockbuster prevent people under 18 from renting rated-R movies, then it has become everyone's problem.
Stop Bitching (Score:2)
Bitching on Slashdot doesn't make anything happen.
http://www1.ci.indianapolis.in.us/mayor/feedbac
Mayor Bart Peterson
2501 City-County Building
200 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Re:Moderation??? (Score:2)
Recall Petition (Score:2)
Thanks!
Re:Ooh, great. (Score:3)
/End Rant.
Violent Media is Good for Kids (Score:2)
Children will feel rage. Even the sweetest and most civilized of them, even those whose parents read the better class of literary magazines, will feel rage. The world is uncontrollable and incomprehensible; mastering it is a terrifying, enraging task. [....] Through immersion in imaginary combat and identification with a violent protagonist, children engage the rage they've stifled, come to fear it less, and become more capable of utilizing it against life's challenges.
food for thought...
Re:Stop Bitching (Score:2)
I was terribly dismayed to hear of the recent video game law you signed. Academics agree
that there is little, if any, correlation between violent video games and violent behavior in
youth. Movies and video games already have ratings. The state should not act as parent or
nanny. Prohibiting people from playing or purchasing video games by law is censorship, and a
direct assault on the right of a parent to decide for themselves what is good for their
children.
I am a twenty-one year old computer programmer and video game player. I am happy to say
that I have never been violent as a result of playing violent video games in my youth.
Perhaps you are correct in worrying about the hostile environment youth grow up in today. But
that is a societal issue. It must be addressed at the root. If children cannot distinguish
right from wrong, and become violent due to playing a video game, then there is certainly a
more disturbing problem in our society. This law will only allow parents to have a clear
conscience while being irresponsible.
A first step...to where? (Score:3)
So I take it this guy is planning on going after TV next? All those cop shows and what not? Heck, he should watch some old cartoons. Maybe he'll go after our government and the "culture of violence" they practice that helps keep gas prices low.
Sorry, but I just can't help but laugh at people who say things like "We must attack the culture of violence." Shouldn't you be making peace with it?
This attitude (Which also comes into play with the drug war, Kill the Drugs, liquor and cigarettes) of trying to hide the bad things and act like they are not there, only adds to the "cool" factor of accessing them. The motivation for a teenager can be quite simple. q:"Why'd you do it?" a:"You told me not too." and attitudes like this play directly into it. These types of laws also help to marginalize certain individuals, and in this case, it is those individuals that perhaps shouldn't be marginalized any more than they already are.
--
Katz might write an article (Score:2)
Constitutional Right To Violence? (Score:4)
In a country were the average youth (especially minorities) is disenfranchised, ignored by their parents and has easy access to mind altering substances it is in my opinion a deadly combination to combine that with the current cocktail mix of easy access to firearms and constant daily diet of violence in all forms that children get.
That Americans are desensitized to violence is no longer news, but it amazes me when someone claims that a diet of gratuitious violence and entertainment that consists of 1, [dailyradar.com] 2
In my opinion until there is a movement to curtail the excessive amount of firepower in the community then moves like this are a stop gap measure on the journey to ridding our communities of violence. Yes, I know violence goes beyond violent video games and is more likely due to other factors (abuse at home, poverty, feelings of persecution, resentment) but the fact is that violent video games are not blameless. But two wrongs do not make a right (allow violent video games to minors since they have access to other violence), after all, the Columbine kids didn't play long games of Pokemon before going on their killing spree.
PS; If you've ever lived in a neighborhood were you go to sleep hearing gunshots and wakeup to sirens you'll know where I'm coming from. Lakewood, Atlanta, GA.
Where are the standards? (Score:2)
Now, from what I understand, the governments are trying to "protect" us by separating us from violent games. However, they don't seem to have a problem with TV, where people get killed all the time, or (even worse), cartoons where characters "should" get killed (eg fall off cliffs, get shot in the head, etc) walk away without a scratch - or at worst a cast that stays on 'til the next scene.
Let's not forget the evening news. For example, school shootings. When there's a school shooting, every station covers it. Not just for a news clip, though. We have to see every detail - where the shooter stood, how he did it, etc. A few days later, there's another one.
If it wasn't for the sensationalism that the media puts on these things, there wouldn't be such a large problem. If you want to "control" everything, start with North America's babysitter - the TV.
Or, an even better way. Parents should supervise their children. Period. If the parents don't like what the child is watching, change it. If the parents don't like what the kid's playing, uninstall it.
Oh, I forgot...that would require parents to have some involvement in their childrens' lives. As a person who works with children, I know how often that happens.
Re:You can't? (Score:2)
Still, for every constitutionally-protected right we have, there are many more that are not granted any protection at all. And age minorities are a very easy target since everyone makes arguments like "Oh yeah, I went through that. You'll get over it when you turn x years old."
I think it's just disturbing that the government could, for example, prohibit fishing to people under 25, or ownership of a car to people under 30, and they'd be well within their constitutional boundaries. I'm not even sure anyone would fight it too hard, since those under 30 rarely have political leverage, or even vote.
Actually, BC isn't just rating Soldier of Fortune (Score:2)
If the laws are passed, you will need to show ID to rent or buy games with restricted ratings.
Now, honestly, isn't this redundant? The video games industry already has a rating scheme in place, the ESRB [esrb.com], and other such rating systems for PC games, etc. Why do we (or at least BC) need another rating system? Why not just enforce the existing one?
For more information, check out http://news.exci te.com/news/r/000717/16/tech-leisure-videogames-d
J
Re:Instant Strikedown, just add lawsuit (Score:5)
What amazes me is that people think that by obscuring or forbidding access to such things, we will remove their influence upon those who we assume are impressionable (i.e. children). Children may not see rated R movies alone, but they do. Children may not view pornography but they do (and did long before the Internet ever existed).
I don't think that the lawmakers are nearly as naive as you make them out to be. Of course they realise that many of the laws that are passed are not going to be directly effective. Not all laws are meant to be strictly enforced. Many are aimed at signalling what society believes to be acceptable behavior.
In this example, of course many kids will get around this law (I'm using "law" in a non-technical way: IANAL). But it sends a signal that Indiana doesn't believe that certain depictions of violence are appropriate for children. Even if the law is never enforced, the publicity surrounding the law will send a message about what society believes is civilized and what is not. This helps parents enforce these rules on their own children because it allows them to point to how most parents expects their children to behave. This does actually have a positive effect.
Anti-racism and other anti-discrimination laws are like this. There are actually very few prosecutions under these laws, but they send a strong signal that society doesn't believe racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are acceptable. Over time this can change how people behave.
Re:The game industry is hurting itself (Score:2)
Young male, in the game industry sense, is up to 25.
Perspective (Score:2)
Republicans: Indiana is going to hell because of all the fucking liberals
Me: Indiana is going to hell because of you two!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Constitutional Right To Violence? (Score:2)
Oh please... I had a feeling this would come up. Here's a free clue for you: Yes, we have one of the highest firearms murder rates in the world. But you know what? Strip away all guns, and we *still* have one of the highest non-firearms murder rates in the world.
It is not a matter of using stop-gap measures until your friendly neighborhood jack-booted storm troopers can and take your guns away. Then we'll *still* be killing each other more often than we should, only with different weapons. And all the liberal anti-gun whinging in the world doesn't change the numbers.
And now they're taking our freedoms away even more, to protect us from the children of broken homes, and from the yuppie scum kids of yuppie scum parents who are too busy working two jobs to afford their version of the American Dream to care for the brats they spawned.
Here's a hint: If you want to reduce violence in the US, you've got to get parents involved in raising children again. And you must, must, must stop removing responsibility from our lives.
Laws like this do nothing except remove the need to show individual responsibility in the decisions you make. We are being reared, as a culture, into a new generation that doesn't believe in having to account for anything they do. We've been told all down the line what is right, and what is wrong, never had to choose for ourselves, and never had to live up to the consequences. All because of all the laws trying to protect us from ourselves. We are codependent children.
And if we keep passing those laws, it will keep getting worse.
Re:Parent Pressure? Eh? (Score:2)
The government is not in charge of speech, or expression. They are not even in charge of "pretty", though many city governments have begun to think they are.
Cool! Bring on the XXX games! (Score:2)
Now, in all places with similar laws in place we can have XXX games with mega-violence in the partitioned "adult" sections, right? Right?
That's not what they had in mind? Oh. Perhaps there is some other agenda involved, then.
Mojotoad
Constitution (Score:2)
Agreed! As my government teacher in high school was fond of pointing out, in most ways, the Constitution does not protect minors in the same way that it protects adults. Over the years, the set of people to whom which Constitutional rights have been extended has grown, but still, not everyone is protected equally. To wit, in the first years of the Constitution, only white male landowners that were 21 years old or older could vote, for instance. Over the years, Constitutional protection of freedoms has been extended to women, people of all races, and people 18 and over, but really, the Constitution protects adults and not minors.
In any case, I don't see how the Constitution factors into this, even if minors vs. adults are not involved. At most, this is a "freedom of expression" issue, but expression hasn't been completely muted here, it's just been moved to the back room.
--Joe--
Age matters not... (Score:3)
This hurts more than helps!!!! (Score:2)
This will teach our children that when someone is shot, they don't bleed or cry in pain, they vanish painlessly. This can only have VERY BAD effects on kids.
This law hurts children.
Re:This is a suprise......Why? (Score:2)
Accually you don't, ratings are simply a guide, and there is no legal recourse for allowing anyone into any movie, with the exception of NC-17, where an owner can be charged with contributing to the delinquecy of a minor.
Yet another example (Score:2)
I doubt that anyone actually believes it would hurt someone under 18 to play these games. But it is an effective way to put them in their place and show them who is boss.
Human beings seem to have this psychological need to subjugate others. Any excuse to do so is latched onto and played for all it is worth. Things like race, sex, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and of course age, these are all used as justifications for the mistreatment of others, especially the systematic mistreatment of them as a group.
But what sets age discrimination apart in my mind and makes it doubly reprehsensible is that its victims become it perpetrators. The things that older people do to younger ones today are the same things which were done to them when they were younger.
There also seems to be a double standard for older people and younger people. When an older person flips out and shoots a bunch of people, his actions aren't blamed on what he watches on TV or what kind of music he likes. He himself is held accountable for his actions. At most he is declared insane. But should some teenager do the same thing then any number of supposed causes are fingered from the clothes he wears to the fact that he knows how to use the internet.
Make sense to you? It doesn't to me. These kinds of things didn't make sense to me when I was a teenager and they sure as hell don't make sense to me now at 27.
Kids aren't stupid and their psyche's aren't so fragile that we need to protect them from much of anything. But the myth which says they are "impressionable" and so forth gets perpetuated because its an effective excuse to step on them and punish them for being young.
Sounds like a simple case of jealousy to me.
Lee
Sorry, but it is Constitutional (Score:2)
This is no different than keeping pornography away from children. Ultimately, not everything that is good for adults is good for children. At the very least, parents should be able to choose what their children are exposed to.
As video games grow as a medium, don't be surprised when it begins to recieve the same kinds of scrutiny as other mediums: movies, magazines and television.
This gets into the hairy area as to what is acceptable for kids and what isn't. But I don't think an eight year old should be able to buy a copy of Hustler or go see Pulp Fiction unsupervised. The fact that some games may be inappropriate for children is a sign that the medium is progressing past being just for kids.
But to tell you the truth, I suspect the "adult" video games are some of the most juvenile in the arcade. Getting your jollies from buckets of blood is not the most sophisticated type of gaming, IMHO.
HipNerd
Re:Instant Strikedown, just add lawsuit (Score:2)
Laws like this reinforce the treatment of the young as unaccountable for their actions.
If anything we need to go in the opposite direction and not discriminate so much based on age. Hold teenagers to the same standards that 20 and 30-somethings are held to.
Give them a little more credit for having brains in their heads. Laws like this mostly say that the young are assumed to be stupid and that anything they see or hear has some kind of profound influence over them. Hogwash! Your average teenager is no more "impressionable" than someone twice their age. A 4 year old is impressionable. That is the age when their core personality can be influenced. A kid much older than that is pretty much set for life. Any changes after that are going to be self directed and difficult to achive.
People know this. They really do. But they pretend otherwise because it gives them an excuse to subjugate the young. Just like the myths of racial inferiority were excuses to persecute blacks and other minorities. Same old song and dance, just a different tune.
Lee
Re:Digital versus Real violence. (Score:2)
Second, your response:
I say that the brain habituates to violence, just as it habituates to anything else; and that children's minds are particularly pliable, such that viewing violence will affect their social skills as adults. Read on:
Games are *NOT* just games to children.
When you play "peek-a-boo" with a baby, it's not a game. When you disappear from view, *you do not exist* for the baby. Your repeated coming back teaches the child that out of sight is not out of reality.
When kids play dress-up and house, it's not a game. They are learning about real life, based on the models they experience at their home, others' homes, stories and television. Their play teaches them to become adults.
Children's play wires their brains for adulthood: what they play is, in large part, what they become.
The brain takes a long time to fully develop, if it ever does. Take morality, for instance: there are moral conundrums (is it wrong to steal a drug that will save your dying wife, when you can't afford to buy it?) that children will *reliably* respond to in different ways at different ages.
It's not until *well* into the teenage years that children will provide the same response that most adults provide.
The brain is still struggling even into the late teenage years, trying to develop a moral structure that will allow the child to become a useful and surviving adult.
What is also true is that our brains learn to accept what we frequently experience. It's part of surviving: if we were startled by the sunrise every morning, it'd really make for a long day.
Viewing realistic violence *undoubtedly* builds a tolerance for viewing violence. A lot of people are really squeamish when viewing SoF the first time. Play it for a week, and it just sort of becomes background noise: the violence is acceptable.
Just to make sure you're following me here, let's review:
1) The brain doesn't just automatically know reality from fantasy. (peek-a-boo)
2) Games aren't just play for children: it's how they learn to become adults (playhouse, clubs, teams).
3) The brain is still developing well into teenage years (morality response test).
4) The brain becomes used to what it frequently experiences.
Can you connect the dots now? Can you see how repeated depictions of realistic violence becomes seen as 'normal' by the brain, with the inevitable consequence that, for children, it becomes a model for adult behaviour, seen as acceptable?
Games are *NOT* just games, when it's children playing. Up to a certain brain maturity level; children *can not* distinguish the fantasy from reality (and that age is certainly into the mid-to-high single digits); children *learn* to accept violence as normal, acceptable behaviour; and children *learn* to become adults by what they experience.
And once again, it comes down to this final point:
What kind of society do we want to live in fifteen years from now
Feed them a steady stream of realistic violence, and you can *bet your life* that the daily carnage we see spewed on the newscasts will be getting a whole lot worse.
Myself, I'd prefer to see children taught that human lives are sacrosanct: that there is no greater wrong than to take someone's life without their permission.
--
How about non-commercial sites? (Score:2)
I wonder if these morons realize.... (Score:2)
My thoughts (Score:2)
As for violent video games, to say that a game would cause a child to be any more violent than before is rather rediculous. A child who is so taken by any game to follow a game to any harmful extent is mentally unbalanced anyway. Even children with the most imaginative imaginations know the difference between what you can do in reality and games. How often do you see children jumping out windows because an Angel could fly in a movie?
The 2nd worst part is that this Mayor probably did little to squat research into the actual psychology of the subject, and is making the law to placate a group of lobbyists, or voters. If he wrote a 10 page essay, citing all the evidence he had found reguarding the topic, and carefully examining the views presented, both sides, then I might accept a law like this.
The worst part is, as usual, the only people this law affects is people who have absolutely 0 say in the making of the law. What was that about Taxation without Representation? Should Censorship without Representation somehow be better because it reflects extremist Puritan ideals that have affected our country? Anyone who has been out of this country, i.e. Europe, knows that it isn't simply religion or morals that is a reason for this. Dern the Puritans. Dern the Censorship.
Give me 1 good reason why *anything* should be censored, and I'll give you 10 reasons why not.
- Wedg the Disgruntled
Re:Digital versus Real violence. (Score:2)
In Vancouver, BC, three sets of teenagers in seperate high-end sports cars were racing down one of roads at speeds in excess of 200KMH late at night. One struck a pedestrian in a crosswalk, throwing the body several hundred feet.
They snuffed someone's life because their fantasy ("it's okay to race our cars in the city") didn't jive with reality.
They fled the scene, because their fantasy ("we don't have to take responsibility for our actions") didn't jive with reality.
Will "Grand Theft Auto" make children into irresponsible murdering teens like the pack that was racing in Vancouver?
Hell, no. It won't *MAKE* them do these things.
But the question you want to ask yourself is will it make it easier for their brain to *allow* them to behave in such a manner? Will their brain disregard the real risks (the risk of hitting someone because you're moving too fast to see them) because it has been taught by the realistic violence of the game?
Every day, someone in the country is shot to death, deliberately, by a stranger who "made a mistake."
Will playing "SoF" *make* our children want to kill other people? Hell, no, of course not.
But the question you want to ask yourself is: will the realistic violence teach their brain accept that shooting people carries no real consequences? Will repeated depictions of realistic violence teach the brain that violence is acceptable? That it solves problems?
Quite simply, the consequences of our decisions today are going to smack us in the face fifteen years from now. It's going to be a shocking wake-up call... but it's going to be too damn late to do anything about it.
Let's make the right decisions, right now.
--
Re:Violence bad, personal freedom good (Score:2)
I can access the games as well, that's not what concerns me individually. What I concerned about is it sets a bad precedent. The more laws that are passed that restrict personal freedom (of any variety), the easier it gets to pass them each time, and the more wide-reaching they become. In the US, we allegedly have freedom of speech, but there are so many exceptions to wade through, that some times it's hard to remember it's actually a first amendment right.
If you _honestly_ think that all parents will stop all kids under 15 (for example) from any contact with these games, you're sadly deluded.
I do not. I understand some amount of people that shouldn't see this stuff will, but I don't think it's worth the price of blatant censorship to prevent this. It's simply a matter of how much one feels that they need to the government to protect them and tell them what to do.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:Ooh, great. (Score:2)
I think the wording was 'Information on and relating to the effects of nicotine, and presence of nicotines in tobacco, has been available to the FDA since 1963. If the FDA had felt it had a compelling reason to regulate tobacco as a drug, it should have done so then.'
In other words 'You snooze, you lose. Do not pass silly regulations'
Re:Once again... (Score:5)
If they insist on doing this, why not go all the way, the Spartan way?
Background:
In ancient Sparta, boys and girls were inspected at birth. If any deformity was seen, infants were left on a hillside to die. At a young age, both male and female children were taken to live in government-run barracks. Boys were never given enouh to eat, and were taught that stealing was acceptable, provided they were not caught. They took a test at 18 --- Those who did well became warriors. They lived in the barracks, even after marrying, until 60, were allowed no material possessions, etc. etc. etc. Those who failed because part of the lower merchant class. Below them were the slaves, who did various agricultural chores.
Sound like fiction? Nope.
Now, the Spartans were fearsome and duly feared, being powerful, but, meanwhile, Athens had a relatively democratic structure with privilages, some rumblings of equality, etc. Probably horrible by today's standards, but liberal for the time.
Now, when the Persians attempt to invade Greece, the Greeks join forces and fight them off.
Persia invaded twice and was soundly defeated both times, but not because of Spartan military strength, but because of Athenian strategy, especially fighting Persian ships in a narrow straight to reduce the effect of numbers.
Which city-state gave us the ideas we use today? Athens. Which is the capital of modern-day Greece? Athens. Which is remembered for its cultural legacy and its great thinkers? Athens.
What do we get from Sparta? A word: Spartan
Think about which we *were* most like.
Think about where we're going.
Disturbing, no?
Feel free to moderate down this silly digression into historical analogies.
Re:Stop Bitching (Score:2)
I recieved a very nice reply from the mayor's office citing a study by Dr. Craig A. Anderson which was used to support this decision.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp784772.html
An article at http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/eVoid/April-
Basically:
After skimming through the paper, it seems to me that the jury is still out on the long term effects, if any, of violent video games on people NOT predisposed to violent behavior, so this ordinance seems a bit premature.
This is supported by:
In any case, regardless of your personal opinion on this, I think we should thank the Mayor's Office for being so open and responsive. Being 24 hours after the fact it is probably useless to tell all of the trolls not to flame. In fact I even got a call from them (on my answering machine) so hopefully I didn't stir up a firestorm.
Re:And the problem is??? (Score:2)
And the problem is???
then you said
Now, if you want to discuss the futility of a measure like this, I'm on board. I don't see this changing anything in terms of what kids play. Not significantly. I went to R movies long before I was 18, and I fully expect Indianapolis kids to skirt this with impunity. And I do feel for the arcade owners who have to deal with this stuff. It's a hassle for them, and they can't win either way. Either the customers will get pissed at them, or the law will be all over them.
People like to talk about stupid laws and the ideas that lead to them here. That's the fun part.
It's like our Congress passing laws that they know are unconstitutional, patronizing TV cameras while annoying the populace.
The problem also comes from stuff like setting limits and then actions on those limits. If it is illegal for a kid to play a violent videogame, all you have to do is change the definition of violent, and you can shut down most arcades. I like arcades (although honestly I've never been to Cinci, so take my opinion for what it's worth, i.e. nada) and have since early adolescence, there was less blood back then, but then it also seemed like you could get in a real world fistfight and not end up in court. Anybody wanna join a Fight Club?
--
When I reached 18.... (Score:2)
It was amazing. In a sudden flash of enlightment, it was clear to me what is wrong and what is right. The Moral Code materialized in front of me, and a booming voice read out the wonderful ethics engraved upon it.
I knew....I KNEW......what is GOOD for me and what is BAD for me. I knew GOODNESS and I knew EVIL.
It was the most soul-blasting, mind-blowing, gut-wrenching experience of my life, when I turned 18.
(Now, I talked to JC and tried my very best to ask my young friends to WAIT....WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE 18!)
Re:God I hate all these stupid slashdot libertaria (Score:2)
The point is, if Americans (and I am an American), weren't so totally backward in every respect socially, to the point where we are the rednecks of the free world, then we wouldn't HAVE to protect our children from seeing violence and sex, because they would UNDERSTAND it. They would respect it.
Worthless cattle.
Re:And the problem is??? (Score:5)
If the industry decided, based on parent pressure, that this is a good idea, that is acceptable. If the government mandates it by law, it is government censorship, which is a very bad thing.
The reason it is a bad thing is because the government is then responsible for defining "violence", "sexuality", and "offensive". They can then whittle away as they choose at these definitions. They may even do it very, very slowly, so we don't feel oppressed.
That's why the first amendment must remain an absolute. It the whittle away, or slippery slope, theory of gradual opression of clueless masses.
Let the industry take care of this if they think it is necessary. The people can even boycott arcades that offend them. But this law needs to be ruled unconstitutional.
It seems constitutional. (Score:2)
We have been telling parents to stop complaining about the environment concerning music, movies, video games, etc. for a long time. They are told to "PAY ATTENTION" you are "RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR CHILDREN".
They are now setting the same expectation across all adult activities. If we are watching our children do not drink, we feel the bar up the street has an obligation not to solicit there business. If this is an "adult" movie, or video game, or activity we do not want them providing it to children either.
This is just common sense, the laws get made because a few people fail to use any. It is not radical or exteme or new.
Re:More Prohibition.... (Score:2)
Re:And the problem is??? (Score:2)
Re:Ooh, great. (Score:2)
kwsNI
This will probably help the games.... (Score:2)
This has been needed for years... (Score:5)
This law is needed.
--Shoeboy
Digital versus Real violence. (Score:5)
I love violent video games. I grew up playing Street Fighter (in all it's incarnations), Final Fantasy, Doom, etc. Although I tend to dislike violence in games for the sake of violence, if it's a good game, *and* it's violent? Hell, I'm interested...
Now, that would mean that after uppercutting, shooting, stabbing, slicing, and kicking digital people my whole life, that I'd be desensitized to violence, right?
Wrong. On December 1st, 1999 in downtown Seattle, I was engaged in a peaceful march with locked-out steelworkers. As we marched, we chanted "Assembly Is A Right!" with peace signs in the air, and moved towards the "no protest zone". About two blocks outside of the designated zone, we found ourselves trapped by urban control vehicles and black-clad riot police. And then the tear gas came.
Oh, but this wasn't regular tear gas. They had run out of that stuff, this was military grade tear gas. It didn't make you cry. It fucked you up. Potentially, it could have killed somebody.
I did my best to evade the gas, running down alleys, kicking canisters back at the police. My adrenaline was pumping, so I wasn't doing much thinking, until I saw this guy sitting on the sidewalk...
He was around 55 to 60 years old, and he looked anything like a typical protestor. He looked homeless. He was sitting, slumped against a parking meter, almost completely comatose. He was spitting up a kind of mucous that definitely looked unnatural. People were trying to wash his eyes out with water, and see what was wrong with him. He either was having a major allergic reaction, or he had gotten a full-on dose of military grade (CN gas, I believe) tear gas.
I turned around, and saw a group of people running past me. Two more urban control vehicles had moved up to us, and I heard three or four loud bangs as more tear gas was being shot at us...
A canister fell right at my feet, and I ran down an alley faster than I ever have before. On the other side were people being pushed towards Pike's Market by riot police. Among them was a woman with a baby in a stroller, desparately asking a private security guard where she could go to be safe...
I started crying. Sobbing, really, like a little kid. The kind of uncontrollable sob you remember from when you were six, where even talking isn't an option. I don't know how long I was crying and wandering in and out of the police riot (as best I could), but eventually this young woman (and I wish I remembered her name) came over and calmed me down. We took some time to help people who were injured, but eventually decided it was time to find a way out of there.
We walked through Pike's Market in order to escape, and on the way out, I saw a woman with her hands out, sitting on the curb, bleeding from the mouth, her chin burnt from what I can only assume was a tear gas canister that had hit her directly in the face. The only thing I could do to stop myself from crying was to repeatedly hit a stop sign with my bare fist...
I grew up watching violent television, movies, playing violent video games. And when I was attacked with chemicals, when I saw people being beaten and terrorized, I couldn't take it. When I was finally confronted with real violence, Mortal Kombat didn't mean jack shit.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Curtains and Walls (Score:2)
This is a laughably simplistic legislative "band-aid solution" for a much deeper problem -- as if throwing up artificial barriers will rid the adolescent mind of all vestiges of promiscuity and anger.
To the child, Curtains and Walls only further interest in the prohibited.
When I was a smaller Vergil, I was fascinated by what lay beyond curtains/ walls, and schemed endlessly to circumvent such barriers. To me, the object locked away was incidental to the gratification I received by overcoming the obstacles containing it.
I can imagine my younger self entering a video arcade and staring, entranced, at the bells and whistles bleeping and blinking from behind the black curtain.
Even more interesting is this proposal's attempted segregation of video games according to violence. What 13-year old would want to squander a quarter on a non-violent arcade game, anyhow?
Vergil
Restrictions, anyone? (Score:2)
Oh, get off it.
<rant>
I don't know what the deal is these days, with Slashdotters and seemingly everyone else, but it seems like if someone doesn't get to do what he wants when he wants with no consequences or restrictions at all, this person starts to scream about the United States Constitution, and all the rights it gives him.
How about the right of the general public to see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear? That right (which, as far as I'm concerned, should be given equal footing with freedom of speech) is looked down upon as oppressive and shallow-minded. Hello?
What if somebody wanted to open a p0rn shop near a very religious suburban area, and the general consensus is that the people don't want it there? Do those citizens have a right to control what goes on around them? Should they be able to kick that (I'm sure) well-meaning business owner off, and get him away from their community? I hope so.
The problem is that people have lost touch with the central idea of government - that it's supposed to be an extension of the will of the people. (I don't know why we have to polarize ourselves against the government all the time.) If the people in general decide that they don't want their kids doing something, shouldn't they be able to enforce it?
The consequence of living in a governed society is that you have restrictions placed upon some of your actions to keep you from infringing upon other people's rights. This is the crux of the idea we call censorship. If you don't like it, find a desert island and live in your own little happy anarchy.
</rant>
The game industry is hurting itself (Score:4)
Yes, freedom of speech, blah, blah, blah, but repeatedly trying to push your luck is just plain stupid. I don't know if the developers of the aforementioned games were trying to profit from controversy, or if it was just an example of the juvenile attitude that the game biz is getting to be known for, but it showed poor judgement.