Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Game Industry Fights Violent Game Ban 65

Posted by michael from the fatality dept.
sietekk writes "The video game industry told a federal appeals court on Wednesday that it has the same rights to free speech as moviemakers and publishers and urged the court to overturn a local government ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. Appearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for the Interactive Digital Software Association, which represents the video game industry, argued that a lower court ruling upholding St. Louis County's restrictions on game sales should be overturned as unconstitutional."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Industry Fights Violent Game Ban More

Game Industry Fights Violent Game Ban

Comments Filter:
  • Why the fuck can't you keep an eye on your brat? Why the fuck do they have $70 to go to Funcoland to get a game? Why the fuck don't you tell the morons at Blockbuster not to rent 'M' games to your kid? Why do you have to fuck it up for everyone? You stupid damn whores! Just because you can't parent your kid is no reason to take it out on me.

    Take some responsibility for a change.

    • Re:You stupid fucking soccer moms! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by octalgirl ( 580949 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @08:04AM (#5501963) Journal
      Why the fuck can't you keep an eye on your brat? Why the fuck do they have $70 to go to Funcoland to get a game? Why the fuck don't you tell the morons at Blockbuster not to rent 'M' games to your kid? Why do you have to fuck it up for everyone? You stupid damn whores! Just because you can't parent your kid is no reason to take it out on me.
      Take some responsibility for a change.

      Wow - hate women do we? Where is the Dad in all this? For as much as we bitch about how stuff like this is the parents responsibility, it's time to get over the fact that most parents are not that responsible when it comes to this kind of stuff. They are spending their time getting their kids off to school, feeding them, paying the bills, etc, etc, etc. How many older Aunts/Uncles/Grandparents do you know who purchase such things for the kids anyway? A lot of adults are very ignorant when it comes to violent electronic games, they simply are not aware.

      Parents of 13+ year-olds frequently just drop them off at the mall. Have you ever met a teenager who wants to go shopping with their parents, and be seen with them in public? That is a rare thing indeed. I don't agree with laws being forced in this issue, but I do agree with clear labels and that stores should adopt their own age policies, like Walmart. As usual though, just like ignorant parents/relatives, their are many stores who really don't care what affect they have on kids as long as they get their money. This is a social, community and education problem - and those are usually tougher to solve.
      • Wow - hate women do we? Where is the Dad in all this?

        You need to get out more. In the past 35 years, there has been a dramatic upswing in the number of single parent homes. And most of those are women. Look at any of the advocacy groups who fight for these laws. Who are the organizers and front 'men'? More women. Finally, 'soccer mom' is a well understood term that has nothing to do with the sex of the offender. Oh, and I hate all human beings equally. I don't single anyone out for special hatred on the b

        • Re:You stupid fucking soccer moms! (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          got to break it to you, but octagirl is pretty right on with her assessment of you.

          "stupid fucking soccer moms" no doubt gives a bit of satisfaction to type, but (rightly or wrongly) it immediately turns off the ears of the type of people who make these stupid laws in the first place.

          as for the idea of law itself, you're absolutely right; it's idiotic and a pretty lousy idea. that said, the reason that notions like these arise in the first place is because it's a really easy way for politicians to show thei

          • Nope, I'm a 30 year old WASP with a wife, kid, and mortgage.

            I never claimed intellect. I implied a lack of same by the 'stupid fucking soccer moms' and defenders of laws like this.

            Some people should not be allowed to breed. No, I'm not one to make that decision. But let's stop making it easier for the dregs of society to dirty up the gene pool. You look out for your kids, I'll look out for mine. Would you claim that every child born is a benefit to society?

            I wouldn't mind Vice City, but don't have a curr

    • Re:You stupid f*****g soccer moms! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Datoyminaytah ( 550912 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @08:45AM (#5502045)
      Just my 2 cents.

      I agree that no one should tell game publishers what they can or can't sell.

      I agree that adults should not be prevented from buying it.

      I agree that parents should have a right to restrict their children from material the parent finds objectionable, as much as possible.

      I DON'T agree that Blockbuster should have to keep a list of individual minors and check it for parental permission before selling a game to a minor. That would never work because it's too much of a burden on the retailer and too easy to make a mistake. (What! You sold Johnny DOOM3? He's on your list! I'll sue!!!)

      I DON'T agree that there should be legislation making it criminal to give an "M" rated game to a minor, or otherwise let them see it or play it, at least in a private home.

      So, a law that doesn't allow "M" game sales to minors, but that doesn't criminalize "M" games use by minors, would be fine by me. Buy your kids DOOM3 if you think they're ready for it.
      • Blockbuster already tracks minors and restricts the renting of R rated movies. A parent has to specifically allow renting of R rated movies on the account. It wouldn't be too hard to extend this to video games.

        Not that I'm in favor of this, but it wouldn't be that much of a burden on them. The mom and pop stores can just check ID for the M rated games like they are required to be doing for R rated movies.

  • ROFL (Score:5, Funny)

    by Flamerule ( 467257 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @04:08AM (#5501469)
    Judge William Riley asked Shuman how video games were different from typical Childrens' make-believe games like "cops and robbers."

    "I bet I killed 50 people a week playing Army as a kid," Riley said.

    Folks, looks like we've got someone on our side for once =)
    • Have you ever seen a transcript of an appeals court or Supreme Court session? Judges seem to enjoy practically mocking the lawyers, whether or not they agree with them.

  • they should adopt the MPAA approach... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @04:32AM (#5501536) Homepage Journal
    by having stores not be permitted to sell M-rated games to under 17'ers, Y-14 to under 13ers, etc. (iirc - WalMart does this)

    The MPAA already does (voluntarily, not by law) this with movies rated NC17, R, PG-13, etc.

    Flaws exist in both (just ask the many 12 year olds who have slipped into R movies), and not all video stores honor those ratings when kids check out movies (and for that matter, games, should such be implemented). But it's a lot better than having the feds regulate it.

  • Translation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wind ( 94988 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:41AM (#5501685)
    From the county prosecutor:
    "The government shouldn't have to wait to develop a record of harm," he said. "While the First Amendment is important, the county can't wait for scientists to provide evidence."

    Translation: Of course video games cause an increase in violent behavior. We don't need evidence of that, and can ignore any scientific evidence that might cast doubt on our beliefs. We've found one guy in Iowa who'll support our claims, and that's all science is for anyway.

    Bleh. It drives me crazy that there are people in our culture who doubt the value of funding research and then don't even use the research results available.

  • Harm/Good . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:46AM (#5501796) Homepage
    In the interest of progress, there are those who say 'what is the harm?' They do things preemptory and then watch to see the results. Then, when results are unfavorable, they say, 'well, our position is already rooted in society, so we cannot go back now'--a hollow argument. However, this is not to say that all progressive things are harmful.

    There are still others who say, 'what is the good?' They are more cautious, less innovative. Yet, they seek to ensure the 'common good' is maintained in ther progressiveness.

    Sometimes, in order to progress in the right direction, a few backward steps need be taken. This is especially true when over-progressive zeal takes society down the wrong (i.e, not truly progressive) path.

    In the case here, I say that regulation--self or societal (via government); is the better option. While the opposing sides argue the cons of the issue, our children hang in the balance. As our children are our future, then our future is in the balance.

    I, for one, like the little logo that helps me as a parent weed out the wheat from the chaff. I like that self-imposed regulatory efforts help me by urging shops not to sell something to my minor that I may deem inappropriate. If, as a parent, I want my son to see that (PG-13|R)-rated film, or listen to Eminem, or play Unreal, that is my perogative. The regulations help me be that gatekeeper. I like being that gatekeeper, because myself and his mother are the ones with a vested interest in how our child turns out.

    Ask this, what harm do the labels create? More PG-13 films are made because of the restrictiveness of R (although PG-13 is the same as R ratings of fifteen years ago, it seems). If the gaming software industry feels encumbered by the restrictions because of sales, perhaps they should tone down what causes the more restrictive rating.

    Finally, I think what many refer to as free speech is not what free speech was intended. Just as it is not free speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. Vandalism is not free speech. If I thought a musician plays terribly, I cannot urinate on him (History of the World, Pt 1) to express my free speech of his poor performance.

    I see Free speech as the right to speak out against the injustices of our government. Sometimes, to have freedom in society, individuals have to restrict their freedoms.

    • Re:Harm/Good . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Twylite ( 234238 )

      This is a rating system for games, to which many publishers subscribe voluntarily, and it is referred to by the IDSA lawyer. Few people have a problem with labelling of in this manner.

      So I, like many people, support labelling, responsible parenting, and having the State keep its nose out of the issue of morality. These are not mutually exclusive viewpoints.

      I would support a system (voluntary or otherwise) that sees all entertainment material (movies, books, music, games) accompanied by a rating (that

  • local government ban on the sale of violent video games to minors

    The U.S. has already decided that pornography can be restricted from sale to minors at the local government level. Restricting sale of "harmful" things to minors is a well-established fact. What rights of *yours* are being trampled here?

    (Personally, I think it daft to restrict the sale of pictures of beatiful naked adult bodies, and allow the unrestricted sale of war-training, flame-throwing, vivisecting , blood-spattering games.)

    • Well, I believe that "harm" has to be quantified. I played a shitload of violent games as a kid and I never had any issues from it.


      SO YOU GOD DAMNED MOTHER F*CKER!
      I AM RIGHT!
      YOU ARE WRONG!
      YOU'D BETTER AGREE OR I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND KILL YOU!!!!!!


      Whoa... Umm... sorry about that... that just uh.. happens sometimes... not sure why...

      Have a nice day.

      T

    • Well, of course, your right to rip off a bunch of 10 yo's with overstock copies of dakatana.

  • Parent, avid gamer - Agree with both parties. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CTD ( 615278 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:38AM (#5502638) Homepage
    I'm an avid gamer. I have been ever since my first step into Aladdin's Castle, in the Mapel Hill Mall, in Kalamazoo Michigan, one day ages ago. There were not enough quarters to sate me...


    Even today, at 31, I'm nuts about games. I have two consoles, a gaming PC, and two laptops that play legacy games. I can't get enough. I've even written for Player2Player [player2player.net] because I can't shut up about them.


    I'm also a parent. Three children. 6/3/1 in age(s). My son (6) is nuts about games. I can't blame him. He's exposed to them daily. Loves playing Tony Hawk on the Xbox. Defeated Gauntlet for the PS1, all by himself. Is working on Jet Set Radio Future lately. Is going gonzo over Disney's ToonTown MMG [toontown.com]. My daughter (3), is picking up on it. She can pilot a character in JSRF. Can't do much with it, but she'll spend 5 minutes making the avatar skate about.


    I'm a gamer. I'm a parent. My kids are gamers. Games are art & entertainment on the same level as music, film, and television. They are not so passive, but they are there to fill idle time and give pleasure to the consumer. Not all games are for children. I screen what my kids see, and play adult games after they sleep. On the same level I don't let the kids listen to my Slayer CD's, or watch the latest Horror flick that my wife rented, or watch The Man Show with me.


    As art, games should be protected. The government should not ban their creation and distribution, or sale. Like movies, games have ratings. Those should be enforced. Selling a minor GTA 3, Vice City should be no different than selling a minor the latest copy of Playboy. Or a beer. Or a pack of Camels.


    There are games that are not meant for children. I have no problems with the government forcing retailers to enforce the ESRB ratings. When I buy a case of beer, I get carded. If I can't provide the card, I get denied the sale. If a kid brings GTA3 up to the register, he/she should be carded, and denied sale if not 18.


    It's a good system. Extra laws are not needed to make things worse. Yeah, loopholes exist, but at least it is something, and it's rational. It's just like the movies, and there is no outcry that a few kids get by the ropes and into rated "R" films. It seems entirely logical to emulate that, even if I babble too much.
    • That is the lamest excuse to grant protection against censorship.

      If games were art they would be the only art form ever known to mankind aimed squarely at males aged 16-35 with high purchasing power.

  • Commercial products aren't speech (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:39AM (#5502646) Journal
    I'm a member of the EFF, and I get as rabid as the next /.er about censorship and such like, but I really do think that classification of certain commercial products as "not for minors without parental consent" is justified. That includes movies, books, pictures, alcohol, cigarettes. Children learn what is normal and acceptable through observing the world around them. Skewing this perception with graphic sexual violence, especially rewarding such behaviour in a game, should be restricted.

    Getting back to the subject, investing millions of dollars in a commercial product that has tremendous psychological impact on an entire generation isn't "speech", and I'm surprised that the anti-coprorate mindset confuses the two.
    • I couldn't agree more on most of your comments. However, rewarding a gamer with "graphic sexual violence" shouldn't be restricted -- its upto the parents to police their kids, not the industry. We already have too much government regulation in areas where they don't really belong.

      Don't gut the undustry as a whole to protect the children whose parents are too lazy to police them.

      The gaming industry says they have as much right as movie makers. Guess what? Movies have a rating and an adult is required to ge
      • However, rewarding a gamer with "graphic sexual violence" shouldn't be restricted ... Guess what? Movies have a rating and an adult is required to get you into certain movies. Should be the same with video games.
        That's what I mean by "restricted".
    • I'd say the "anti-corporate mindeset" is on your side of the screen. Me, I notice that publishers of books and newspapers are commercial enterprises, but I'm glad that I can read dangerous and provocative books and the daily news without undue hinderance.
      • Of course you should have access- I'm assuming you are an adult. I see NO difference between rating and restricting movie and doing the same with video games. The law seems to restrict access to violent games by MINORS. I think this has been lost in the discussion.

        • I see NO difference between rating and restricting movie and doing the same with video games.

          Fine then. Tell me, who in your state sets those ratings, and who enforces them? AFAIK, the MPAA ratings are just that -- industry ratings, not law. Your local theatre chooses to bar minors, because if they did otherwise the distributors might not agree to rent films to them.

          Now if your local XXX theatre admits a minor, then the police can get involved under whatever local laws you have regarding pornography, not

          • Tell me, who in your state sets those ratings, and who enforces them?
            In the 51st state [google.co.uk], it's an independent committee [bbfc.co.uk], and the law, respectively.
            • Ah, I should have noticed the "co.uk" in your address. US law (as discussed in the article) is different.

              Doesn't

              A foreign DVD offered for sale in the UK is likely to be illegal under the Video Recordings Act (VRA) 1984 unless its content (including any additional material) has been classified by the BBFC.

              bother you? How long, for instance, could the BBFC sit on a movie, not classifying it and therefore forbidding its distribution? I'm not claiming that their intentions are evil, but I'm struck by the ide

              • Doesn't

                A foreign DVD offered for sale in the UK is likely to be illegal under the Video Recordings Act (VRA) 1984 unless its content (including any additional material) has been classified by the BBFC.

                bother you?

                I suppose it should, but the law isn't enforced. There's a good little shop in central London that stocks R1 DVDs, and I can order them from play.com in Jersey (the British island, not New Jersey) as well.

                I'm simply speculating here, but whatsay I had a movie that "exposed the seamy unders

    • "Getting back to the subject, investing millions of dollars in a commercial product...isn't "speech"...."

      You're joking, right? How much do you think it costs The New York Times to print just one edition? Since they're spending millions of dollars (or, more accurately, the corporation which owns The New York Times is spending it), should that paper not enjoy the benefits of freedom of speech? Should we set a dollar limit on how much you can spend before your right to free expression is negated? Or are "inal
      • What I mean is, if NYT filled their pages with pornography, I would not defend their right to sell their publication to minors on a "freedom of speech" defence. Publishing a newspaper is speech, that is not a contradiction of my earlier assertion that "investing millions of dollars in a commercial product...isn't 'speech'". Humans are mammals. Mammals aren't humans.
    • Your own statements prove you wrong. Commercial Products ARE Speech - you said so yourself: "Skewing this perception with graphic sexual violence, especially rewarding such behaviour in a game, should be restricted."

      In other words, the games are sending the political message that "sex and violence are not evil and are in fact acceptable behavior."

      You personally may thing that this clearly political statement is wrong and skewed, but that does not change the fact that it IS a political statement.

      I he

      • You personally may thing that this clearly political statement is wrong and skewed, but that does not change the fact that it IS a political statement.

        What offends me is that powerful groups with undemocratic influence use their power to put across their message in overwhelmingly effective ways. Parents can't compete with Fox.

        While I do not think Violence is neccesarily evil, I definitely think not allowing the other side to speak IS evil.

        Anyone has the right to speak, but not everyone has the capabilit

        • Parents CAN compete with Fox. Look, 95% of TV is junk. Only 5% of it is worth anything. Quality is worth 1000 times what Quantity is.

          What do you think - that you are smart enough to realize that TV has some bad ideas, but your poor defenseless kids are morons???? No. The kids are ignorant, not stupid. If their parents are making SENSE, they are far more effected by what their parents say than anything said by TV.

          But when their parents put forth garbage like "Masturbation makes you go blind" then wo

          • What do you think - that you are smart enough to realize that TV has some bad ideas, but your poor defenseless kids are morons???? No. The kids are ignorant, not stupid. If their parents are making SENSE, they are far more effected by what their parents say than anything said by TV.
            I hope you're right.

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @11:14AM (#5502929)
    The question is not whether certain industries have "free speech rights". They obviously do, but nobody is obliged to listen. The question is whether minors (for some definition of "minor") have "free consumption rights". Somebody who knows more about the constitution will have to reply on that. For instance, there are all sorts of activities and "consumptions" with minors in which we prohibit transactions. For instance, the sale of tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. Notice that this is NOT a restriction on the purchasing minor (the minor can still USE tobacco, alcohol, and pornography completely legally), it is a restriction on what can be SOLD, or in other words, regulation. I don't think "free speech" enters the discussion. Nobody's speech or expression is being abridged (although some would equate economic transactions with "speech"...i DO NOT).

    This is still a legitimate question nonetheless. It still raises the issue of legitimate speech that minors would want to consume but be prohibited from consuming...matters relating to health of minors, politics regarding minors, etc. None of this I see being abridged, and none of this I expect to be present in video games or pornography. Then again, I played lots of video games and saw movies that probably would not be sold to me, and I don't think I'm any worse for it.

    An interesting comparison would be Hollywood's intentional and flagrant marketing of sex and violence to minors. The video game industry thrives off a young audience, but I do not think they have done anything NEAR as repulsive as marketing and study groups with minors. The worst they have done is run commercials aimed towards minors (parents, you have control of the remote, and the wallet).

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hard_Code ( 49548 )

      The worst they have done is run commercials aimed towards minors (parents, you have control of the remote, and the wallet).

      Although, let me also say, that I see no problem with regulating, for instance, commercials aimed at minors (especially very very young minors). It is repulsive to find that some companies are targeting advertising starting at newborn age. I find no legitimate "speech" being conveyed in endless commercials between cartoons to consume consume consume. What legitimate "speech" are you

      • Blockquoth the poster:

        What legitimate "speech" are you really going to convey in a commercial to a child that is 1, 3, 5, 7 years old? It's disgusting.

        Free speech only works when no one gets to decide which speech is "legitimate" and which is merely disgusting. That's why so much time is spent each year in court dancing with obscenity cases. Free speech means that speech is not assigned a value (by the government) by content but only by context. That's why you can ban all parades down Main Street a

        • I understand that in principle, but in reality, free speech IS qualified. The obvious case is yelling fire in a crowded theater or making credible threats on the presidents life (which could be generalized to "harrassment", forms of which are also illegal) - which have no EXPRESSIVE value (unless done by some crackpot art house???). While in principle an argument could be made that we shouldn't do this (e.g., abridgement of speech due to apocryphal "national security" reasons, etc.), in reality, we do and
          • Personally I do not think there is any expression PRESENT in advertising towards very young children, although I do agree this is just a peeve
            Another question is whether non-human entities have free speech to begin with. The whole corporation/person dichotomy. Personally I'm not so sure individual rights can or should extend to groups independent of attachment to a given person (conservatives will pull out the case of labor unions).
  • Parents have to, gee I don't know...PARENT their own spawn???

    This country spends too much time passing legislation to let parents off the hook. Now, I dont belive that an 8 year old should be able to just walk into EB and walk out with a fresh new copy of Soldier of Fortune II, but I belive that is because his/her mother/father was with him/her and said no, not becasue the pimply kid at the desk said the gov't said no.

    If parents are parents, games cause no harm. Neither do movies or music. I started o

  • Of course they should have the same rights... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis&ubasics,com> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @11:46AM (#5503254) Homepage Journal
    They should have the same rights as movie publishers.

    If the game, as a central feature to its plot, has a ton of realistic violence, especially in an environment the person is likely to be found in normally (a city), then the game should be rated "R" or "PG-13" and restricted to being sold to minors of the appropiate age or with their guardians.

    This isn't rocket science. These are laws developed to help parents give children some freedom they couldn't have otherwise. I know that I can send my kid to the movies and he isn't going to see certian things. If I knew the theater might let him in to a rated R movie, I wouldn't let him go without me. He desires that little bit of freedom, and the movie theater, by setting up a basic agreement with me, is providing me with that assurance.

    Secondly, I work in the video rental business. It would be easy for video rental places to sell or rent to minors only with a guardian's previously given permission since the kid would then have his/her own card. It's not so easy with retail outlets. If a game shop wants to set up such a system, though, it would be trivial to deal with.

    The upshot is that this does not degrade your freedom, unless you're a minor. If you are a minor, you have very little real freedom anyway. If you think all minors should be able to access this material on their whim without parental consent then you have very different opinions about raising children than many people who actually have experience in doing so.

    -Adam

  • sigh (Score:2)

    by dh003i ( 203189 )
    All this crap about violent video games causing violence is bullshit. I played and play plenty of violent video games, yet you don't see me going around murdering and raping people, do you? And those nutcases at Columbine didn't kill people because they played one too many instances of Doom, ok!

    In general, I say that I'm not going to sacrafice MY freedoms -- or those of anyone else -- because some woman forgot to put in her diaphram or some man forgot to put on his condom and now doesn't want to accept s
    • You would have helped your point remaining quiet.

      So much xenophobic misinformed diatribe based in nothing is completely ridiculous.

      It would be good you show in what other than thin air are you basing your conclussions.
  • it is utterly ridiculous that ny one is going to try to censor or ban violent games. If people want the games they will get them. Even if the hand of god comes down from the heavens and smites everyone employed in all the major software companies, freeware programmers still be programming violent computers games as they wish, downloadable on the internet - the source of all free arcana.

  • I have the answer to this issue. It is elegant, egalitarian (well, mostly), easy to implement and enforce, and it fits squarely within Constitutional guidelines.

    The solution is to ban all minors from purchasing any printed materials, music, motion pictures, or video games, or access to them, without an over-18 present. This solution could be further perfected by banning unescorted minors from entering places that sell such materials.

    This solution is perfect. It is simple and easy to enforce. Just ch

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Close