Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Court of Appeals Overturns Indiana Video Game Ordinance 166

Posted by michael from the fatality! dept.
hayfever writes: "Catch the scoop. The Indianapolis Star is reporting here that the US 7th Circuit Court of appeals has overturned the Indianapolis ordinance banning violent video games from arcades (see previous Slashdot article here)." Findlaw has the decision, and there are some really good lines in there: "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Update: 03/24 10 AM EST by J : The contrast is striking. The same day, our new Attorney General John Ashcroft released a statement: "Ashcroft on school shootings: Video games are part of the problem." Gun control? He prefers thought control: "We have to exhibit responsibility in other ways, so that the culture inhibits or restrains this impulse."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court of Appeals Overturns Indiana Video Game Ordinance More

Court of Appeals Overturns Indiana Video Game Ordinance

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Wonderful! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I agree, this court ruling is very insightful. Consider the horrors we try to protect our poor, innocent children from: violence in video games and tv, sex, and alcohol.

    Maybe other Americans simply don't know anything about the rest of the world, but low age drinking is very common if not ubiquitous in many parts of Europe. Yet, they don't have the problems some people claim would result from underage drinking. During a recent trip to England I noticed pornography (including explicit intercourse and lesbian activity) on tv late at night. This was normal tv, not a premium channel such as the Playboy channel. I wonder why, after exposure to this, we don't see epidemics of teenage pregnancy and rape in England? Topless bathing in public is also very common in Europe, particularly in warm Mediterranean areas. How can children not be scarred for life after seeing actual breasts in public? And violence? Their kids see plenty of violence on tv and in video games also, but their crime rates are lower. The situation is much more extreme in Japan: Even shows for younger audiences feature levels of violence that would never be tolerated on the major networks in the U.S, yet Japan's violent crime rate is practically negligible compared to America's.

    Clearly, the "see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil" solution is a failure. Our relatively overprotected children grow up to do worse than their foreign counterparts. The judge is right, children need to learn to deal responsibly with the presence of disturbing things, rather than living in a fantasy world before being thrown into the deep end upon reaching adulthood. Our society needs to change fundamentally: We must reject the Puritan heritage of labeling things taboo and sweeping them under the rug, and instead generate realistic responses without the hypocrisy that pervades modern society.

    To do this, we must change three things: the ignorance of the general public, the sensationalism of the media, and the reactionary attitude of many government officials. Government officials are voted in by the people, and they gain information from the media, so clearly if society is to improve the media must be changed.

    This can be accomplished through the establishment of alternative media sources and the promotion of ideas rejected by the establishment. Call CNN's talkback live and catch the "How can we protect our poor children?" hypocrites with their pants down. Send letters to the editors of newspapers. Join groups such as the ACLU that have the power to make a real difference. Gradually, more people will come to realize what changes must be made for society to overcome the issues facing it.

    As more people are freed from the brainwashing of existing society, things will change. We won't see stories about these charges against children for making a paper gun [kuro5hin.org] anymore. Instead, we will see more of the freedom of speech our nation's founders envisioned. Should we fear alcohol, which has been used responsibly by innumerable people for all of history? Should we hide violence, which is a fact of life people need to learn to deal with to survive? Should we avoid horrible sex at all costs, even though Ben Franklin was a member of the notorious Hellfire club, famed for its orgies, Thomas Jefferson had affairs, and Washington was known for his hedonism? Sex is not unconstitutional. Banning everything and sweeping problems under the rug is. Banning alcohol brought the disasters of prohibition and the rise of organized crime. Banning free speech will bring the downfall of America.

    Once the necessary changes have been made, we will see a new America, one capable of leading the world morally as well as economically. In the new America, sex will be an activity enjoyed guiltlessly by everyone, even young children and lovers of animals. Public orgies will be common. Violent video games will be more popular than ever and violent tv shows will be far more explicit than those currently available, yet the crime rate will be low-because citizens will be responsible people living lives much more enjoyable than the restrained 1984-style prison existences we have now. Everyone will be able to drink themselves into a stupor whenever they feel like it. We will all own guns for our protection, there will be a chicken in every pot, every able bodied man and woman will have 40 acres and a mule, there will be a car in every garage, a house for every family, and truth and justice for all. This will be a land of both anarchy and democracy-for is not anarchy the abscence of a controlling authority, thereby giving all people equal power, and democracy rule by all the people sharing power equally? By the very definition of democracy our government is illegitimate! Fight for anarchy, morality, and the American Way! Down with the government! Take back the streets, it's time to riot!

  • What's important (and, as I read it, what the court is saying) is that children be prepared not for violent situations, but rather for exposure to depictions of violent situations. Whole different thing.
  • What is needed is a period when people can drink, but are discouraged from doing so without guidence. This was, in fact, the original idea (at least in many places) when the age limit of 21 was introduced: people under 21 would only be able to drink with someone older willing to be responsible for them who provided the alcohol. This would promote a period of responsible drinking before people were able to drink be themselves.

    Unfortunately, this idea seems to have been lost, and, instead, people under 21 can generally only drink irresponsibly, and thus have bad drinking habits when they are later allowed to drink as they want.
  • And the bookburners suffer another defeat... ah, this makes my day (along with the release of OSX).

    I'm inclined not to worry about Ashcroft. It may be best that the old fool was made Attorney General, because he's no longer a lawmaker. This leaves him with perhaps the ability to influence, but utterly impotent to take a direct hand in lawmaking anymore.
    ----------
  • Do you mean to say that Pacs and Ghosts are the same species? Damn, that's a pretty unusual thought. What kind of proof do you have to back it up? DNA, observations, what?
  • I'm getting a little tired of Slashdot being so obviously pro-citizen disarmament (ie: gun control). Many Slashdot readers are libertarians, not liberals, and know that the right to bear arms is every bit as important as the right to free speech.
  • You short sighted fool!

    We'll need millions of people with alien shooting skills once the aliens arrive and start taking over the planet.

  • to hear a community leader defend violence in video games as a necessary part of the instruction of our youth

    This doesn't sound like he's defending the violence in video games to me. It sounds more like he's saying that seeing violent descriptions or images is inevitable in today's society. The world is a violent place. Hell, watch the news (or better yet, read it from a semi-reliable source instead of relying on the TV people to water it down to the fourth grade level </rant>).

    Beyond that, where in the hell do you see the judge say that violence in video games is a necesssary part of the instruction of our youth?!? Trying to shield people from knowledge is bad. Say it with me. When I was a kid, I learned a lot of things that adults didn't think a kid should know. Fortunately, I was never told that I shouldn't talk about such things, or think about them. I was guided to more information about those things, and learned enough to form my own opinions.

    Perhaps you're one of those people who think that your children should not have an opinion unless you give it to them. If that's the case, I'm sorry, because you're going to have a hell of a time with a teenager.

    Trying to shield children from everything bad in the world will have the wrong effect. The best that could happen is that you are unsuccessful, and the child gains the information, without feeling that she can talk to you about it... since she's not supposed to know this anyway, right? She's a kid. The worst is that you succeed, and your child grows up not knowing right from wrong, since he's never had to decide between the two for himself -- he's had his opinions carefully fed to him, and only the facts that he needs to know, so he doesn't have the ability to make an informed decision.

    My niece will ask me questions about life, and I give her honest answers. I talk to her about the questions, and I don't try to make the world seem better than it is. I also give her all the facts that she needs to make up her own mind instead of just telling her that something is bad. Usually, she comes to the "right" decision on her own. I know already that she's not going to agree with me on everything, but if she has the information to deal with life, she's far better off.

    Hmm. This article (and most of the posts replying to it) seem to have hit a nerve. Remember, don't drink and post -- you end up with rants like this.


  • I can't do it. I can't let go of freedom because of that .01%. I draw the line fairly far away from protecting people from violence. What you advocate draws perilously close to a police state.

    Regulations of this type are very much NOT "insignificant" in the scheme of things. Oh, some person might just snap and run through a Catholic church with a broadsword if he see that! We can't allow anyone to see it. Oh, someone might go rape that young woman if she dresses like that, so we should outlaw miniskirts (a crime if I've ever thought of one. Miniskirts... GOOD! Uh, what was I saying? Oh yeah.) You might say that these are contrived examples, but some psycho did run through a church with a broadsword a year or two ago in England. OK, the second example is pretty bad.

    What do you think the next step is? Tracking your location through your cell phone? Haven't read about that idea from the FBI. How about collecting all traffic through an ISP, just in case somebody is talking about their plans to shoot up another school... But it's for the children! (you don't want me to start on that rant. really.)

    I don't know exactly how to say this -- I'm running on little sleep and much beer. I feel very strongly about this. Would I give up my freedom to save someone I love? Yes. Would I give up a nation's freedom? NO.

    It sounds callous, even to me, but if I had to choose between my niece's life, and the first amendment, I would choose freedom. You can't allow the freedom of all to be destroyed to protect the few. If I had to choose between my freedom, and her, I have no doubt that I would sacrifice myself. But that is my choice, to give up my freedom to save another.

    Maybe I'm unusual, but I'd be willing to give up my own life or freedom to protect those general freedoms, or to protect those I love. But I won't give up those general freedoms to protect them, since I don't consider that protection.

    You can have peace, or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

    -- Robert Heinlein
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    -- Benjamin Franklin
  • Okay, I don't agree that video games should be censored, but he's right about violence being a problem of culture, not gun control.

    For our first example, let's look at Japan, which has strict gun controls and a low murder rate. A case for gun control? Not if you note that the murder rate by all methods in Japan is lower than the murder rate in the U.S. by non-gun methods. If every gun were to dissapear from the U.S. today, and everyone who would have killed with a gun abstains from using an alternate method, the U.S. would still have a higher murder rate than Japan.

    Next, let's look at Switzerland, which has an automatic assault rifle in virtually every home. Yet it too has far fewer murders, inculding school shootings, per capita than the United States.

    Now, perhaps we should note that neither low-murder-rate Japan nor Switzerland has a subculture that produces gangsta rap, justifies riots as expressions of outrage, etc. Cultural attitudes about violence are different than in the U.S. Perhaps, maybe, then, the U.S.'s problem isn't guns, but the cultural embrace of violence?

    Steven E. Ehrbar
  • Oh that's funny. Seriously funny.
  • Actually, I'm not sure about all states, but in the east coast ones I've lived my life around (West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland) ... It's illegal to drink under 21, even with parent's consent.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • let's shield our kids from everything, and maybe they won't grow up like us. we are the ones that are playing the shoot 'em up games. why do we protect our kids from everything, and then wonder why they end up more violent.

    i believe every restriction we put on ourselves, causes something else to be replaced. look at the alcohol laws in the US against the laws in france. anyone at any age can just about buy any type alcohol in france. is it a coincidence that france has much lower levels of detrimental alcoholics? in the US, we treat alcohol like a taboo, until a certain age. the US has one of the highest detrimental alcoholic levels.

    the whole idea of the internet is an open forum environment. the internet should not be controlled or filtered by anyone.

    the people that try to censor because they are "protecting" children should learn to teach their children morals, instead of just letting other people take the blame.

    the guy who went shooting a few weeks ago in a san diego high school was said to be "depressed and angered about other peers picking on him in school". *tear* where were the parents? where did he get the gun? the parents never took responsibility for their offspring. it always has to be someone else's problem.

  • Being from Ashcroft's hometown of Springfield, Missouri, I have to point out that the reason he lost to a dead man was that when he heard Carnahan had died, he immediately pulled all his campaign ads out of respect for the deceased and his family. Now, I may not agree with Ashcroft's politics (far from it!), but I think it's a damned shame we don't have more politicians willing to show that kind of respect when the cost is so high.

    As for Ashcroft's stance on video game control, well, what do you expect? He's a 7th Day Adventist, and doesn't even believe in dancing. But I don't think the gun control nuts whom Salon sets up as his opposition are necessarily right, either.

    I really don't know what to say anymore. Maybe we do need some kind of controls on violent video games, equivalent to the "R" rating of the MPAA, so they aren't banned altogether. I think we could use a little more control over guns, of the "trigger lock" variety, but quail (or Quayle? :) at anything more harsh--in fact, I'd like to see a nationwide concealed carry law. As for the overall solution, well, I'd plug parental responsibility here, but the cynic in me points out that there's no way to legislate that.

    I don't know quite what's going to happen, but something tells me it's all going to get worse before it gets any better.
    --

  • Yes. Xenu won't stay put forever, you know.

    --
  • Take it to K5 [kuro5hin.org] then.
  • Unfortunately, not "struck down" yet. This was just the appeal on a preliminary injunction; the appeals court said the law can't be enforced yet. The court basically told the city what sort of evidence they would have to present in order to win their case... and that failing to do so, the lower court should issue a permanent injunction against the ordinance. So it's not quite dead yet--- there yet may be an actual trial.
  • Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem like the more controls are placed on the purchasing of guns, and the more certain types of guns are banned, that more school shootings occur? I'm not saying that their is a direct correlation, just that gun control isn't solving any problems.
  • That's somewhat amusing with the claims that video game violance and death lead to real life violence and death. "Fatal" indeed,
  • No kidding - in Canada, the drinking age is 18-19 (depending on the province), and all I can say is that once I turned legal, I drank a lot less, and a lot less often. Being able to drink whenever you want really takes away from the illicit thrill....
  • I also think that it ought to be mandatory to take some sort of training course (or proof that you're proficient in handling a weapon) before purchasing a handgun or rifle.

    How is this different from handgun licencing?? You keep a list somewhere of those who have taken this class. That's tantamount to having a list somewhere of those who own guns. They licenced weapons in Austrailia not too long ago. Not long after that they banned then except for hunting. And it was easy because they already had a list of who had the guns. Not too long after that they noticed an increase in the violent crime (I should say they noticed a steep increase as the standard rate of increase accelerated).

    There used to be rifle ranges in High schools. You used to be able to take a riflery class in high school. Those people knew how to use guns. They were trained by their parents and teachers. They didn't shoot each other in school.

  • The Indianapolis Star has printed a more detailed story. [starnews.com] This ordinance was created by the previous Republican administration; the current (Democratic) mayor says he will carry the case forward but I wonder how high a priority it is for him?

    The article also makes reference to a bill pending in the Indiana state legislature that would require parents to be present when kids play violent games. Check out that bill here. [state.in.us]

  • Unfortunately, this idea seems to have been lost, and, instead, people under 21 can generally only drink irresponsibly, and thus have bad drinking habits when they are later allowed to drink as they want.

    That's a common problem with attempting to control recreational drugs. You'd think the USA would be the one place on the planet not to fall into this kind of trap, at least you'd think that if those involved had learned anything from history.
  • First: You are correct that last year saw the lowest youth violence rate in recent time (aka about since 1983). However, so far this year the youth violence rate has gone up at an alarming rate

    Exactly how is this measured. It's quite possible for very rare situations to produce this kind of statistic.
  • Oh, I agree with you on almost all points. First, about mental maturity. My suggestion of 12 as the cutoff is only an approximation. Some children will mature faster, and some slower.

    The alternative is to use something other than simply a person's age. There are situations where this is done, e.g. people don't automatically gain the ability to legally operate a motor vehicle.
  • However, in the good old USA, you see extreme alcohol related problems with minors. I like to call that the 'forbiddin fruit' effect.

    A nastier part of this is that "using" is judged just as bad as "abusing". Thus there is no incentive to "use" rather than "abuse"...
  • I agree with you that for most of us, video games are a safe and even fun way to release tension and fuffil primal urges. But what about that .01% that have progressive adiction. What about that .01% where violent video games feeds the urge? That .01% can do a lot of damage.

    Would getting rid of video games make any difference? Maybe they'd just find another "trigger". It's not as if violent people only came in to existance when there were video games.
  • Why is binge-drinking such a problem on college campuses (or with college-age kids in general)? No, it's not because "college = drinking." It's because, for a lot of college kids, buying and drinking alcohol is illegal

    Also you can easily get the same kind of behaviour with drugs more toxic than alcohol. Indeed a worst problem, because these other drugs are always illegal.
    Add that the illegality may disuade seeking medical attention and you end up with rather more corpses than people going on mass shootings. Indeed the most common killing machine is the car, rather than the gun...
  • Everyone will be able to drink themselves into a stupor whenever they feel like it.

    Though there then become negative consquences of abusing, rather than simply using, alcohol. Most people are probably not into waking up with their own vomit or ending up of first name terms with paramedics...
  • Yea, that sure has helped. Gun control in the UK has lead to the police carrying heavy firearms, something they have never done! Gun control does not work!

    Possibly the same problem as with drug control. It's illegal to use drugs so instead binge on them. It's illegal to have a gun, so if you are already planning to do something illegal then carry the most lethal gun you can.
    An armed robber is hardly going to be worried that their gun is illegal...
  • Then you too could have been in the majority.
  • Hit a sore sport did I? No bush didn't even win florida. His cronies did everything they could to subvert the votes lucky for him his cronies were in charge of the state legislature, the governor ship, and the state election office.
  • Actually feinting at the sight of blood might actually be a good tactic for a policeman. Unfortunately none of the coppers I've met would have the intelligence to try it - they'd be more likely to faint.


    ---
  • He simply said that he would like to see the industry show more responsibility.

    Coming from someone in high office, that's a strong implied threat of regulation.

  • Did Indiana somehow get zapped into being the evil, alternate Hill Valley from Back to the Future 2?
    Yes. Next question.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • There's a reason why he lost to a DEAD MAN in his congressional race. That's all I've got to say on that subject. :)
  • Maybe he did lose because of sympathy. Personally I think his general attitude after the death of Carnahan had something to do with it.

    All I know is that *I* did not vote for the man. I didn't vote for 'Carnahan' out of sympathy, rather an attempt to keep Ashcroft out of any position of power, as I disagree with just about every viewpoint he's had in the last several years as his opinions have shifted from something resembling those of a real person who believes in what he's doing to one who's driven by the political machine and corporate money.

    Ironically, had he won he'd be in a position of less power than he is now.
  • Well, I can tell you one thing, he didn't "lose" my vote due to sympathy for Carnahan's family. It was going to be a close race. I think Carnahan still would have come out on top, but Ashcrofts faux attitude after the accident hurt him a lot.

    I'm a product of the first generation of video game children. Been using computers since I was 7. The problem isn't video game violence, it's the inability of a person to separate fantasy from reality. That's a parenting problem. If you are unable to instill any sense of moral values into a person -- that "killing is wrong, don't do it" -- banning a videogame won't "fix" the problem.

    I'm tired of people in this country trying to shift their problems onto someone with deep pockets. With the school shootings, everyone is always pointing at tv, video games, movies, parents, anything except THEMSELVES. Someone doesn't just wake up one morning and go "gee, I think I'm going to shoot a bunch of people for no reason today."

    And for what it's worth, video games already have ratings on them. Q3a has an MA mark on the box. Walmart won't even sell those games to people under 18. They've had them since the mid 90's.
  • Please, you don't expect me to believe that the halting of some really crappy overdramatic attack adds on Carnahan really had any effect on the outcome of the election?

    Being from Missouri myself, I saw his ads so many times I wanted to puke. If he left the ads running he'd have done much worse. I actually would have voted for Ashcroft if he was the same man he was 5+ years ago. But he changed from a person with beliefs to a professional politician.

    Right now there are ratings on video games. The "R" equivilent is MA.

    I aree with you on the parenting solution; the only way to legislate it would be to make parents responsible for a child's action -- some laws have been passed that do that actually. I think this is absolutely the WRONG way to do things. It disgusts me that there are laws out there like that too (how the hell should another person be responsible for a 3rd parties actions? Some people are just bad).

    I don't like the idea of a concealed carry law. If you're packing something like that it ought to be in a holster in plain sight. I also think that it ought to be mandatory to take some sort of training course (or proof that you're proficient in handling a weapon) before purchasing a handgun or rifle.

    I don't mind the fact that guns exist in this country. I do mind that they could be in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use one properly, or a person who can't control their impulses (you've seen 'em, driving crazily down the road, shoving people out of the way in lines, etc).
  • It's not any different, but right now I don't think you're required to have a liscense to purchase a gun. You just have to pass a background check.
  • "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."

    When did we become Klingons? I'd like to think that life in America is peaceful enough that I don't need Mortal Combat 4 to train my kid to be violent enough to survive. Did Indiana somehow get zapped into being the evil, alternate Hill Valley from Back to the Future 2? I'm all for freedom of expression, and letting people do business without excessive regulation, but to hear a community leader defend violence in video games as a necessary part of the instruction of our youth makes me want move to Pennsylvania and become Amish.


    --Brogdon
  • I've seen several posts already saying the number of violent crimes committed by youth has dropped. Oh yay us. Let's give kids more violent games. Well.. yes the pure numbers show that. However, there is also a lot less kids than then there were. So while the rates go up.. the numbers are going down.
  • You're the smartest person I know besides myself :)

    Try telling our argument to ANYONE in authority (at a town meeting, at a dorm meeting, or anywhere you find half-brained political people) and they'll instantly attack you with all kinds of psychobabble, meaningless statistics, passionate moral arguments... In short, reason means NOTHING to these people. They want to CONTROL YOUR LIFESTYLE. They hate punks like me who got away with drinking and having a good time, when I should have been kissing their asses and living how they wanted me to live instead.

    So videogames are part of the problem? Well then, I am part of the problem as well! And I'm not going away, not even if they pass a law against me!
  • I agree. For some reason, they think that criminals and the government should be armed, while the good citizen should not be. What the hell are they thinking? That's exactly opposite how it should be. That's the first step toward a nightmare world, where you're either a criminal, a government party member, or a victim of the former two classes. To get back to the topic of video games, am I going to need a license to play soon? Is it part of my profile that I played Contra when I was 12, and I thought it was really cool how 2 fictional heros could save the earth from aliens? Insanity...
  • I agree w/you 100%. Education will go all the way to solve the worlds social problems.
  • I mean -- if a mother doesn't want her 6 year old shooting people, don't give him quarters!

    If a 10 year old wants to shoot people...

    ...he can mow lawns for Arcade money!

    If a 16 year old wants to shoot people...

    ...it's better off happening in the Arcade at school!

    For that matter -- maybe they need to put video games in Highschools.

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
  • Damn straight! I wan't my kids growing up in a world where they can battle international fighters, shoot everything "zombie" and get all twitchy when they see a little silver ball...

    "Ask not what your arcade can do for you, rather, ask how much is it gonna cost me and how many credits do I get..."

    -----

  • many slashdot readers are also not libertarians, and don't buy your stupid crap. i respect your desire to own and operate firearms (because, let's face it, they're fun toys), but it galls me every time someone dresses up this fact in the rhetoric of "freedom and democracy".

    -steve
  • First, it's not the judge writing that, but the Indianapolis City Council. The passage in question was quoted from the ordinance under review.

    Second, the part about "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is straight from Miller, the case which defines "obscenity" as a matter of constitutional law.

    And the City of Indianapolis doesn't mean "video game"; it means "violent video game".

    Next time, perhaps, you could actually read the material BEFORE commenting on it?
  • It looks like the Seventh Circuit's reasoning is that the City of Indianapolis hasn't drawn a sufficiently clear connection between violent video games and "harm to children". Surprise, surprise.

    And I went into the opinion expecting to find an economic argument. After all, it was Judge Posner writing the opinion.
  • Since when were video games supposed to prepare people for the "real world"?

    Since when does someone saying that getting rid of A works against the goal of B, imply that someone is arguing that A is good or even related to the goal of B?

    Next you'll be telling me that if I punch you in the face gracefully I will make you graceful.

  • I just said that video games and media in general DO play a major role in violent youth crimes.

    But you haven't supported your claim. That's the problem I have. That said, I should probably be grateful you bothered to stay in the discussion. Most people are too full of themselves to respond to criticism.

    Anyway back to the topic.

    In fact I can find a few studies that have shown that there are significant differences between the reactions of people playing the exact same violent games for the same period of time. All became somewhat excited. For some it was the temporary adrenaline rush. For others it was more personal and lasted much longer. Guess what? Pastors become quite excited while giving a sermon. Lawyers can get excited while making arguments. People get excited at sports events. And some even get excited while jogging. Then there's the individuals who have no presence of self, no sense of reality and insufficient maturity to deal with a little excitement. Age has the least bit to do with it. I've seen 13 year olds more mature than 31 year olds.

  • ...and you will see what this future could look like. There will be glorious times ahead for those few who still understand the concept of kicking someone's ass! :-)
    --
  • Feeding your kids a steady diet of Barney and Mr Rogers may make you feel like you're being a good parent and all, but as soon as they hit the school system, they're already way behind on the aggression they'll need to survive there. It's all a dominance game there and the ones that sink to the bottom of the food chain are going to get pounded on by everyone. When your kid comes home bloodied by the local asmatic nerd boy, you should be ashamed.

    And if they by some miracle manage to make it to 18 in your happy little world, they'll be in for quite a shock when they leave their bubble and turn on the TV. God help them if they actually go outside! I like to think this is what the judge was talking about.

  • Compared to what you go through in the school system, violent video games are a walk in the park that should generally be ignored as inconsequential. School children are little animals and unless you want to eat shit for 12 years in the system, you have to establish yourself as an alpha member of the pack. I'm not saying you need to be the class bully, but if you ever show any fear, you'll suffer for it.

    People have been snapping under that pressure all along. One of the news sites carried the story of an elderly gentleman who went to school some decades ago now, who one day took a gun to school and threatened to shoot a kid who was shaking him down. Violent video games aren't at fault here. The way the school system works may be, but I don't think it's ever going to change either.

  • State laws maybe?

    Different places has different "legally adult" ages. They're just lazy - choosing the oldest among them just to be on the safe side...

  • J (jamie@mccarthy.vg) updates the main posting by saying that Ashcroft "prefers thought control", using as evidence the quote "We have to exhibit responsibility in other ways, so that the culture inhibits or restrains this impulse."

    WTF? If you don't think that inhibiting the impulse to go on a shooting spree at your local school is a good thing, you are a sick fuck. Pardon my french.

    Society's main purpose is to inhibit the impulses to kill other members of society.

    What the hell is /. doing letting idiots like this update main postings?
  • Amazing how no guns in DC and yet the crime rate goes up. Notice all these school shootings happen after the Brady law? Yea, that sure has helped. Gun control in the UK has lead to the police carrying heavy firearms, something they have never done! Gun control does not work! A polite society is an armed society.
  • I submitted a story about how Arkansas is trying to pass legislation banning evolution in textbooks. It was rejected twice, within about 30 seconds each time. They need a metamod system for submissions too, put up a page with rejected stories and have people mod them to see if the people running the place made the right decision.

  • If I was in Indianapolis, I'd be outraged. There need to be laws protecting my kids from the horrors of dot-munching little yellow dudes.

    And don't get me started on the alien shooting...
  • In this age of sheltered youths, I wonder what is in store. In the future, if there is more censorship (or perhaps if we just keep on this course), what will the kids raised on Barney and Teletubbies be like as adults? Will a policeman feint at the sight of blood? Will a teacher run away when unable to stop a fight in class? Will fear of terrorism rein? Violence has always been a part of entertainment. It shouldn't be the only form of entertainment, but it definately should be out there. Is censorship really the only way to promote nonviolent games? Why can't somebody just make a good movie or game without as much violence and other objectional materials?


  • > I've seen several posts already saying the
    > number of violent crimes committed by youth has
    > dropped. Oh yay us. Let's give kids more violent
    > games. Well.. yes the pure numbers show
    > that. However, there is also a lot less kids
    > than then there were. So while the rates go
    > up.. the numbers are going down.

    *BZZT* Wrong, but thanks for playing. Numbers AND rates for violent crime among youth have dropped:

    http://www.urban.org/crime/module/butts/youth-crim e-drop.html [urban.org].

    Pay particular attention to the section "Arrest rates":

    Studies of changes in juvenile crime should always consider the possibility that fluctuations in the juvenile population may be responsible for trends seen in the number of arrests reported by law enforcement.

    This was not the case during the recent crime drop. Even controlling for changes in the population, the rate of decline in juvenile arrests outpaced that of other age groups.

  • The onus of regulating the content intake of "our" children is not on any form of government. It is also not on the 19 yr old clerk in the video arcade. That onus belongs on the parents, and only the parents.

    Although this thinking is true, FAR too many parents now want to plop their kids in front of some sort of electronics and let the electronics raise the child.

    The real problem here is this: People who either aren't responsible enough or aren't ready to have children and take care of them are having them anyway, and trying to pass of the job of parenting onto other objects, then getting angry when those objects teach their children things they don't want them to.

    Parents need to learn that they need to be the ones educating their children against dangerous things, instead of stopping the dangerous things.

  • well i live in washington state and if you're under 21 you have to be with your parents and i believe in your house... but any private residence might do.... i don't remember exactly... but alcohol is state regulated so it varies from state to state. ph33r my kn0w73d93 0f +h3 l4w5

  • From someone who was raised Adventist [adventist.org], lives in Indiana, and is currently a hopeless Counterstrike [counter-strike.net] addict :) this article definitely caught my eye. Ashcroft isn't an Adventist. He's an Assemblies of God member [channel4000.com]
  • This has been an interesting generation to grow up in. I turned 23 in December, so I'm old enough to remember when Apples came out, and I watched the rise of Big Blue, MS and the internet. So then, shall we blame technology? Why not, it's an easy target. My age groups is also considered the children of the baby boomers. Well, if that's the case, let's all blame our parents. But wait, I grew up during the Reagan era, so here's an idea, let's blame the Republicans. Hold on, I forgot, the Democrats controlled Congress, so I think it's safe to blame them, as well.
    My point is this: My generation, and the next, have all been trained to Blame The Other Guy.
    Nothing we do is our fault at all.
    Did you cheat on a test in 6th grade? Obviously you felt tremendous social pressure to do well in school. It's OK, we'll curve your grades anyway so that "you can feel good about yourself."
    Did you steal a car when you were 15? That's OK, obviously you were under great peer pressure and your parents didn't love you enough.
    Did you shoot someone when you were 18? That's OK, you probably had a very good reason. Maybe they used to take your lunch money when you were in grade school.
    Don't get me wrong, good parenting, peer pressure, social pressure, these are all very important things to a child's personality development. But whatever happened to personal responsibility? Perhaps if we being to teach children actual values and responsibility instead of selfishness and passing the buck, they would be mature enough to decide what games to play on their own.
    God forbid that, though, because then the government couldn't mold its citizens into little state funded automatons, completely reliant on Big Brother.

    "A mime is a terrible thing to waste."

    ThE iLlUsTrIoUs IdIoTt

    'Evil Empire got you down? Use the source!'
    http://www.dolinux.org/
  • Even though I'd be old enough to buy violent games by the time this went through, I would not want to live in a world where kids had to play "hey mister" to get games.

    "Hey mister... would you buy Duke 4Ever for me? Please?"

    Shudder

    -------

  • Read the whole opinion. There's a lot more to it than that. The judges were simply stating an opinion in contrast to one particular opinion voiced during argument. It's not that video games explicitly prepare children, but rather that the argument for shielding them is flawed, and in the abscence of a good reason for the restriction, freedom should prevail.
  • OK, good points. I'll address them.

    First: You are correct that last year saw the lowest youth violence rate in recent time (aka about since 1983). However, so far this year the youth violence rate has gone up at an alarming rate. You cannot deny that this is at least in part due to the media.

    Second: I'm not pulling an all out blame on video games or any other form of media. I have Quake. I play Unreal. They're a blast. I just don't think you should be allowing young kids such as those 12 or younger playing them.

    Remember, in this case my gripe is not with the games themselves but the fact that the court implies that they somehow will prepare kids for adult life. To make such a statement frankly demonstrates only one thing: stupidity.

    I would question anyone that would not support some sort of rating and partial regulation. All we really need to do is to protect the younger children: the ones that are not yet able to differentiate between that which is real and that which is not. For those that are mature enough to handle it, I say "Have fun!"

    -James
  • Obiously, we could go into a huge flame war/debate on whose responsibility it is to prevent violent youth crime or who should be the one filtering out uh..undesirable content. I guess it all comes down to where you draw the line between prevention of violence and free speech. This is a line that has to be draws no matter what form of communication you are talking about.

    I agree with you that for most of us, video games are a safe and even fun way to release tension and fuffil primal urges. But what about that .01% that have progressive adiction. What about that .01% where violent video games feeds the urge? That .01% can do a lot of damage. Maybe I sound to the propeganda truck, but I did have a second cousin that was the victim of a murder. Trust me, I would rather have a law impose some regulations that in the scheme of things are pretty insignificant than give that .01% the impression that violence is okay.

    Indeed, it is a fine line to walk. I place a very high value on both the freedom of speech and human life. But when it comes down to it, I think I would rather sacrifice a little (just a little, mind you) freedom for the lives of murder victims. I dunno. What do you guys think?

    -James
  • Oh, I agree with you on almost all points. First, about mental maturity. My suggestion of 12 as the cutoff is only an approximation. Some children will mature faster, and some slower. For logistical reasons, however, there would have to be a set age, either a mode or mean.

    Ah, let's talk parents. Parents *are* the best way to prevent youth violence. But let's face it: there are a hell of a lot of parents out there that either don't care or do a crappy job. I would much rather leave it up the parents, but in today's society that just doesn't cut it. What if you lived in a neighborhood with 20 houses (we'll assume one parent & child per house for now), where there were 14 decent parents, 5 that were just bad parents, and one that is a raving alchoholic. The child of the 20th parent is enough to completely ruin or even eliminate the lives of the other 19 children. Just because you're doing your job, that doesn't mean that those around you are. It also doesn't mean that you or your children should have to pay the price for Mr. Idiot Jr.'s poor upbringing. IMHO, it's better to be a little safe that really sorry.

    -James
  • Four of the biggest causes of violent (i.e. murder) crime:

    4) As you stated, basic greed and jealosy.

    3) The mistaken belief that murdering someone will somehow make things better.

    2) Bad influence of environmental stimuli, including but of course not limited to PARENTING, peers, experiances, and yes, media (including video games). I never said video games were the only cause. I didn't even say they were the primary cause. I just said that video games and media in general DO play a major role in violent youth crimes.

    1) THE PRIMARY FACTOR: The yearning for attention. Although the attention a murderer recieves after committing a murder is negative attention, it is still attention. Negative attention is better than no attention at all.

    -James

    PS: My second cousin was murdered when he was 19 too. They never found the murderer. Oh, the irony. Anway, you've said it. There are a lot of screwed up people out there.
  • I suppose instead of simply saying "media" one should refer to the complete environment a person is subject to. Various stimuli will impact and influence a person to varying degrees. For the average person, you bet a bully is worse than a video game.

    I guess we just have to look at the big picture both in terms of cause and effect; it is important to take into account both what drives people to do what they do (anyone know ol' Sigmund's phone number?) and what the effects of attempting to restrict people are. In this case, the cause is not completely known. The effect, however, is. Placing the fulcrum on the great balance of saftey vs. freedom is a tricky thing. Each person will place his or her fulcrum in a slightly different place; debating the exact location is useless. What we need is some sort of compromise, if such a thing is even possible in this case.

    Yeah, a sliding scale would be better than an all-or-nothing cutoff.

    I think I'm going to go to bed now. Happy debating, people! I'm tired. Sleep now.
    -James
  • While I am all for supporting free speech in any form (including video games), doesn't that last line scare anybody? Since when were video games supposed to prepare people for the "real world"? Especially violent ones.... While I praise their decision, I must protest their reasoning. Violent video games are not a good way to be preparing for "real life". And sometimes we wonder why there are so many violent acts committed by young people unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality... It's no wonder they tend to get confused.

    -James
  • I live in Springfield, MO, which is Mr. Ashcroft's home town. In fact, I'm in the same Sunday School class as him, though I've never met him.

    There is precisely one reason why Mel Carnahan won the Senate race: SYMPATHY. It is, simply, impossible to campaign against a dead man and maintain any semblance of decency. Despite my disagreements with him, I have to acknowledge that Gov. Carnahan was a decent guy; any attempts to campaign against him would have been political suicide.

    That having been said, I'm glad he got the nod for the AG post. As far as Ashcroft's actual statements, I'm not sure that violent video games are entirely responsible. I think it's foolish, though, to simply dismiss their influence out of hand.

    I think the stronger point that needs to be made, though, is that the restraints against violence need to be internal and cultural, rather than enforced by an external authority, usually government. I don't think there's a /.er out there that wants more government control on anything; if people control themselves, there is no need for excessive government control.

  • This may sound a bit cold to say, but I'm going to say it anyhow. My brother was murdered in 1996 at 19 years old. (No apologies please, I hate that). However, I do not even for a moment think that sheltering kids from any form of violence, like video games, will help anything. I'm not that naive. I bet a whole lot more people kill for a person's money, like they did to my brother. The person(s) were never caught either.

    Video games aren't the cause of all this, nor even the symptom. It's the fucked up people in the world out there that think a couple hundred dollars is worth taking someone's life for. This has been going on much longer than movies, tv, video games, etc ever existed.

    Matt
  • Good news for Tycho and Gabe.

    www.penny-arcade.com [penny-arcade.com]

    --

  • I agree. A friend of mine is a middle school teacher and her biggest complaint is that the parents so often just don't care. It's a major problem and one that needs to be addressed. But laws like these will do nothing to encourage parental inolvement in a child's life.

    --

  • More important news (Score:3)

    by Fervent ( 178271 ) on Friday March 23, 2001 @10:03PM (#343477)
    More important was this story [dailyradar.com] I submitted a few days ago and was rejected (as are most of my better stories. Sigh).

    New Hampshire is considering taxing video games and movies, and using the money to help sex crime victims. Says proponents: "both forms of entertainment often feature sexual violence or portray woman as objects of sexual gratification".

    Does anybody think the connection being made her is a little tenuous?

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 23, 2001 @08:59PM (#343478)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It's too bad... (Score:3)

    by Anal Surprise ( 178723 ) on Friday March 23, 2001 @08:40PM (#343479)
    If this was a Supreme Court decision, we might have a hope of overturning library filtering-for-funding and indecency laws. I'm of the opinion that children should have access to whatever they're actually searching for.
  • This is how 99.9% of the mainstream news is. Even the weather is biased.

    "Forecasts estimate a 35% probability of heavy rain at the time of the civil-rights demonstration scheduled for today in Sometown, Somestate. Wash away the commies, Lord!"

  • To me, this article just seems totally biased towards the ordinance in question, and fails to even mention any of the other sides of the story.

    This is how 99.9% of the mainstream news is. Even the weather is biased. Basically, since the news is slanted in such a way, you just have to read it, disregard the majority of the crap, find out what the facts are, then go back and research to find out if they were lying or not. You'd be suprised of how much in the paper and on TV news is made up so they can have a good story, or are too lazy to get the real facts.

  • I am oh so happy that I spent my formative years as an arcade rat/nintendo nazi. Yeah, that did a lot to prepare me for the real world.

    Me too. Now I can stomp on mushrooms better than all my coworkers, and I bash my head against bricks a lot. I did get in trouble when I went into that pet store and kicked the turtles though. It seems the majority of the people are just not aware of the mighty Koopa invasion. Let me go put on my red coveralls and matching hat now, I have a princess to save!

  • an amusement machine that predominantly appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence or minors' prurient interest in sex...

    So what do they have against the Ibrator [ibrator.com]?

    And I haven't seen any sex in video games in the arcades. I mean c'mon, Princess Toadstool's dress didn't even show her ankles! Oh, but maybe those "power balls" that Ms. Pacman eats were something else entirely...Oh my God!!! Ms. Pacman ate my balls!

    Anyways, this is silly, I will stop now.

  • Pennsylvania state code is not online (apparently they are the only state in this condition, according to one site I went to), so I can't say what I found there.

    Chapter 60a in WV has several clauses pertaining to age of those consuming alcohol. Twice it exempts blood relatives and spouses from the penalties for providing alcohol to persons under 21, once it does not. In one section it merely states that no alcohol is to be sold to those under 21, but in another it states that it is a misdemeanor for persons under 21 to purchase or consume alcohol. If a person under 21 were to consume the alcohol in the home, it would require a violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution to determine this, provided such consumption was not done in plain view from the street or another building. Frankly, I'd consult a lawyer in WV concerning this before I made a presumption either way. The law (to my non-lawyerly eyes) is self-contradictory.

    MD appears to outright forbid anyone under the age of 21 from even consuming the stuff under all circumstances.

    Interestingly, while it does appear that the original complaint about Indiana is correct, the IN law contains a curious exception in that "family" (i.e. homemade) beverages are not covered by the state law at all.

    So, as I said, the laws vary state to state and obviously some states aren't as cool as the one I live in. {grin} Next time I hear someone around here (MN) complaining about our bassackwards liquor laws I think I'll mention this.

    From what I've heard these sorts of rules don't really exist in most of Europe at all. And frankly, Prohibition in the US is the biggest failure of a policy EVER. Just imagine if it was as easy to avoid paying taxes as it was for those under 21 to get liquor. The Air Force would be holding those bake sales to buy bombers after all.

  • Possible BS alert. (Score:3)

    by ichimunki ( 194887 ) on Saturday March 24, 2001 @04:41AM (#343488)
    What a LOAD! If you are under 21 the only way you can have alcohol is in church (and that little thimble of wine is all you'll get there) or your parent's home (with their permission of course).

    Unless there is some extension specific to Indiana or Fort Wayne that I don't know about, this sounds like a dad making excuses (or perhaps there are extenuating circumstances). Alcohol laws are vary state by state. Here the MN State Law [state.mn.us] that very clearly states that persons under 21 are allowed to drink in their parents' homes.

    The government has been very loathe over the years (and you can thank the Republicans and their ideological type for this) to interfere with families, for better or worse. It's Democrats with their Nanny State that won't let parents be parents, but are all too willing to sue everyone in sight, including parents, when something goes wrong with kids whose parents were basically hog-tied.

    Now obviously this does not extend to giving children large and dangerous doses of alcohol. That would be reckless and dangerous. But a glass of wine or beer with a meal? I've known parents who would cringe at the thought, but I think healthy families with normal chemical use patterns would see nothing amiss here (this is not intended to be a statement about you and your family in particular, please don't take offense).

    To stay on topic, this law against certain video games sounds dumb as hell to begin with. Video games are a popular target right now since they have "arrived" as a mass media. But parents have every right in this case to forbid their minor children from even entering the arcade if they have a problem with the games. If an arcade owner can make a "clean" arcade which is profitable, this is surely a niche market worth tapping-- assuming that parents whose children spend enough time in arcades to be affected by the games there give enough of a shit about their child's well-being to begin with.
  • Agreed. While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful so that the calculated objective of communication does not become ensconsed in obscurity.

    In other words, eschew obfuscation.
    (ripped from the fortune file)

    -John
  • Actually, the statistics show that in Europe the young people (including both those who can and cannot buy alcohol legally) have started binge drinking and the related health and social problems really escalated in 1990s.

    Not binge drinking doesn't mean you don't have a problem with alcohol either. Drinking alcohol, even in relatively small amounts (3-4 beers), every day can lead into a drinking habit or into an outright addiction with the subsequent health problems. I know because that happened to me. It's humiliating to realize that you really need those three drinks every day, and it's even more difficult to admit to admit to yourself that your alcohol intake -- no matter how small it is per day -- is starting to affect your health, work and life in general.

    (To those who're interested in treatment, there are good drugs [well.com] nowadays that will help you to break the habit so you really can start working on the other problems in your life. They're not the cure, but they sure helped me.)

  • Good start (Score:4)

    by KurdtX ( 207196 ) on Friday March 23, 2001 @09:08PM (#343496)
    Now maybe they can start overturning other limited-by-age laws, like the drinking age. I don't know anyone who has wanted to drink before they were 21 who has not been able to get their hands on alcohol. I've also seen many people make the decision when attending clubs or parties where they can't get alcohol (since they're getting intoxicated illegally anyway) to go for harder drugs... because they last the whole night without having to drink yourself close to death at the start of the night. At my school we have a school-wide party early in the year and then again at the end (on the last day of classes) and a lot of the alcohol problems are early on due to people trying to come drunk enough to make their buzz last the entire time, and overestimating. And one line I hear constantly from people who really are on the verge of poisoning themselves is they don't want medical help because they don't want to be caught. Fortunately my school has a (student) medical service that doesn't report to the police for those types of cases, but many places don't, and I worry.

    And for those of you who might think "kids" aren't responsible enough to handle alcohol, maybe they aren't. However, artificially imposing that only adults are responsible enough to drink alcohol just makes kids who want to grow up faster (blame the media) more prone to drink, so they fit the adult image that they present. I could continue, but I'm really trying not to troll.

    Kurdt
  • "The murderous fanaticism displayed by young German soldiers in World War II, alumni of the Hitler Jugend, illustrates the danger of allowing government to control the access of children to information and opinion."

    This may seem slightly out of place in the context of video games, but it fits perfectly with some other legislation we've had recently.
  • The title of this Salon article pretty much says it all. Ashcroft on school shootings: Video games are part of the problem [salon.com].

    I'm glad I voted for Gore....
  • Louisiana's state Constitution sets the age of majority at 18. It's right there in black and white; at 18, you have all the "rights and privileges" of adulthood. This language was inserted for good reason when the Constitution was revamped in IIRC 1974. Vietnam had a lot to do with it.

    So guess what the drinking age is here? Yep. The Feds blackmailed us by threatening to withhold highway funds (YOO-HOO, where do you think those funds COME FROM, eh? Blackmailed with OUR OWN MONEY!!!) At first the Legislature wouldn't pass the law. It was, after all, patently unconstitutional. Then, as the deadline neared, they caved. Went to the state Supreme Court. The Supremes said, guess what d00ds, this is unconstitutional. The deadline got closer, the Lege passed it again, and this time the Supremes did a backflip and coughed and said that our Constitution does not in fact say what it very obviously says.

    The period in which we refused to pass on this crap was one of the few times I've been proud of our state's elected officials. I suppose I can't blame them for finally caving in to a superior force but it was a sad day for freedom in a venue which, compared to some other things, isn't even really that important.

  • Oh PLEASE! (Score:3)

    by tommyServ0 ( 266153 ) on Saturday March 24, 2001 @02:36AM (#343516) Homepage Journal

    So, it's either-or, huh? Come on, don't be so ridiculous. Look up the word "dichotomy."

    There are two options, then, according to you: we can (1) train our children to be able to cope with life with Quake, Doom, and Unreal Tournament, or we can (2) give them Barney and Mr. Rogers. No in between at all, right?

    I understand the fact that we shouldn't shelter our children in a bubble, leaving them unequipped to handle the real world. But you know, I know so many people that didn't play any Mortal Kombat growing up -- and (shock, gasp, horror) they are normal, productive members of society!

    I play my share of violent games (Quake 2, Unreal, Q3A) etc., and I know for a fact that I will not go out and shoot someone because of the game. You have no argument from me there. But to imply that we'd be warping our kids by not allowing them to play violent video games is probably the funniest thing I've read today.



    --
  • I'm almost 50. I am one of the babyboom generation that was raised with a TV in the house.

    I grew up watching all the "violent" Warner Bros. cartoons, not to mention running home after school to watch the Three Stooges in the afternoon.

    I am like many of my peers who were born in that postwar generation, a generation that loved watching Elmer blast Daffy Duck and Moe clobbering Curly with a great big monkey wrench.

    We grew up to be called the "Peace" generation. You know. Hippies. Anti-war protestors. That lot.

    But when cartoons and kids programming became, for lack of a better word, wimpified, that is, no violence at all, everybody was all lovey dovey and worked out all their problems by consensus, et al, ad nauseum, it was then we began to see a rise in juvenile violence in the 70s and 80s.

    Now, I am not positing a direct correlation between these two events. Nor am I positing a correlation between the decrease in juvenile violence since the advent of "realistic" (Quake, realistic? AHEM!) video & computer games.

    Still, it's an intriguing datapoint and there's probably a couple of Ph.Ds that could be earned via a study of the correlation between "violent" media influences and people born in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.

  • Y'know, it wasn't that many years ago that we were sending our sons out to hunt for food to put on the table. With real guns! *shock* And our homes were being defended by our daughters. Again, yes, with real guns! Fathers were patting their sons on the head with approval if they managed to get lucky at the age of fourteen. Mothers were sending their daughters off to become wives and mothers at the same age. Violence was certainly not a stranger in most homes in the United States, and much more graphic for being real.

    You might guess that this is one of my pet peeves. *grin* I maintain, although this is only my opinion, that violent video games and violence in movies has little, if anything, to do with the youth violence we're currently experiencing in the U.S. (although probably responsible for this run-on sentence). I must admit that I'm pleased that someone in authority can see this also.

    Enough ranting and have a wonderful night, all!

  • The Judge Is Friendly With His Thesaurus (Score:5)

    by neoshroom ( 324937 ) on Friday March 23, 2001 @08:58PM (#343534)
    "an amusement machine that predominantly appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence or minors' prurient interest in sex, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for persons under the age of eighteen (18) years, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value as a whole for persons under..."

    All I can say is wow. All that just to mean "video game." I suggest we start using the above statement in our everyday speach.
    Something like:

    "Hey Kevin, care to pop out the amusement machine that predominantly appeals to minors' morbid interest in violence or minors' prurient interest in sex, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for persons under the age of eighteen (18) years, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value and play some Final Fantasy on it?"

Slashdot Top Deals

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake

Close