Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Censorship News Your Rights Online

Violent Video Game Restriction Struck Down 318

Posted by michael from the GTA-shipments-resume dept.
Nutsquasher was the first to submit news that a ban on selling violent video games to minors has been struck down, reversing an earlier decision in this case that held that video games were not a constitutionally protected form of speech. The decision (pdf) is available. Since the Federal government has been considering a national law along these lines, these decisions on local laws may be important soon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Violent Video Game Restriction Struck Down More

Violent Video Game Restriction Struck Down

Comments Filter:

  • The ball is not in our court (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Swayne Shabazz ( 678612 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:14PM (#6109930)
    "I'm looking for the sunny side to a situation that seems littered with defeat."

    The corporations have all of the money and weild recently gained legistlation, so you have to expect that the momentum will favor them. Consumer backlash won't hit a politician's radar until the outspoken make up a large number of their own constituents (or consist of a few of their wealthiest constituents). The courts will continue to side with the corporations more often then not, because again, it's still their home turf. Until the ripple effects of the DMCA start to annoy more people (not just the "technically inclined" or the random college student), the bulk of the rulings will go towards the corporate masters.

  • She keeps playing minesweeper on my computer. Thats pretty violent, i mean with all the dead happy faces and all.

  • That's good (Score:5, Funny)

    by PS-SCUD ( 601089 ) <peternormanscott&yahoo,com> on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:15PM (#6109938) Journal
    Because I swear, I was gonna kill someone if it didn't.
    • Hello, I'm Special Agent Shannon from the FBI. Under the PATRIOT Act, your recent post to slashdot.org threatening to "kill someone" is a First Degree Felony. Agents should be arriving at your place of residence at any moment to take you into custody. Have a nice day.

  • How is this different from porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:15PM (#6109943)
    I'm really confused about this. How is sexually explicit material in a game any different from sexually explicit material on a DVD?

    If I take 'Debbie Does Dallas 24' from a DVD, add some interactive components, like some sort of with-your-mallet-hit-the-boobs thing, can I suddenly go out and sell it to minors?

    • There are laws that have to do with obscenity in most states. An interactive porno would still be considered to be obscene and would still be restricted under different laws

    • Re:How is this different from porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:39PM (#6110167)
      Hence why the law was struck down on the fact that it also outlawed violence. The judge (imo correctly) ruled that violent images are not obscene, and thus protected by the 1st amendment. Likely a similar law baring sexual content would stand (and afaik already exists in many places)

      • Re:How is this different from porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sean80 ( 567340 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:43PM (#6110201)
        I'll never, ever understand this ordering of priorities. If I had to make a choice for my kids, would I rather they got out into the street and have sex with a lot of people, or go out into the street and shoot a lot of people? I know that sounds funny, but it's what we're ultimately talking about here.

        To me, violence is far more obscene than sexually explicit material.

      • > > [...] > If I take 'Debbie Does Dallas 24' from a DVD, add some interactive components, like some sort of with-your-mallet-hit-the-boobs thing, can I suddenly go out and sell it to minors?
        >
        > Hence why the law was struck down on the fact that it also outlawed violence. The judge (imo correctly) ruled that violent images are not obscene, and thus protected by the 1st amendment.

        So the solution to the poster's problem is not to make a game of "with your mallet hit the boobs", but "like a

    • 2 steps, and i agree with you (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @07:19PM (#6110495) Homepage
      There are 2 escapes from 1st A. protection considered here. If it is obscene it is not speech (per the SC, not me); if it is not obscene, then it can be restricted only for the most compelling reasons and necessity. Obscene is legally defined as material lacking literary, artistic, political or social value. Here the 8th Circuit apparently has an earlier ruling saying across the board is NEVER obscene, so the obscenity argument is out the window; then they ruled that the paternalistic argument is not enough.

      As for Debbie, well she may be obscene (for depicting erect penis, insertionn, or other random criteria) but tolerated in many communities, and enforcement on porno is spotty. Adding an interactive component certainly will not make it less obscene. Indeed what carried the day here was that it was violence and not sex, which if you at the movies is far more tolerated in our culture, and i'll be the first to concede *that* is the real sickness. I vote for more sex, less violence. :) I wouldn't ban any of this stuff, but would consider limiting access to minors in a way that at least allow parents to parent as they see fit.

    • As usual the Slashdot crowd, while my first goto on technical matters, isn't quite up to speed on the legal side of things. While I am not a lawyer I'm more or less married to one, so let me see if I can clarify this.

      The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that certain types of material can be declared "obscene." This differs from material that is just offensive. Obscene material offends the sensibilities of the community it is in so much that the rights of one person to have/view that material infringe

  • Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gortbusters.org ( 637314 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:16PM (#6109951) Homepage Journal
    poor parenting does. You can play video games and not go on a rampage at your local high school. Instead of ignoring children for your favorite TV show or leaving them home alone in the afternoons with a video game, try talking to them.

    Professor Jane Healy discusses this in her book, Endangered Minds.

    • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:21PM (#6110012)
      christ, you wouldn't say that if you knew my kids. They are demons....I work late just to _avoid_ seeing them, let alone speaking with them for prolonged periods.
      Frankly, if they went on a killing spree it would be a relief...the authorities would finally remove the mad little fuckers from our house...

    • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DeepDarkSky ( 111382 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:24PM (#6110032)
      But you can never say that violent video games have no effect or no influence whatsoever on the individuals that play them. Neither does, as your post seem to imply (though I know that's not what you meant), poor parenting breed violence.

      Good parenting can minimize the violence, but poor parenting doesn't necessarily cause violence. Neither can you say with 100% certainty that violent games do not cause violent behavior - it depends on too many different factors - but violent games by themselves cannot be proven to definitely cause violent behavior.

      (If that wasn't a muddle confusing mess, I don't know what is)

      • Neither can you say with 100% certainty that violent games do not cause violent behavior

        Yes I can.
        The reasoning goes like this: Was there violent behaviour before videogames? Yes? Then videogames are not the cause of the violence. Pretty simple. : )

      • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:52PM (#6110268) Homepage
        Maybe I'm a freak, but violent games never caused violence in me. My gaming is kinda the opposite of my philosophy, I play violent games, but I have never supported violence of any type. In fact, I am arderntly against any form of violence. Therefore, I really do blame the parents. If parents would just instill some MORALS into their kids, the violence would definitely be minimized. And that doesn't even mean you need to spend a great deal of time with your kids either. I'm a latch-key kids, and I practically raised my little brothers and sisters. But what time my parents did spend with me, they spent teaching me right from wrong, and just expressing their love. That's all it takes, but people seem incapable of just that.

        From what I've seen, it's that parents don't correct their kids soon enough. Maybe I'm just a sadistic bastard, but a parent sometimes needs to resort to some less than savory method to correct their kids (spare the rod and spoil the child and all), but most parents don't seem to want to get their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty of being a parent.

        Not to beat a dead horse, but I feel safe in saying that the only reason why games get so much bad attention is that parents want a scape goat, an easy way out of responsibility. Perhaps responcibility is a concept long lost to most American parents these days, and the ones that do try to take responsibilty do so by censoring out the world. This in itself is, imo, flawed in concept and dangerous for the child. A child whom is given options will, with positive assistance and advice fromt he parents, make better decisions. From what I've seen, the most violent children are children whose parents were over protective. It is their insatiable urge to be freed from the bounds of their parents that seems to drive their violence. This, of course, doesn't call into account the poorer groups in society, where violence stems from much more conviluted sources, but its the middle class that purchases the most games.

        I know that some children shouldn't play violent games because it does increase their violent behavior. as much as i love FPS, i accept that some people are too impresionable for them. The trick, as I see it, is to instill maturity and decision making skills into the child, and to remind them that you love them. After that, it is up to them to find their way in life. I know that I've made mistakes that could have been avoided, but I've learned through trial and error that violence is wrong, and society is better without it. And I feel that is everyones goal, to build a better society. To do so, you must teach your child how to make decisions, not to make them for them. Leave the games alone, let them choose whether or not they want to play them, and don't be afraid to punish them when their behavior gets out of line.

        (hmmmm, wow, that rambles)
      • Neither can you say with 100% certainty that violent games do not cause violent behavior - it depends on too many different factors - but violent games by themselves cannot be proven to definitely cause violent behavior.

        I think I can say that, and this might sound like a nitpick, but I believe that this is a very important difference.

        Freewill causes violence, no matter what anyone has watched they are still the ones that choose to commit an act of violence. Now, they might be more likely to be violent

    • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:25PM (#6110045) Homepage Journal
      Video games don't breeb violence...poor parenting does.

      No, but an argument could be made for desensitization. I think I have posted this here before, but in the Corps (Marine Corps), one of the most difficult things to do in training recruits is to get them to not hesitate pulling the trigger to end another human beings life. (humans tend to default towards not killing each other unless they are sociopaths which the Corps does not want). To overcome this issue, recently the Corps has been experimenting with 3D shootemups in an attempt at desensitization and teaching squad maneuvering and strategy skills, but primarily desensitization.

      So, do video games desensitize kids to violence?

      • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by crotherm ( 160925 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:32PM (#6110116) Journal
        I have killed probably millions of digital people in my game playing days, but when I accidentially step on a snail, I get bummed out. To me, life is sacred. But that is not to say that I don't think killing can be justified, it is just very regretable.

        • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:42PM (#6110195) Homepage Journal
          I have killed probably millions of digital people in my game playing days, but when I accidentially step on a snail, I get bummed out. To me, life is sacred. But that is not to say that I don't think killing can be justified, it is just very regretable.

          Well, that is encouraging and good to know. However, it is one thing to say that "yes, I played video games (I most certainly did) and there is nothing wrong with me! I don't kill people". But it is quite another thing to perform population studies and test the hypothesis that video games do not desensitize people to violence. Isolated individuals speaking up does not a scientific study make.

          • no, but it could be the start of one...

            I smell a new slashdot poll!!!!!!

            OK, so a slashdot poll is far from scientific, but this topic has come up in the past and if you take what people post as their true feelings, (i know, i know) then I would say that I have seen very few people say they have become desensitized.

        • when I accidentially step on a snail, I get bummed out.

          Of course you do! You just wasted a prefectly delicious entrée!

          Hmmm...snail
        • It's all a matter of what you're used to. Do some gardening in a damp climate for a while and you'll be stepping on every snail and slug you can find.
        • > I have killed probably millions of digital people in my game playing days,

          Me too.

          First-person-shooters are for wimps.

          Let's hear it for turn-based strategy games! Body counts in the billions!

      • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Keeper ( 56691 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:58PM (#6110329)
        So, do video games desensitize kids to violence?

        Only if the kid is unable to determine the difference between fiction/fantasy and reality and is able to remove the "violence" from the context. No matter how you wrap it, video games are distinctly artificial, and like tv, you know that what is happening isn't "real."

        Regardless of the number of times I've seen a car crash on tv, in the movies, on nascar, or how "fun" it is to trash cars in video games, getting involved in the real thing (for me) definately triggered a different reaction than "awesome."

        The military (to varrying extents) brainwashes recruits. THAT is how they get them to not hesitate pulling the trigger. The methods they use to perform this brainwashing have varied over time, but merely playing a video game will not be enough to accomplish the goal.

    • no, no, no (Score:3, Insightful)

      by appleLaserWriter ( 91994 )
      GOOD parenting encourages violence. We must kill all the terrorists! Counterstrike!

    • Re:Video games don't breed violence... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kazad ( 619012 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:33PM (#6110131) Homepage
      It's true that bad parenting (or no parenting at all) is a large problem, but the video games and TV shows need to take responsibility as well.

      Parents who police and control their child's every movement probably cause as much psychological damage as the violent games/shows. Realistically, parents cannot monitor every audiovisual input their child receives -- it is the duty of those *creating* that input to make it reasonably wholesome for the sake of children.

      Violent games/TV shows are about trends -- not every person will attack someone, but does the average person become more violent? If so, there is a negative influence. Think about brainwashing and propaganda -- still think TV/movies/games don't have any effect? None at all?

      A particularly poignant example is this: in high school, I saw a video that showed a live execution. It was during the Vietnam War; an officer held a gun to the head of an enemy solider (Viet Cong I think), pulled the trigger, and the victim fell. He slumped over, blood spurted out of his head like a fountain, and slowly subsided.

      That really effected me. I think we can agree that is a moving video. But why is that so different from a video game depicting the same thing. "Because it's real!" you say. The fact that *you* know it is real and not a hollywood set makes that difference. The same exact audiovisual input, coupled with the fact that "it's real" makes it scary.

      Now think about kids. They have a hard time understanding what is real and what isn't, hell, we give them stories about the Easter Bunny and Santa. And so we expect them to understand that the deaths on the news are entirely different than the deaths on a video game, even though with increasing graphics, etc. they may look strikingly similar.

      I'm not against banning the games; humans have come a long way from the Roman Colleseum and spectators making a sport of death. Death is a sad, inevitable fact of life, which cannot be fully appreciated by young children. Training them to kill at that age, or to view repeated killings, will surely have some effect. Minimizing this before they are old enough to understand (like restricting porn from them when they are young) is a Good Thing.

      So yeah, I want to play some counterstrike/quake like the next guy, but maybe the little chilluns should kill monsters (aka Doom 3) instead of living, breathing humans.

      That's my two cents. =)

      • but the video games and TV shows need to take responsibility as well.

        But in the natural and man-made world, death surrounds us and always will. Should a wolf bear responsibility for taking down prey where children might see it? Is the cat that got splattered all over highway 50 responsible for the kids that see it's carcas?

        Respect for death and the cycle of life is just as important as respect for life itself. It's the responsibility of the parents and all adults around children to help them understand

    • try talking to them I tried, but my 2 year old is really difficult to understand sometimes, so it gets a little tedious.

  • original judge (Score:4, Funny)

    by sweeney37 ( 325921 ) * <mikesweeney@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:17PM (#6109966) Homepage Journal
    In April 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh rejected a request by a video game industry group to invalidate the ordinance.

    Judge Stephen Limbaugh first cousin to, none-other than everyone's favorite Rush Limbaugh....

    Mike

  • Of course! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by appleLaserWriter ( 91994 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:18PM (#6109978)
    Training on violent video games [americasarmy.com] was one of the key contributing factors to the United States' success in invading Iraq.

  • Washington state, too? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by discHead ( 3226 ) <3zcxrr602@sneakemail.com> on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:19PM (#6109981) Homepage
    It'll be interesting to see what impact this has on a similar law that was just recently signed into law by Washington state's governor.
  • Just in case you wonder. Yes Judge Limbaugh is the Fat Idiot's [amazon.com] brother.

  • It didn't work, anyways (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I live in Crestwood, MO, which is in Saint Louis County. I go to Best Buy to buy games rather often. Never once have I been questioned about my age when trying to buy a game, whether it be violent or not. And I'm 16 years old. It's possible to enforce this law (they've managed to enforce checking IDs when buying alcoholic beverages) but nobody really tries to do so.

  • Definition == Slippery Slope (Score:3, Insightful)

    by StAugustineLovesYou ( 678635 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:21PM (#6110002) Homepage Journal
    The problem is when you try to actually start defining what constitutes "violent games" or speach, etc... you wind up with thought police. Fortunately, courts have had the wisdom in this case to throw out all of the "you'll know it when you see it" arguments. I mean you could argue that Mario encourages violence against animals and drug use and get some yokul to picket Toys R Us.
    • "Though police"? How do you figure that?

      I think it is pretty obvious to any reasonable person what constitutes a "violent game". Then there is the guy picketing Toys-R-Us. Then there is the guy worried about him.

  • yay, I can kill nazi's now (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:21PM (#6110005)
    But remember kids, killing nazi's is limited to castle wolfenstein. The same free speech rights that protect your authortity figure slauter protect neo-nazies too.

  • Pre-emptive strike (Score:5, Informative)

    by fahrvergnugen ( 228539 ) <fahrv@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:21PM (#6110010) Homepage

    Before Yet Another Moron gets on here and starts ranting about how it works for the movies, why not for the games, won't someone PLEASE think of the children:

    The MPAA ratings are voluntary and are not enforced under penalty of law. There is nothing about them at all that is legally binding. The only pressure theater operators face to enforce them is economic, not criminal. This is arguably what makes them constitutional, where this law is not. IANAL etc.

  • This was going to happen. It happened because, it's a video game.

    It's about time it happened to.

    You may have noticed I didn't explain in much detail this time. That's because if you don't already know and understand my point, you'll never get it and I'm not going to preach to the choir.

    DUH
  • Appears to be Rush Limbaugh's Uncle [rosecity.net] or Cousin [capegirardeaucvb.org]! (looks like this Stephen is the cousin)

  • Another article (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You can read more about this court decision here [stltoday.com].
  • than that's a crappy parent. At least Mom. Dads usually don't know quite how old you are, or even if you're really his kid.

    I didn't get to play Operation (the Wacky Doctor Game) or Clue until I was 18. I can see why, now that I am older and wiser.

    I could at any moment tried to extract the funny bone from a schoolmate, or hit my sister with a candlestick in the study.

    Thank goodness for calming coloring books and play-dough. Well, time for lockdown, night...

  • What percentage of games are actually non-violent?

    Is a game considered non-violent as long as the characters are represented in a cartoonish, non-human, guise...and cute child-like music is playing in the background? Or is there some other arbitrary designation? Who defines the line?
  • Why is the court even bothering to worry about 1st amendment? That seems besides the point in this case. An NC-17 film is protected free speech. But a minor can't walk in and see that. That's because a minor doesn't share the basic rights of an adult in the US, but instead needs parental consent to obtain these rights. After reading the decision, it seems like the court didn't really see violence as a big deal, and therefore, weren't worried about restricting minor access based on violence. I think if a vid

    • An NC-17 film is protected free speech. But a minor can't walk in and see that. That's because a minor doesn't share the basic rights of an adult in the US, but instead needs parental consent to obtain these rights

      Actually, it is because the NC-17 (and the movie ratting system as a whole) is a voluntery policy adapted by the MPAA and NATO (National Association of Theater Owners.) It is not a law and the government is in no way involved in it's enforcment and in fact producers and theaters are free to i

  • I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by extrarice ( 212683 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:34PM (#6110137) Homepage Journal
    Movies have ratings. It's good form to restrict minor access to a rated R film without being accompanied by an adult. Games have ratings on them now, based on roughly the same criteria. Why is it bad to prevent minor access to rated-M games without permission from a parent/guardian/adult?
    Please, somebody explain this to me. If it's ok for one, why is it not ok for the other?
    • Because the MPAA ratings have to legal backings. Its all economic based.
    • MPAA ratings not backed by the force of law. There's the difference.
    • The difference is really who wants to sell it. I think, and don't quote me on this, that a minor has virtually 0 rights in US law. Therefore, it should be up to the PARENTS, or those with LOCOS PARENTIS, to enforce those laws. Movie theators, IIRC, are only doing their enforcement voluntarily, and most do so to avoid angry parents. Not that the employees enforce the rules most of the time.

      Personally, I am against the barring of purchasing either, only the parent should decide.

      But then there is economics.

  • If violent video games made for violent people (Score:4, Funny)

    by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:34PM (#6110139) Homepage
    Damn, I used to play a lot of Unreal Tournament while working tech support. If violent video games made for violent people, it wouldn't be called "going postal" it'd be called "going technical".

  • Are you sure that wasn't a link to the ordinance-dismissal advocate's case? The thing read like a rampaging Slashdot reply, except it actually stuck to the points of the case. Amazing.

    Ryan Fenton

  • Awful... (Score:2, Funny)

    by TallEmu ( 646970 )
    First Minors, what's next? Pensioners?

    ... according to a story in todays Sydney Morning Herald [smh.com.au] they are violent enough already [smh.com.au]

  • Theres that FF theme again! (Score:3, Funny)

    by bludstone ( 103539 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:42PM (#6110189)
    Am I the only one who had the Final Fantasy battle victory music pop into their heads after seeing this headline?

    bumbumbumbum baaabaaa BUM BUM BUMmmm!

  • Anyone have a link to the actual opinion?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Th0th ( 15289 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:44PM (#6110206) Homepage
    Reason I'm asking is that from the press article, it appears that Judge Limbaugh doesn't know what he is talking out. The article says that Limbaugh stated that the ordinance does not hold up to constitutional scrutiny for first amendment reasons, while he does say that obscenity is one exception to first amendment freedoms. This is all true, but nowhere in the article does it discuss the legal definition of indecent, and how indecent material, while it still falls within the rubrick of first amendment freedoms, can be specifically regulated when dealing with minors. This is why minors are not allowed in Topless Bars, regardless of whether alcohol is served, and why the FCC can regulate when indecent materials can be shown on television (from 10:00pm to 6:00am). Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying I'm not happy that the kids can buy their video games now, I just don't understand the rationale, legally.

  • About time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MunchMunch ( 670504 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:47PM (#6110234) Homepage
    Yay! BTW, Favorite quote:

    "Our review of the record convinces us that these "violent" video games contain stories, imagery, "age-old themes of literature," and messages, "even an 'ideology,' just as books and movies do." ... Indeed, we find it telling that the County seeks to restrict access to these video games precisely because their content purportedly affects the thought or behavior of those who play them."

  • I am a minor... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Phoenix Dreamscape ( 205064 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:56PM (#6110310) Homepage
    I'm 17, I've been playing violent video games for longer than I can remember without parental supervision or limitations. I'm the polar opposite of "aggressive", to the point that I can't drive in heavy traffic because I'm not aggressive enough to switch lanes. When a recruiter for the Marines called me, I told him, "I'm sorry, I don't kill people" and hung up the phone.

    On the other hand, I played a Ferrari racing game in an arcade yesterday, and 10 minutes later I was in my car peeling out at red lights and red-lining in every gear.

    I guess that means that I "suffer a deleterious effect on [my] psychological health" when I play racing games. Those evil devices should be illegal!

    Or maybe it means that I'm a bad driver. That game didn't hypnotize me and make me drive like an asshole. I was fully aware of what I was doing, and chose to do it anyway. Sure, the game triggered that behavior, but something else could have triggered it just as easily. Being passed by a 350Z on the highway does the same thing. Vroom vroom.

    I'm willing to bet a good sum of money that that's how violent video games work too. They don't make people violent, they make violent people active. The question is, would their violence be triggered by something else if not by a video game?
    • I'm 17 [...] I played a Ferrari racing game in an arcade yesterday, and 10 minutes later I was in my car peeling out at red lights and red-lining in every gear.

      yup, you're 17 allright.
      There's a reason why car insurance cost more for 17 year olds...

      Don't worry, if you survive you first crash, you'll learn to slow down and be more carefull...I did.

  • Reign in your righteous indignation for a minute.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fondue ( 244902 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:56PM (#6110311)
    I don't understand how restricting the sale of violent videogames to minors has to be jumped on as a 'freedom of speech' issue. It seems to me that taking this tack plays into the hands of the industry's representative (read: lobbying) bodies, who do not necessarily have the best interests of the development community (let alone society at large) at heart (read: they'd sell their grandmothers for a quick buck).

    Aiming violent games at kids (even in an indirect way) may be profitable but it's a guaranteed way to ensure that video games (the medium as a whole- as casual observers do not make distinctions between good and bad) continue to be viewed as cynically exploitative and not worthy of the same standard of intellectual appraisal as other media. This perception is more of a handicap to the medium's evolution than any number of vague retail laws.

  • This could actually be a good thing. (Score:3)

    by tetro ( 545711 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @06:59PM (#6110331) Homepage
    First off, minors shouldn't play games where the objective is to realistically murder people. I think adults still have the right to play these games, not minors. Secondly, this will give the gaming industry the much needed impetus to actually come up with good games. I'm tired or FPU's and other lame games.

    • Re:This could actually be a good thing. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @07:07PM (#6110389)
      First off, minors shouldn't play games where the objective is to realistically murder people.

      And why not? I don't care about your opinion; can you cite any scientific studies that prove actual harm? Why is it that a day before his 18th birthday, a young adult shouldn't be allowed to participate in fantasy violence, but the next day it is perfectly ok to ship the same young adult to Iraq on a mission to actually kill real people? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

  • MAVAV.org [mavav.org] Let's stop videogame addiction and violence today!

  • If my behaviour in video games.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @07:39PM (#6110620)
    reflects my behavior in real life, for your sake, let's just hope I don't become a god with a giant animal friend.

    *SMACK* Did I tell you to feed the hungry? Now go fetch the ball I threw at the creche.

  • It's the parents! Damn you lousy parents! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phoenix Dreamscape ( 205064 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @07:51PM (#6110694) Homepage
    How can we all agree that "violent video games" don't make kids into hell-bent killers, and then turn around and say "bad parenting" does? If I go out and kill someone, I'm the murder. Not my parents, and not my Gamecube.

    Just because we're "minors" doesn't mean we can't be held accountable for our own behavior. You don't have to find someone else to blame. It's hard to determine exactly when a child has transitioned from ignorant to insane, but it's definitely earlier than 18. It may be that a 15-year-old kid kills his teacher because he's violent and his parents/teachers/video games/movies didn't teach him how to deal with anger properly, but he's still the violent one. If you don't think a 15-year-old realizes what the result of killing is, then perhaps it's been too long since you last spoke with one.

    One problem lies in our whole system of treating "minors" completely differently. If a 15-year-old kills his family, it's blamed on his parents and his hobbies, it makes news headlines around the world, and inspires weeks and months and years of angry discussion about what causes violence in youths. If an 18-year-old kills his family, everyone just says, "he's one sick bastard" and he goes to prison. The minor is rewarded with fame and attention, the rest are rewarded with hatred.

    • Re:It's the parents! Damn you lousy parents! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ciphertext ( 633581 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @08:31PM (#6110872)
      How can we all agree that "violent video games" don't make kids into hell-bent killers, and then turn around and say "bad parenting" does? If I go out and kill someone, I'm the murder. Not my parents, and not my Gamecube.

      The parents are, arguably, the primary source of psycho-social imprinting for the child. Typically, children learn their behavior, morals, values, and identity from their parents. The more involved the parents are in the child's life life the stronger that influence. The less involved the parents are in their children's life, the less the influence; and the stronger the influence that outside sources (neighbors, peers, television, etc...)have on the child's identity.

      Just because we're "minors" doesn't mean we can't be held accountable for our own behavior. You don't have to find someone else to blame. It's hard to determine exactly when a child has transitioned from ignorant to insane, but it's definitely earlier than 18. It may be that a 15-year-old kid kills his teacher because he's violent and his parents/teachers/video games/movies didn't teach him how to deal with anger properly, but he's still the violent one. If you don't think a 15-year-old realizes what the result of killing is, then perhaps it's been too long since you last spoke with one.

      That is why in most cases the minor is sentenced and the parents aren't convicted as accomplice to the crime. The fact that the 15 year old may or may not understand/realize the effect of murder (although that could be the case in rare circumstances) is not relevant. It is accepted that a fifteen year old understands the concept of "dead". What is relevant is the degree to which video games, television, movies, music, etc... desensitize the youth to the effects of killing, and thereby contribute to the condition (mental) which causes the youth to kill. There is compelling evidence [apa.org] to correlate violent video games and aggressive behavior, though not conclusive.

      One problem lies in our whole system of treating "minors" completely differently. If a 15-year-old kills his family, it's blamed on his parents and his hobbies, it makes news headlines around the world, and inspires weeks and months and years of angry discussion about what causes violence in youths. If an 18-year-old kills his family, everyone just says, "he's one sick bastard" and he goes to prison. The minor is rewarded with fame and attention, the rest are rewarded with hatred.

      I am not familiar with that case, although most social scientists would examinate a killer's background for study. I would blame the media for sensationalizing a criminal act, not necessarily the social scientist.

  • You wanna see violence? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CrazyJim0 ( 324487 ) on Tuesday June 03, 2003 @08:50PM (#6110988)
    I'm writing a violent video game that will be one of the most complex video games ever invented. I'm spending over 6000 hours of my own time developing it. I graduated CMU for CS, and no one will hire me, so I'm forced to make my own game. If you ban this too, after I spend every waking hour for three years working on it fueled by pure hate in the system, I don't even know what I'd do but I bet it wouldn't be pretty.

    I'll have my first demo at:

    http://delvedesigns.com/websites/clancrazy/index 2. html

    Only has attack moves in it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Close