Indianapolis Bans Violent Video Games 205
Dark Nexus writes "This article on MSNBC talks about how a City law restricting access to graphically violent or sexually explicit video games to those who are at least 18 or accompanied by a parent or guardian has been upheld by a federal judge." A ban on violent video games, more or less. It's important to note that this was just a preliminary injunction hearing; video game distributors filed suit to stop the law and the judge has refused to block enforcement of the law while the suit progresses. In theory at least, they could still win the suit. (In reality, the judge has already decided, of course.) If you want a dose of rhetoric to equal or exceed the DeCSS case, read the judge's opinion. Are video games speech? Is violence a new category of speech which receives no constitutional protections?
Praise the Government. (Score:1)
About time. You mean nine year olds can no longer run out, get Half-life, start fragging, and then get the idea to frag their friends?
Oh, I know, I'm an idiot, no nine year old gets the idea to do something irl that they see on tv or on the monitor. No, we never had any nine year olds kicking and punching each other because of the power rangers.
Ya know what? If you can deal with violence, just talk to your parents. Simple as that, no?
Hell, it'll probably cut down on llamas. Now if we could only get them to restrict violent and exually explicit networked games to those who don't use AOL, unless they have consent of a person with a regular net account...
Slashdot's overly young worldview (Score:1)
guess its to the warez scene for them.. (Score:1)
The issue is about ARCADE games, not console or PC (Score:1)
Possibility of happening in St. Louis County, Mo. (Score:1)
"Under Wagener's bill, videos with "graphic violence or strong sexual content" could not be sold or rented to people under 17 without parental consent. Those with mild violence or mild sexual content could not be sold or rented to children under 13 without parental consent."
The "videos" statement is a mistake and should be "video games". There is some more information on the topic at http://www.postnet.com/postnet/stories.nsf/ByDocI
Re:You misunderstand; and, it is *in effect* a ban (Score:1)
For starters, it was a massive editorial mistake to headline this article as a "ban" when it was obviously not. Otherwise, one could say that violent and sexual movies have been "banned" since as far back as I am able to remember.
One must actually give some credit IMHO to these folks for targetting violence, and not sexuality. One of my biggest peeves is the hypocrisy of an american culture that deems television programs depicting the slaughter of arbitrary numbers of people is safer for children, than the vision of a woman taking her top off.
But I digress- It is merely unwritten rules and unstated politics that has prevented us from seeing video games which almost everyone would consider bad for children to see (think violent racist rape, with the nazi rapists considered as the heros of the plot for a good example). Due to the nature of american culture, in which we give our children a fair amount of FREEDOM by allowing them to go into public places (malls, arcades, movies, etc...), it is no wonder that a system is in place to prevent them from seeing movies (and now video games) involving heroistic nazi rapists.
The fact of the matter is that I would die for the right to freedom of expression, including depicting heroistic nazi rapists. Without "bans" such as this new one, or the movie rating system, the political powers that be that truly do want to
prevent free speech, would have a MUCH EASIER JOB OF DOING AWAY WITH THE FIRST AMMENDMENT. The only other alternative that I would see in a world without R ratings or "bans", is a world in which most children would be kept locked up within their homes, finding upon reaching adulthood that they were totally unprepared to deal with the freedoms of adulthood. In america we have a fairly decent system of easing children into the freedoms of adulthood.
There is fundamentally _nothing_ different between this "ban" and the "R" ratings of movies. If you want to fight your fight, start at the beginning, don't bitch about a special case of old rules being imposed on new medias.
-dmc
BTW I can attest to the fact that arcades are dying without the help of such "bans". The fact of the matter is that the industry fucked themselves by trying to screw the arcade operators. What happened was that the market divided itself starting with games such as SF2 (boy those were the days...). Games such as that could be profitable, even at twice their price (thats the price of the machine). The industry then decided to double the price on all games, only to find out that by doing so, arcades were no longer profitable, and that without the arcade environment as a whole, even those killer games could not be profitable. Thats just one off the cuff factor. Another significant factor is that 10 years ago, the high price of the arcade machine allowed for truly ground-breaking technology and custom hardware. Now an arcade machine that can outperform a $300 console is hard to find. The arcade needs (and I hope will) transform into a business model closer to that of the movie theatres. I.e. you will have an arcade 40-plex, with 40 "playing areas" which are nothing but the top-of-the-line consoles playing "premier release" video games which will not be released to the home market for another 3 - 6 months. This model is promising IMO as a path to better Q&A. For instance, instead of releasing games like Q3 and UT (and others I'm sure) which need to be patched half a dozen times within the first 3 months after release, the game developers can use the limited arcade release for the final Q&A polish.
I love the arcade, and the first ammendment, but sir winston you were off the mark (perhaps you are under 18 is my guess?), and "ban" is a word with a certain definition that doesn't apply to the law in question.
peace out all...
-dmc
Re:"Community Values" (Score:1)
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:1)
Parents can raise their children as they wish (Score:1)
Re:Not a ban... (Score:1)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The declaration of independence /does/ give us the right, as much as our founding fathers had, to incite rebellion against the government. In fact, it is our duty to do so if the Government is not meeting the needs of the people. We haven't reached that point yet, as prudence dictates, and I hope that we never do. But, I will not allow the government to take away what I consider my basic rights.
One key thing to remember is that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not include the right to not be offended by anything. I think that's one of the greatest problems, is that people think that they have the right to never be offended by anything they hear or see. They're wrong.
Re:Looking at the bigger picture... (Score:1)
However, there is a difference between a game, or television show, or movie, or (ad infinitum) AND reality. Anybody who cannot handle the fact that taking a head shot in Team Fortress and splattering somebody's brains on the wall isn't real should not be part of society as a whole.
To put it as R. Heinlein did, "Censorship is like forcing grown men to live on skim milk because the baby can't handle steak." (The Man Who Sold the Moon).
uh..... (Score:1)
Games say mature on them.. 17+ so the law just says "yeah you aren't sposed to sell it to younger people... and we back this rating". Maybe them saying 18 in this case is kinda dumb since the rating says 17 i think. Anyway there is a right and wrong. And we need to fight against the wrongs and let the rights happen.
Re:Done to a certain extent in Utah (Score:1)
"well, I ain't got that, but I sure got some powerful pills! [phish.com]"
Re:Age limits are a good thing (Score:1)
"It has been shown...." Have you seen the study? Or is it more like second or third-hand evidence? As "obvious" as this conclusion may be, I won't believe it until I see something more concrete than "It has been shown."
Re:Age limits are a good thing (Score:1)
Re:Age limits are a good thing (Score:1)
Do you have anywhere online I could read more about this practice? I'd love to have details and numbers available to me. Does the higher murder rate involve the state-issued firearms, or are they privately held?
Re:Age limits are a good thing (Score:1)
Oh...ummm...nevermind.
It's a hell of a reach from "People own firearms" to "It's OK to shoot my classmates". Before I accept your logic, you'll have to explain to me why Switzerland doesn't erupt in bloody havoc every week. You see, each household is equipped with a very nice Heckler & Koch 7.62mm NATO assault rifle, and somehow the poor peasants manage to not turn them on each other, well, ever.
Re:Age limits are a good thing (Score:1)
Note that I am not a parent, so I am basing this on my experiences from being a kid not too long ago (I'm 19 now).
If you deny your children violent video games, generally they will just go to a friend's house and play them anyway and may or may not lie to you about it. It's likely that your children will be exposed to it no matter what. I know it is a lot easier to have government write legislation that will make it seem like you don't have to worry about it, but you will just wind up neglecting it. And that is even worse.
Instead, be a good parent to your child. Make sure they know the difference between right and wrong, and when violence is appropriate and when it is not.
Your wrong twice... (Score:1)
Actually if you follow the case history this eloquent judge shows in his reasoning, you will see that previously Video Games have not been understood to be protected under the 1st. Specifically:
He goes on to show that the issue was skirted in the 90's (thus in reality leaving them unprotected) an only again now are they being examined. This is how our courts are supposed to work. This is how we determine that something qualifies for the rights of free speech under the law that was written so long ago. So now Video Games have come forward: 80's no rights, 2000 some deserve protection, 2xxx all deserve protectin. I mean it is not a short leap to go from some to all. It just is going to take a good argument.
None of this affects the issue of minors however, as the government/society has consistantly (and in my opinion correctly) ruled that a minor does not neccessarily enjoy the same rights and priviliges as an adult.
This is not a ban (Score:1)
Re:not a free speech issue (Score:1)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:"Indianapolis Bans Violent Video Games" (Score:1)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:This ISN'T censorship - what's wrong with Micha (Score:1)
If I posted a story as ignorant as most of the comments on this story, I'd be flamed unmercifully. Should I be nasty to all the people who posted without reading?
(Prediction: this posting will attract 2-3 nasty posts from anonymous cowards.)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Coin-op Constitutional Violation? Still no... (Score:1)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Looks like Mortal Combat (Score:1)
But the biggest joke is the judge comparing playing a violent video game to being trained as a sniper. Yeah right. Maybe someone has, but I haven't seen a game yet that includes a realistic sight, gives the gun actual recoil, weight, etc. Not to mention most of the shooters I've seen penalize you for killing innocents.
Whatever. The law's a joke if you ask me.
This has been in my state for almost two years (Score:1)
A friend of mine happens to own a video store and he says he's losing a lot of revenue (aka money) because of the law. Thanks Mr. Sunquist (our govenor)
We in the bible belt will suffer, but everyone else is okay. We still can't buy beer on Sundays or have court without prayer first. Some things just take a long time to get rid of. The south, if anything, wants its roots, and keeps them.
Obiwan
misterorange.com [misterorange.com] - It's like a wonderful movie...poster.
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:1)
I don't think this ordinance was meant to affect all medium of video games. The judges opinion appears to only affect 'coin operated' video games at arcades themselves, not deeming who can play what at their own house.
Although, the judge does get bonus points in my book for using the word 'tugid' in the opinion.Videos Video Games (Score:1)
Re:Rated R (Score:1)
My opinion:
in my state at least you can moved out at 17, and I at 17 am about to graduate, why should I need my parents permission to see a specific movie, or play a specific game? Or for that matter, listen to specific music?
Free speech (Score:1)
Big deal? (Score:1)
Apart from that, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. This only applies to public places where they have video games, but not to the private use of games, right? And come on, who still plays arcade games when you have the latest GeForce 1024 XYZ+ at home?
Re:Big deal? (Score:1)
Re:Age limits are a good thing (Score:1)
First of all, I think this is a troll, given this statement: "When the Constitution was drafted, if they'd have realised the threats that children face everyday, I'm sure they'd have realised that sometimes, freedom of speech is not an abolute concept."
But I'll reply since it got modded up to 5. Taking away childrens' responsibility causes them to be what? Irresponsible. If kids aren't allowed to make any kind of decisions for themselves about what to do and what not to do, do you think they are going magically acquire that ability when they turn 18?
--jbRe:You misunderstand; and, it is *in effect* a ban (Score:1)
I'd send this by private email, but you don't have one listed. Just wanted to thank you for summing up the issue so succinctly. +5, Insightful in my book.
Zak
Re:Speaking as someone who used to sell video game (Score:1)
Re:Done to a certain extent in Utah (Score:1)
Trend my ass (Score:1)
Please reduce your crack intake which hopefully would reduce your hyperbolic waste output.
Uses ZDnet for Technews and CNN as a news source. (Score:1)
A question (Score:1)
Observation and Question (Score:1)
This seems like a JonKatz story in disguise. Couldn't /. get Jon to lay claim to all the stories in his genre and post them so that my JonKatz filter eats them?
Re:Age limits are a good thing (Score:1)
Yes, video games are entertainment and an expression of the creative thoughts of their developers, but they are also made because they make a lot of money. Violent video games make money for a very simple reason. We like playing them. It's not conditioning, it's hereditary.
If your goal is to stop violence from being considered a "socio-economic tool of advancement" or "cool", then I am afraid you are very much too late. It doesn't really matter, though; you lost that battle before we climbed out of the primordial ooze. These laws will do nothing but force many of the coin-ops out of business, and that will be a shame. If you make all violent games illegal they will simply go underground. If there is anything to be learned from organized crime it is that society will always find a way to buy what it wants.
The United States of America (Score:2)
Why do judges & lawmakers always thing they can decide what is good for our children? Isn't that for parent's to decide?
Terrible For City's Image (Score:2)
Re:not a free speech issue (Score:2)
Fucking sensationalism (Score:2)
Most kids in the 13-16 range can't drive anyway, and that's the people they sell the most too. Parents are already there.
Ban? Oh please....
Actually, you're wrong... (Score:2)
While the MPAA rating system itself is independent of government influence, they are de facto backed by the rule of law, which I'm sure courts are aware of. Local Zoning laws are often written as to forbid the showing of NC-17 movies on certain property, and there are also many communities which have local ordanances against showing NC-17 movies to minors, whether or not they are accompanied by an adult.
The key in these laws is that they cannot forbid such material from adult use in all places. Thus, it is possible to restrict NC-17 movies from being shown downtown in the MegaPlex, but not uptown in the middle of the manufacturing district.
Actually, the "harmful to minors" part is the big loophole, and which is actually probably the hardest to overturn. Since this type of law rests on what the Supreme Court has defined as "community standards", the definition of "harmful to minors" does not have to have any scientific backing - merely a majority of local residents have to agree on what it means. And this standard usually is defined as to what the majority of your current local representatives in local government vote for. So you're not going to get it overturned on this.
The final point here is something people seem to continually miss: local governments in the U.S. can restrict minors rights in virtually any way with the consent of a majority of local adults, provided the restrictions do not unduly burden adult's access to the restricted material/behavior. If the law does not remove an adult's rights, well, then, it's fair game. That's the way it is.
-Erik
21 year old. (Score:2)
Interestingly, here, even though you cannot vote at 16, you can however, being in the age of reason, be an electoral official (those who supervise voting and count votes) at 16.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
This isn't a ban. (Score:2)
Re:U.S. Congress Bans Voting! (Score:2)
Give Parents The Power! (Score:2)
The problem with any ban such as this is that parents who have no problem with their children playing violent video games get screwed. When I was a kid, once I was mature enough, my mom had no problem with me seeing rated R movies. In order for me to see the movie though she had to actually sit there and watch the movie with me. Frequently she didn't even want to see the movie so in theory I would miss cool movies because she didn't want to go. In reality I snuck in of course but that's another issue entirely.
Okay, so here's the trick. How do we empower parents to control their children properly. The way you do this is rather than basing a restriction like this entirely on an arbitrary age, you base on the parents desires (and age should they conflict). Set up a system where a parent can go to a federal agency and identify themselves as the parent. Then they can sign a document allowing their child to see R-rated movies and play violent video games without them needing to be in attendance.
The child is then issued an ID card which is effectively a permission slip. They can go to theaters, etc, and the ID will get them in those places that are deemed to be parentally controlled.
Ideally this system would use a smart card that was hooked up to a centralized system run by the government which would allow parents, once identified and registered, to adjust their childs permissions as necessary (through phone or web site?). So, if the mom decides that little johnny should be punished by not being able to go see the new violent movie, she turn off his movie permission. Furthermore, if she restricted video games for a while and then decides that they are okay she can fix it with a few clicks. It would certainly be worth the investment by theaters and arcades to hook up a smart card reader at their entrances.
The other nice thing about providing a centralized database like this is that if a law is added you need not worry about reissuing a bunch of ID's to accomodate it. You can give parents the option on the card as to what their default permission is.
Laws like this are annoying because it makes three assumptions. The first is that a parent is willing to sit through the video games or movies that they deem their child to be mature enough to see (which considering how many more two income families their are now this is obviously ludicrous). The second is that the age of a child is directly correlated with the maturity of the child. The third is that a child, upon reaching the age of 18, magically develops the maturity to handle these horrible things that they didn't posess before. We've got the technology, why don't we make a system that puts the power back in the hands of parents? I mean personally I prefer a country where there aren't laws like this and people have the time and motivation to keep an eye on their kids but we don't live in a world like that anymore.
---
Video Games(some) get nod as protected... (Score:2)
One thing that seems to have escaped some people is that video games have actually gone a bit forward in this. By that I mean, before various courts have found that video games did not enjoy protection under the 1st. They were simply modern pinball machines. Not expressive enough in art or message to gain those protections. Now in his decision we have the following quote:
So while this decision may be viewed by some as violating the right of expression, well before now it had been almost always ruled in court that video games had no right.
I am not sure I would support a ban like that in my own area, but then I have voting power and the power of civil disobedience to make my opinions known.From another side of the issue, the courts have consistantly ruled that the government may impose more restrictive laws regarding minors and the 1st amendment. in support of that: porn mags, admission of minors to clubs, movies etc etc...how is this so different ? Because it is an industry that is targeting minors ? That's really the only difference I see. As the judge notes in the decision:
It's "reasonable restrictions", but I agree (Score:2)
However, this restriction appears to be no more severe than those imposed on adult entertainment (theatrical movies, porn movies, strip clubs, etc.), alcohol, guns, etc.
We can argue that the law is misguided (e.g., it bans a 17-year-old who's already signed up for military service from realistic games), but not its Constitutionality.
NOT a ban! (Score:2)
As is stated, they are restricted for those under 18 to purchase alone. That's even less of a restriction than is placed on cigarettes.
If they were banned, you'd not be able to purchase them at all, at any age. The slashdot post has been very heavily 'politicized' to make it look like things are more drastic than they truely are, since the general slashdot audience is bound to get quite in arms about this.
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:The United States of America (Score:2)
Uh, yes, and they've decided that they would like their local government to make it illegal for the vendors of the games to present the violent material to their children without their consent.
The fallacy here parallels the one in this sillygism:
Specifically, the fallacy is equating an aggregate with an individual example. That's an easy mistake to make when the same term ("parents") is used for both, which no doubt is why the advocates of collective decision over individual decision like the language that way./.
Re:Fucking sensationalism (Score:2)
The article doesn't say one thing about game cartridges, it is referring to video arcades which have to remove cabinets to comply with this sick new ordinance.
So, were you born stupid or did you just get hit in the head alot?
I mean, you have to have the IQ of a slug to call people names for not reading an article you haven't read yourself.
Re:Speaking as someone who used to sell video game (Score:2)
Well, anyway, this woman comes into the store with a big chip on her shoulder because her son wants a SNES. This woman's attitude was pure hostility, she said, "I don't want any of this violent garbage," and pointed to a copy of Sonic Blast Man which had apparently offended her eye. (I wouldn't have categorized that one as particularly violent... but then, who knows what is violent under the "offended mom" standard?)
Basically, she was upset because she believed all video games were evil, but her son was feeling peer pressure to get a console. Well, I knew what I had to do. "I guess your son wants one of those Mario games huh?" She agreed with me. I cheered up, "Well, you don't need a Super Nintendo for that! Do you have a computer?" She said yes, and I sold her a copy of Mario Teaches Typing for her PC.
I was sooo happy to get this woman out of the store without a SNES. You see, I got that if someone like this had bought a console for her son, pretty soon we'd see nasty letters to the editor about how Sonic Blast Man was corrupting our youth, soon followed by government action.
I really could care less if underaged kids with overprotective parents get to play video games. My problem is when the content of video games I like to play gets censored because of these same parents.
For example, I can go to one of Tampa's many gun shops and buy an actual, honest to goodness handgun. However, when the Dreamcast came out, you could not get the actual plastic gun for House of the Dead II with it... and of course HotD II would, I imagine, suck with a joystick (I wouldn't know, not owning a Dreamcast. HotD one, for my PC, seems to work OK with a mouse.
Of course, House of the Dead will be targetted, but Soldier of Fortune is protected, even though it is the more "violent" of the two. Why? Because it is a PC game rather than an arcade cabinet, and because it uses a mouse instead of a light gun.
Oh, it goes without saying that none of the school shooters were big HoTD fans, people don't normally get into that game as much as Quake. This censorship is entirely arbitrary, and it's having an effect.
What First Amendment? (Score:2)
The First Amendment, which has been on the decline since the 70's, was finally dealt its coupe de gras with the recent Supreme Court decision City of Erie v. PAP's A.M. [199.183.110.96]. Basically, this case affirms a doctrine proposed by the court in a previous case, called "secondary effects." The Secondary Effects doctrine basically states that the First Amendment no longer applies if it can cause the "secondary effect" of a crime. The court, in making this ruling also stated that no proof is necessary, the authorities merely need to assert this. Of course, all speech that anyone has ever wanted to restrict has been said to be leading to "moral decay," crime, and other negative effects. So, it's open season on the First Amendment, and a significant number of the poster's to Slashdot today seem to think that this is a good thing.
(Causing me to come up with my own, "Slashdot sucks on weekends" doctrine.;-)
The practical upshot of this is that only a massive public outcry will prevent anything from being censored in this country. Of course, except for a few really brutal dictatorships this is the rule throughout the world anyway, there's nothing particularly special about America on this. (I'm still going to have to hear, ad nauseum, what an incredibly free country America is of course. American hypocrits love to pretend they live in a free country while restricting everyone according to absurd, intrusive rules. If you dare speak the truth, that there are many places in the world to live that are more pleasant and more free than the US, you get shouted down by these people.) It also provides a massive opening for Organized Crime, which I hope they will take advantage of. "Speakeasy" arcades could be a source of easy money, and they don't have the traditional distastefulness of dealing heroin. I mean there is money to be made here, look at what's happening in Indianapolis:
When legitimate businessmen are driven out of business by prohibition, that's the time when the underworld should move in. If La Costa Nostra needs a business model, just look at the People's Republic of China, where video gaming parlors are banned... but enough of a payoff to the party leaders and they'll look the other way.Of course, it isn't just video games that are being targetted, look at Louisiana, where a skating rink playing that eeevil Rock and Roll was targetted:
Of course, a court said that the rink owner couldn't be arrested again for the crime of playing music: Federal judge orders Louisiana sheriff to return confiscated music [199.183.110.96]Of course, soon it will be too much of a headache to allow your business to have any appeal for teenagers (you know, 16 - 18 year olds). I suggest that all the arcades in Indianapolis restrict minors altogether, until the law is repealed, including the laundromats. If you aren't 18+, you can't come in. I do that before I'd allow the government to come in and tell me which games I could stock and which I couldn't. It would take a lot of courage to do this though, and I doubt that the arcade owner's will be able to take the hit they'd be required to take if they opposed this disgusting law in this way.
After a while, of course, I'm sure that the good city council of Indianapolis would pass a new law requiring arcades to serve minors. Remember, this is about banning video games (getting votes from the Bible bangers who want them banned), not about protecting minors.
If you are voting age, and you think this sucks as much as this 31 year old does, I suggest you express yourself by voting. (Libertarians won't stand for this garbage, voting Democrat is like playing Russian roulette, and voting Republican is like playing Russian roulette with six bullets.) If you are still a teenager, and can't vote, I suggest you try your local library while the forces of ignorance are trying to turn you into the Junior Fascist Brigade. Ayn Rand, Robert A. Heinlein, George Orwell, and Ray Bradbury are a good place to start. (Though, of course, you may not be able to find any of their books in an Indiana library.)
Fight, don't be sheep like the generation proceeding you turned out to be. There are some really awful people that are trying to return the US to the age of The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible, but they haven't succeeded, yet.
Re:Not a ban... (Score:2)
I'm glad the Slashdot editors were willing to call this what it is, and you can go to Hell.
Re:You misunderstand; and, it is *in effect* a ban (Score:2)
What First Amendment? [slashdot.org]
The main point I want to reiterate here is that one arcade owner was talking about removing Tekken(Tekken for God's sake!!!) and Area 51 from his arcade. My guess is his arcade was probably too small to comply with the 10 foot rule required by the ordinance, and that meant he couldn't keep these games in the arcade. This is the same dodge that the Christian Right is using when they target strip clubs with distance requirements, and clearly comes from the same source. If the club is too small to keep people 6 feet away from the dancers, well, then it has to close. Even if it is big enough, it takes a hit from the smaller seating capacity in the club. (After all, six feet around the stage has to be empty space.)
The goal of all this crap is to make it too inconvenient to keep these games available in the arcade. It's got nothing to do with "having parents present," its a law designed to harrass arcades out of business.
Here's the thing, if I were to get my creaky, 31 year old body into an arcade in Indianapolis, chances are I'm not going to be able to play House of the Dead or Tekken. It's got nothing to do with me not being old enough, it has to do with the arcade owner being unable to keep those games in stock and still comply with the ordinance.
Of course, these kind of attacks are not just going against video games, check out banned books week at your local library some time. Or look at the fact that getting Harry Potter books out of the library [199.183.110.96] also now requires parental permission in this country.
This stuff isn't about "protecting children" or "empowering parents." It's part of the Culture War, which is about destroying any part of American culture which is not right-wing religious lunatic-compliant.
What? (Score:2)
Should we allow our children to view some of the "darker" pornography as well? After all, not letting them see it violates the producer's rights to free speech, right?
Gee, shame on us for allowing parents to raise thier kids.
Don't get me wrong - I think the violence in games issue is blown way out of proportion. I just think that the parents should make the decision, not their immature kids, or the public. In a perfect world, all parents would be making sure their kids lived up to their own standards. This seems to only force parents to step up to the plate.
Re:Done to a certain extent in Utah (Score:2)
This is more a question than a statement, because I don't know how the law deals with such a situation. Are the store owners required to sell something like Q3 to anyone unless a law says otherwise, or are they allowed to say who can and can't buy a game? Obviously I couldn't open a store and every time a black person came in, refuse to sell them a certain product. But does the same thing go for age?
Hellborn elfchild roadhog mountain fortune hunter man beheaded her.
Re:not a free speech issue (Score:2)
Re:The Judge's Justification (Score:2)
He uses porn because he needs to compare games to something that's already has a huge taboo. This is conservative America at work for you.
The worst part of this ban is that I've seen more than my fair share of posts of people saying, "Well I'm 18 now so I don't care." You really have to look at legislation aimed at minors and think back to how it would have affected you back then and how you would have reacted along with the facts of the case. Its just like that Simpsons were the senior citizens eventually put on a 5pm cerfew.
I think this is a good thing... (Score:2)
Been there done that (Score:2)
Anyone else notice that whenever the Slashdot editorial crew likes something, and it gets restricted, they spin it off as an issue of free speech?
I'm just glad they're not advocating cocaine usage as freedom of self-expression, although I'm sure that's soon to follow!
Keep up the good fight guys!
Re:Not surprised. (Score:2)
A whole lot less, actually. (Score:2)
This article on MSNBC talks about how a City law restricting access to graphically violent or sexually explicit video games to those who are at least 18 or accompanied by a parent or guardian has been upheld by a federal judge." A ban on violent video games, more or less.
I respond.
A whole lot less then a ban. A ban would make it unavailable to anyone, and probably a crime to own. The book "Satanic verses", for instance, is banned in Iran.
Our society has a logn standing precedent of restricting access by minors to certain forms of entertianment produced for (at least in theory) adults. When was the last time you saw a 12 year old buying a playboy? Minros enjoy special privledges and special restrictiosn udner our laws-- thats the way it is.
I have to follow on with this comment...
People tend to use loaded terms loosely (or totally incorrectly) on slashdot to try to convince others of their point. This makes our arguments sometimes look an awful lot like the Xtian right, folks. If you dont believe me, try a side by side comaprison. Different loaded terms, different assumptions, same propaganda style.
The problem (Score:2)
----
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not surprised. (Score:2)
The thing that really bugs me about this law (Score:2)
(c) It shall be unlawful for an exhibitor or the exhibitor's employee to allow a minor under sixteen (16) years of age who is subject to the compulsory school attendance laws of the state and who is not accompanied by the minor's parent, guardian or custodian to operate an amusement machine in the exhibitor's place of business between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on a day when such minor's school is in session.
Effectively making it aiding and abetting to allow an unsupervised kid to play ANY video game during normal school hours. [ignoring the fact that schools have half days/days off, and not all at the same time, making this law difficult for employees to really patrol]
Now, the problem I have with this is not so superficial. I used to work at an arcade doing repair [I was in high school, and had early dismissal, getting me out before noon], and I know I saw my fair share of kids where I worked that should have been in school. Most of them were completely unsupervised [ie: their parents were no where to be seen... EVER]. When asked about this, their story changed every time, although their theme was generally the same: "My parents don't care if I'm here."
You might call me naive for generally believing this point, but even if they didn't know that their parents didn't care, the mere fact that they are at the arcade instead of school on a regular basis is a testament to that.
Schools already take attendance, and if a child doesn't show, they call the parents. If the child is skipping, then the parents are generally aware of it (and if they are not, that is the school's fault). At this point, if the kid is habitually skipping, then the parent is the problem, and the school has a legal responsibility to intervene.
Now, one could argue that under these circumstances, I should have contacted the police, or some other authority to report that this kid was suffering from a limited form of neglect. Perhaps now, I would [at the time, I was younger, and never really thought about it]. But that is really beyond this discussion, because the law makes no requirements for reporting violating children, only kicking them out.
Re:Not a ban... (Score:2)
Many of the errors and misleading headlines here definitely look like the work of people who are smart but sometimes inexperienced/misguided. A committment to quality on the part of the editorship would go a long way to reducing the negative feedback you guys get.
Don't get me wrong, I love slashdot and I know its hard work to put out a fast moving site like this. I am only offering this as constructive criticism. Get a copy of "Elements of Style" by Strunk and White. Make a commitment to avoid basic errors like duplicate stories, and READ the articles before you post. Avoid overly sensationalistic headlines.
You don't HAVE to print story submission text verbatim, remember that an "editor" is supposed to clean stuff up.
Anyways, you guys do run a cool website, and I hope you decide to take it to the next level of quality so you can gain the respect you deserve.
Not a ban... (Score:2)
Re:Not surprised. (Score:2)
This does let parents parent, by enabling them to make this decision with (hopefully rather than for) their children. Personally, I think 16 would be a better cutoff than 18, but other than that this law is not problematic any more than theatres that exclude childen based on MPAA ratings (less so, perhaps).
Not surprised. (Score:2)
Matt
Re:Not surprised. (Score:2)
1. Go with their child
2. Pay attention at home enough to know if their child was playing a game they deem 'bad'.
There should not have to be LAWS stating this, it should be a parental responsibility, not a matter of legislation.
In my opinion, of course.
-Matt
The Judge's Justification (Score:2)
- In Wednesday's ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton said, ``It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment
... that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission."
I have a strange feeling this judge has never shot a gun or played a recent video game. The experiences are completely different. The notion of "train[ing] to become a sniper at the local arcade" is ludicrous.Secondly, how can he equate certain video games with porn?
Re:How will this be enforced? (Score:2)
You're going to let them near Doom???? Don't come crying to me when they take a gun to school and unload...
Allowing parents to aid children != ban (Score:2)
As it stands, it's not really a ban.
Fascinating Read (Score:2)
Read the Judge's paper; It's quite fascinating and an in-depth description of the 1st Amendment, written remarkably clearly. The section on how games are produced is a better description than you will ever find in Game Developer's Magazine.
From what I gather from reading the article, courts are not so concerned about whether or not it has been proved that video games can cause harm to childen; It is more concerned with the possibility of harm. While I can imagine many arguments both for and against, and personally believe that violent or sexual video games do *not* harm children (I would cite Japan's media history as a primary example, as well as the Brother's Grim for the European history), the courts hold that as long as there is a possibility, that it is sufficient to allow communities to regulate.
Note that if the focus of the game and the primary value derived from the game was a political idea, a specific message, or artistic value, that violence and nudity are both allowed, and the game is protected under the 1st amendment.
I highly recommend reading the judge's well informed "opinion", and making your own mind up after having read it in it's entirety.
Having formed your opinion, make a contribution to the comic book legal defence fund [cbldf.org].
Re:"Indianapolis Bans Violent Video Games" (Score:2)
Seems like a certain person round here (you reading Michael?) has decided to sink to the levels of the gutter tabloids and use sensationalism to try to boost interest in stories
Hopefully someone will give him the slap he needs and normality can be resumed.
Living in IN (Score:2)
Iirc (since this was big news much further back in the summer), it is meant as a restriction of video ARCADE games, not computer games in general. This new law is to stop "children" from being subjected to "violence" where their parents may not have control. (like when jr & the gang are dropped at the mall for hours)
We've had a few stores who have carded kids for years when purchasing computer games, but that is & was voluntary. Anyway, Stompfest (large LAN party) probably would have seen some media hype if the law had incorporated computer games as such.
Tirla
P.S. Just for the record our permit age is 15 & our (very restriced, but that's another law story) license age is 16.?. (Something like 16 & 2 months or so...)
This doesn't make sense (Score:2)
I believe that parents are the ones who should ultimately decide what level of violence is appropriate for their children to view. This law just reinforces that position by making it illegal for a minor to purchase a mature themed software title without the consent of an adult. What's the problem with that?
READ first, THEN comment! (Score:2)
U.S. Congress Bans Voting! (Score:3)
Massive riots have begun due to the restriction that the government has put in place. It was previously believed that *everyone* was granted the right to vote, but as it turns out, US legislation believes that young, impressionable minds are somehow different than adults.
This is not a "ban," it is simply a "restriction." (Score:3)
Free speech is about censorship, and censorship implies "prior restraint." In this case, the material is not in any way prevented from being distributed, except a case where it is considered to be in conflict with local community standards (which is a provision applicable more properly to pornography), and even in that case, a legal adult can purchase the material, as can a minor, if accompanied by an adult.
What does this mean? It means that this has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship.
Please, save the angry protestations for true cases of prior restraint, where we actually have a real leg to stand on, as in the DeCSS case.
---sig---
Re:"Indianapolis Bans Violent Video Games" (Score:3)
this is the same as saying "R Rated Movies Banned in the US" , since access to an R-rated movie is prohibited to those 17 and under unless accompanied by an adult.
another typical slashdot headline that continues the trend of slashdot being emotional and inflammatory at the expense of accuracy, and not to be taken seriously by the outside community.
Only one problem (Score:3)
18 is chosen as it is the usual age of high school graduation. But it's often silly and overplayed. I, for one, graduated high school at 17, not turning 18 until after my first semester at college. I couldn't go to clubs, and, had I just started at school in Indianapolis, I couldn't buy a lot of games.
The (much maligned on these pages) movie industry gets this right, using 17 as the cut-off. Could you imagine the life of a college freshman who cannot get into an R-rated movie?
What is wrong with this? (Score:3)
My question to jamie is this, "If a community/country can decide that people have to be a certain age to passively view violent behavior on a television screen, why shouldn't they be allowed to make the same decision for when the violence on screen is interactive with the user and not merely passive?"
Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
You misunderstand; and, it is *in effect* a ban... (Score:3)
Let me repeat, since 99% of the people below, who are moderated up to 4 and 5 for pointing out that requiring a parent to buy a game for a child is not a ban, don't seem to have READ THE BLOODY POST and associated material. Here it it: THIS IS ABOUT ARCADES!!! NOT retail.
I hope we've cleared the confusion now, and I hope the people who misunderstood what this was all about get appropriately moderated down again. People shouldn't moderate something up if it completely misses the subject, whether or not it's an OPINION the moderator agrees with.
You see, this *is* a ban on arcades. It is not a *de jure* ban, it is a *de facto* ban. That is, the law itself does not ban arcades; the law does, however, made the business of running an arcade completely untenable, thus causing, in effect, a ban on arcades.
Here's why: The majority of those who frequent arcades are minors--mostly high school students, though this varies by location and type of arcade. As such, minors are an important, the most important, customer demographic in the arcade business. Without minors, arcades would go the way of the drive-in movie theater.
This law effectively prevents most minors from going to arcades. Let's face it: high school students, and most junior high students, are not going to arcades to play the latest mind-numbing soul-killing consumer-drone-creating Pokemon franchise. They play the good stuff, the Area 51s and the Mortal Kombats and the House of the Deads and the VR Gunfights. Keep them from those by this law, and arcades shrivel and die--and that's what these freaks want--the same freaks, BTW, who were with Charles Keating and the Moral Majority, who had no TRUE morals whatsoever (umm, can anyone say S&L scam?), when they tried to prosecute a certain respected art gallery for obscenity for exhibiting the photographs of a a certain controversial but respected artist. Brownie points for anyone who can name the artist AND the gallery (hint: Showtime recently made a film about it). Oh, and these were the same people who tried to ban the sale of HUSTLER which, while not always the most tasteful magazine, is protected speech. Anyone who thinks that Thomas Jefferson wouldn't defend HUSTLER in this day and age, should immediately read some of his writings, or preferably leave this country altogether for someplace more to your morally censorious liking, such as Iraq or Libya.
But, I digress. Back to the main line of reasoning, this is a *de facto* ban because there is no effective way to implement a system whereby under-18s are prevented from accessing such machines without parental consent, while still allowing parentally-consented (yes, I know, but I'm too tired to think of a better term) minors to freely access them. What, is a parent supposed to accompany Little Johnny and Jake to the arcade every time they want to play Mortal Kombat? Let's say a parent does; she goes up to the attendant and says "Let my kids in to the back room" while she shops. Johnny and Jake go get a drink 'cause they're thirsty, or go anywhere for a change of scenery--kids don't like staying in one place for long periods--come back to the arcade, and they can't get in. Different attendant, or attendant doesn't remember them, or maybe the policy is a parent is needed *every occasion*. Oops, sorry. Better yet, most teens drop by the arcade while doing something else. My friends and I would stop by after movies or while hanging out in the mall or after dining somewhere. Oops, sorry, no parents with you, can't get in, you'll go hang out somewhere else. Needing parental consent all the time adds up to a lot of lost revenue, most of which is from kids whose parents would have let them play any game. Fact is, most 16 year olds, a lot of 15 and 14 year olds, and almost all 17 year olds, are very mobile, but without their parents. They're teenagers, YOUNG ADULTS, with lives of their own. Mommy and Daddy don't accompany them everywhere, and don't need to because they're trusted, independant. What a great way it is to teach teenagers to grow into responsible, independant adults, to make them bring Mommy and Daddy with them everywhere they go.
The upshot is, it would kill the entire arcade business in the area except for 1 or 2 locations. Thus, it would be a *DE FACTO BAN* on arcades. If the authors of the legislation had mere reasonable regulation of arcades on their minds, they would have implemented a one-time system whereby a parent could give Little Johnny permanent permission to play whetever games he wants, with say a registration card. Of course, doing that would smack of America as a show-me-your-papers totalitarian sort of place--not that it isn't already...
Re:You misunderstand; and, it is *in effect* a ban (Score:3)
That being said, the important misunderstanding lies not with my age/youth, but with your characterizations of this particular law. You see, the very same people have made this law, who have tried to censor Mapplethorpe's artwork from being displayed in public museums in their city, and who attempted to get adult magazines such as HUSTLER banned for being "patently obscene." This is the same city, and these are the same public officials. Given their history, it is more than reasonable to infer that their motives are not regulation, but eradication--in fact, it's not just "more than reasonable to infer," it's bloody obvious.
I have no objection to regulations, per se. I have numerous objections to this one, as well as others which have come along in recent years.
Regarding your example about movie ratings, I'm sorry, but it's not at all on-point. In fact, the entire movie ratings system as it stands today is successful precisely because teenagers can easily circumvent it. If you're 18 and your friend or girlfriend is 16, well, just buy her ticket while she waits out of sight. I have only once in my entire life run across a movie theater that wouldn't sell two, three, or half a dozen tickets to anyone who is old enough for the movie's rating, and then have no questions for the under-17s when they roll into the theater. The only other exceptions I've seen to this are regarding films which are unrated, or which are garnering direct protest right in the area.
This is what makes the MPAA ratings system fairly successful: it gives conservative parents warm fuzzies in their ignorant bliss that their 15 year old darling can't see some nasty sex-and-violence romp, while simultaneously giving teens the ability to see whatever films they want behind their parents' backs. This isn't of course applicable to very very young children, but is 100% true for teens.
Now, this arcade system on the other hand is an abomination, not because it actually works unlike the movie ratings system which is usually easily circumvented, but because it's clearly designed to kill all violent arcade games/arcades as we know them within its jurisdiction. The "violent" games must be segregated in a separate physical area from the rest of the games, with means to prevent unauthorized minors from accessing them. In other words, they have to be put into a "back room" as if they were hardcore pornography. There is no mechanism for giving teens a clear and easy way to have access to these games--as I said, much of arcade playing is done on impulse, to kill time, or otherwise by teens who are at the damned mall to get away from their parents and be independant in the first place. How is a parent who gives his teens enough independence to, well, be a healthy young adult, supposed to give this permission? It's unconscionable to expect a teenager to have to hold Daddy's hand every time he wants to play a HARMLESS VIDEO GAME. If you don't think they're harmless, I refer you to the statistics given by Jamie's
This is part of an alarming trend in the U.S. to artificially and unhealthily extend childhood. For example, if an 18 year old is an adult, why can't he drink alcoholic beverages? Well, the sole reason is that Elizabeth Dole and her conservative groups complained that 18 year olds being able to legally purchase liquor caused it to get into the hands of other, younger high school students. Even Ronald Reagan was initially against raising the drinking age--after all, it was lowered in the first place based on the premise that someone who is an adult, who has the right to vote in our Republic, and who has the responsibility to fight and die for it in time of war, should naturally be extended every right including the one to drink alcohol. That makes a lot of sense--either you're an adult, or you're not. Either you have rights, or you don't. But, raising the spectre of younger high schoolers drinking caused rights to be rescinded and taken away from supposed adults. Well, the result is that use of alcohol by high school students has increased many times over since the rise in drinking age--it simply didn't work. Rights were taken away, for nothing. And in the end, it probably contributed to the rise of underage drinking, because teenagers will very often do things just because they;re told not to.
Even more important and damaging, how is it that an 18 year old is an adult, when in certain locales purchase of sexual videos and magazines is restricted to those at least 21? Where I happen to live, the age is 18--but in many places it is 21. Now, no 18 year old can be prevented from making sexually explicit materials and being the subject of them, because he's an adult and has 1st Amendment rights to participate if he wants to in the adult materials industry. Any law restricting the age to 21 and over would be immediately called unconstitutional by the Court. And yet, if I am an 18 year old or 20 year old in such a jurisdiction, I could not legally purchase the sex videos I myself have starred in. This makes NO SENSE whatsoever. "Adult" and "age of majority" thus have little real meaning, and rights are rendered arbitrary in such examples.
But laws have been getting ever more restrictive on young people, especially 14-17 year olds. First a smoking age is set at 16, and then it's raised to 18--it hasn't stopped teen smoking, in fact after a brief decline it's on the rise once more. It just succeeds in making older teens, who are not children but really young adults, feel more boxed in, feel like they have fewer and fewer rights, feel like they're being treated with no respect and have no rights. And they're correct. And this comes from someone who HATES cigarettes and has NEVER smoked any.
Curfews are being set in more cities and towns all over the country, curfews which affect older teens and not just young children. Talk about the State interfering with the development of a 16 year old into a healthy adult, well, it may make the old people feel safe not to have a few young hooligans running about after dark, but it makes every teen under such tyranny feel like he or she has no rights and no worth as a person, no free will and no respect. Talk to young people about such issues. It demeans them, and the parents who should have a say instead of the State mandating curfews.
Even a basic teenage right of passage like learning to drive is under fire. Thanks to a media which plays up any incidence of teenage car accidents, especially if they involve alcohol, moves are underway in many states to raise the driving age to 17 or even 18 for an instruction permit. Of course, the DOT's own aggregate statistics show that 21-25 year olds are more likely to drive drunk than 16-20 year olds, but facts don't count when people go by gut emotion fed by an irresponsible press. Of course, 16-20 year olds DO have more accidents overall than 21-25 year olds--it makes perfect sense, because you're ALWAYS going to have more accidents on average in people's first few years of driving than after they've already had a few years of practice. Well, duh, but no one THINKS any more.
Even the most fundamental part of oneself, one's body, is a subject of much legislation and loss of rights in the last few years. Ages of consent have gone up, even though ages of sexual maturity (physically) and of first sexual contacts have been going down. Before the health and nutrition advances of the 19th century, average age of first menses hovered between 14 and 16. Today, it is listed as 12 in most textbooks, but the most recent studies have suggested it has been dropping swiftly, as low as 9 for African American girls in certain cities, and 10-11 for Caucasian American girls in some cities. A majority of middle school children now engage in oral sex, according to an article which recently appeared in the Washington Post Magazine. And yet, ages of consent are being raised and prosecutions are on the rise--not prosecutions of older perverts who deserve to be prosecuted for inappropriate contact, but rather prosecutions of young people for having consensual sex with members of their own peer group. One would hardly say that a boy who just turned 15 was out of the peer group of a girl who's almost 14, and yet such a boy was prosecuted, in Michigan if memory serves, for consensual sex with the girlfriend. Prosecutors called it "statutory rape" since the age of consent was 15 and he'd reached it but she hadn't, but most of us would call it a "normal teenage relationship." Now, even five years ago, much less 10, no prosecutor in the country would have prosecuted. But these days, no one uses common sense, and no one thinks of the real emotional health of our young people. Not just the boy--who is now, thanks to Megan's Law, a registered sex offender--but the girl will probably never develop into a normal adult with normal sexual behaviours. I can recount many similar cases, and even find URLs if you want. In my own state, the age of consent is still technically 15, but a new law makes it a serious crime for someone 18 or older to have consensual sex with someone above the "age of consent" but under 18. Not only is it confusing, it's been used to convict 18 year old high school seniors for having consensual sex with 16 year old high school juniors. Teenagers who are really young adults, now have not even basic rights over their own sexual development with members of their peer group.
We make our young people, kids as young as 12 and 13, responsible for upholding the responsibilities of adults. If they harm someone, they can be tried as an adult for assault or murder. Yet, we give them none of the rights of adults. How is it that we treat them like adults when they do evil, and like children when they do good? How can they have all the bad and none of the good that comes with being an adult? Why is it, at the exact moment we're treating teenagers more and more like children, taking away more of their rights, that we can simultaneously start punishing them as the justice system has only punished adults before now? I think it's because our society is selfish, and doesn't care about our teenagers. We want them to do as we say, and if they don't they get punished, but if they do they get no reward. We have lost sight of our teenagers. We treat them as objects, not human beings.
Not to mention the fact that we drug our young people like no other ntion does. We put them on Ritalin for just about everything--it's scary, the percentages of kids and teens on this stuff. And we put them on Welbutrin and Zoloft for depression--which is merely a usually harmless symptom of being a teenager. Most teenagers are naturally depressed from time to time--it's part of growing up. And we drug them for it. Do you know how many prescription drugs the Columbine shooters were on?
Everything for teenagers has been growing progressively worse. They've been given fewer and fewer rights--had more and more taken away. Is it any wonder, then, that some of them have felt so trapped, so put upon by external pressures, that some of them have snapped like at Columbine? Columbine was a wake-up call, not that teens are more violent than they've ever been--which stats show is untrue--not that we need to censor their films and video games, but that we're censoring them to death. We give them so little freedom that they don't value their own lives, or those of their classmates. We put them under so much presure to succeed, to get good grades, to get into college, to have cool friends and be in the right cliques--many also need to have jobs, too--and we have taken away their only freedoms and rewards. We have taken away all their fundamental rights.
And this is just another piece in that big puzzle. It's just another brick in the wall. And it's a very wicked thing to do to our teenagers, our supposed young adults. They get all the responsibilities and none of the rights. This is a small part of a much, much larger wrong. But it should be stopped. It all needs to be stopped, and thought about rationally.
The way that the ordinance is written... (Score:3)
it would make a video game based on classic Warner Brothers cartoons (eg: Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, etc) illegal for kids to watch/play without parental consent. Of course, that is probably why those of us who grew up watching those graphically violent cartoons turned out to be so warped.
A Good Thing. (Score:3)
Game designers are being held back by the perception that kids might play their games, and the game company would get sued by parents.
With an adult rating on the game, it's the parent's responsibility, and the retailers, not to let kids get the product.
Then, game developers will turn up the violence and sex content (hopefully a horrifyingly grotesque and realistic mixture of the two) for a more thoroughly satisfying "first person shooter" experience.
I call on all developers to alternately watch "The Cell" and "Caligula" at leasdt ten times before desinging anymore boring games. Maybe that would get something throughly disgusting and enjoyable into the stagnant gaming industry.
After all, long before the moronic do-gooders of America had video games and TV to blame, people were hating, killing and raping each other. Who was to blame then? Newspapers? Books? Radio?
"Indianapolis Bans Violent Video Games" (Score:3)
not a free speech issue (Score:4)
If I had a 13 year old kid, I'd buy him Halflife or Quake3 if he wanted it. My parents let me have access to whatever video games I wanted, and I never walked into school with a shotgun. Why? Well I think it has something to do with the fact that I was raised well. This law still gives the parents the right to raise their child[ren] as they see fit.
Done to a certain extent in Utah (Score:4)
But a while ago I did a test. I sent my 10 year old sister into a computer game store to buy a copy of Q3. They would not sell it to her. They said it was too violent for someone that young. I had to go in there and buy it.
I'm not sure if it's a law here, but with the conservative attitude this state has it just sort of happens by itself.
I personally don't think it's that big of a deal of parents want their kids kept away from violent, bloody, whatever games. There's plenty of "rated E, for everyone" games out there. Take rollercoaster tycoon, the sims, the ever-classic simpsons arcade game. Non violent, fun, even addicting.
I personally don't want any future children I may have to be playing quake 3 at 10 and 11. And if they insist it's sure as hell gonna be on a linux box =)
The MPAA ratings... (Score:4)
My understanding is that the system would be unconstitutional were it legally enforced. Since movies are regularly cut down to make the R rating (or else face basically no market for an NC-17) the government would essentially be saying "censor your movies, or we'll not let you have a market for it", which seems like a pretty blatant violation of the First Amendment. It would be blocking speech between adults.
This ordinance though... The "harmful to minors" part is probably the week link. Can the city prove violent games harm minors? No, years of psychological research has still registered a big "inconclusive" on that. For any study the city commissions, the plaintiffs could cite 10 more that say the opposite. The likening of violence to pornography is the culprit here. It's pretty obvious that porn isn't nessesarily healthy for five year olds, but violence? Besides, even the most realistic arcade game is stil protraying something not quite realistic...and still something a kid could see far more of on television.
The ordinance itself is aimed at removing the machines, making them uneconomical to operate, not nessesarily keeping them from minors.
The wording of the ruling is also frightening. The judge comes very close to saying that video games aren't speech, or at least not protected speech. Does this mean that, in the future, if the government wants to censor something all they have to do is rule that it isn't protected by the First Amendment?
You'd think these politicians would be a little afraid. I mean, gamers are all trained snipers that have an insatiable appetite for blood, right?
Incorrect Facts (Score:5)
For an accurate and more factual report, check out this article from the Indianapolis Star [starnews.com]. It is extremely bad form for Slashdot and its readers to continue to mislead and be misled about the facts.
Please, let's discuss the merits of what actually was proposed. Unless people are giving their kids money to go out and buy a coin-operated machine, this story is totally off-base and incorrect.
Speaking as someone who used to sell video games.. (Score:5)
Unfortunately, parents don't tend to take the time to understand what their children are playing. The more info we can give them on the subject, the better they can prolly understand what their children are up to. I worked for Toys R Us in their video game department for two and a half years, and I repeatedly informed parents of the rating system. It was very rare that I found a parent who didn't think it was a good thing.
I guess the best analogy I could give was this one time I was working at the game booth itself. This woman in her mid-30's came up to me, holding a ticket for a copy of DOOM for SNES. I got her the game, and as I got her to sign the ticket, I casually asked her who it was for. She smiled, and said it was for her five-year-old son. I just looked up, and asked her if she knew what the game was about. She said no, and I proceeded to describe the game in detail. When I was done, she was noticably paler and wanted to know where she could get a refund (the cartridges themselves weren't handed out until the game was paid for). I'm firmly convinced that a lost sale is better than a refund later and an irate former customer. I guess my point here is that parents don't know about a lot of these games, and that at least this way they have a chance to take a look at what it is their kids are buying/playing, and gives them a say in it.
Age limits are a good thing (Score:5)
I really fail to see how anyone can argue that age limits on violent and explicit material are anything other than a sane policy. It has been shown that children are more vulnerable to these things than adults, and so limiting their exposure to these kinds of materials is nothing more than caring for our future.
When violence becomes a part of society that is tolerated, then we must make sure that it does not become accepted. Currently American culture, such as it is, tolerates violence as being an inevitable consequcne of allowing firearms to be possessed by people, but it hasn't gotten to the stage yet where people accept violence as a tool for getting ahead in life. So, in order to make sure that people don't begin to perceive violence as a valid socio-economic tool of advancement, we need to make sure that children don't perceive violence as being "cool".
These kinds of laws, whilst perhaps not being strictly Constituional, are very necessary. We cannot let our children fall into the trap that violence is good, and nothing shouls be allowed to stand in the way of ensuring this. When the Constitution was drafted, if they'd have realised the threats that children face everyday, I'm sure they'd have realised that sometimes, freedom of speech is not an abolute concept.