Slashdot Log In
Most Laws Attempting Limits of Violent Videogames Fail
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Aug 21, 2007 03:47 PM
from the as-it-should-be dept.
from the as-it-should-be dept.
circletimessquare writes "Good news for common sense: the New York Times examines the track record of state laws attempting to put additional limits on violent videogames, and finds that the courts have struck almost all of them down as unconstitutional. Especially notable is this gem of a quote, from Judge Richard A. Posner: 'Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. 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.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
This may be -1 Fucking Obvious, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Though, since he's a justice and it is politics, I guess I'd settle for buying him a beer. Or two beers. Really nice beers, too, maybe one of those eastern European deals with the chocolate and nutmeg in it. Whatever tickled his fancy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have to disagree because the proper end to this sentence is:
To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images is a decision best left up to parents, not the government.
Note that the good judge has gone on about his opinion of to what children should be exposed to and not to whose rights are what. It's this ki
Tough Love (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Correct-Bedtime
Parent
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So why the hypocrisy with respect to pornography and other sexual or erotic descriptions.
Parent
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Religious institutions. You're much less likely to get excommunicated from your church for beating your wife vs. cheating on her. I never understood the logic myself. Why are we so much more lenient in censoring violence--an act that inflicts pain and can end human lives vs. sex--acts that bring pleasure and can create human life?
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:5, Funny)
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass: sex
Beauty and the Beast: sex
Cinderella: sex, nudity
Little red riding hood: bestiality
The list goes on and on.
Parent
Whoah whoah whoah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Think of the children!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's easy for a child to understand that pulling people out of a car and blowing their brains out in Grand Theft Auto means your character is the "Bad Guy". It's quite different for a child to understand why two men and a golden retriever are having sex, even if a child understands what sex is.
I think every video game, comic book, tv show, movie, etc that a kid would be interested in (ie, not bored to tears) has a pretty stark contrast between Good Guys and Bad Guys. Even if it's something like GTA where you have Bads Guys and Worse Guys. Comics, WWF, etc have been going in the direction of dark heros and even bad-is-good.
I always liked episodes of GI Joe where the Joes had to cooperate with Cobra to achieve some common goal. You still knew Cobra was the Bad Guys, but you respected them more for not being mindless in their badness. Although sometimes episodes like that leaves a young child with a lot of questions, but I would assume that he's going to ask someone older about it eventually. (I'm off on a tangent now)
The roles of sex between lovers is perhaps out of the grasp of the younger audience, and the role between carnality and perversion is way beyond the understanding of all but the most mature audience. If children watch porn, especially the hardcore stuff, they are not going to be able to make sense of it. They will eventually try to fit it into their world view, and likely get the facts wrong. I can only hope they would not end up too warped as they got older. Violence on the other hand seems to make sense to kids, because they see and practice violence often in their daily lives. And are taught lessons about violence by their parents regularly (don't hit, don't throw things, etc).
There are a very limited amount of things that a child really needs to know about sexuality. either taught or learned on their own through experience or observation. Mostly it has to do with roles and rules in society. Don't show your privates to other kids. don't touch others. tell an adult if someone touches you. boys are different than girls. and even things such as boys and girls become men and women, and men and women can make babies. (being vague about the mechanism is fine). Even roles between couples seems to make sense to kids. like boyfriend/girlfriend. even if they don't understand the purpose or what goes on between them or what "love(passionate)" is all about.
I think the fear is that children almost always understand that games like GTA are fantasy, that it is not "normal" to go around murdering people. I believe this is because children have experience with violence, and understand what a normal amount of violence is. If a kid is playing a game, playing "make believe", seeing a cartoon/film or hearing/reading a story, a child is going to have to decide if it is "pretend" or if it is real. Harry Potter is live action (and i think zapping people with spells is violent), with convincing special effects, but all but a few children realize that it is a work of fiction. remember, there is a dramatic difference between a child who prefers to act out "make believe" fantasies, and a child that does not know the difference between fantasy and reality.
But a kid doesn't not have experience with intercourse, so pornography, which is almost 100% fantasy. may not be recognized as fantasy by a child. A child might not realize that two guys banging a woman with giant breast implants is not "normal". And that it represents a mature fantasy, and that the entire image/film is staged precisely to depict a fantasy for the viewer.
There is nothing wrong with sex, intercourse, and sexuality. But I think many of us question the ability of a child to distinguish between sexual fantasy and sexual reality. Therefor I disagree that it is hypocrisy to restrict the flow of adult sexual content, while allowing children to be exposed to violence. (of course there are limits to this too, I don't think I would show a 1st grader Hellraiser or anything like that)
Parent
Jack Thompson...... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Judge Posner can't take your call, Mr. Thompson. He's playing the leaked copy of Manhunt 2."
Re:Jack Thompson......Quixotic! (Score:5, Insightful)
which is a flat-out perfect description of Jack Thompson:
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Then, I want to sit in the court room and try not to laugh each time he, or anyone else says the title....
Yet they keep trying (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yet they keep trying (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the balance of power between the legislators and the judges requires that there is no penalty. The congressmen represent us : they discuss the issue, do their best to make up their mind and vote. They should not be punished for being wrong. No more than you and I should be punished for voting for the 'wrong' candidate on election day.
Re:Yet they keep trying (Score:4, Interesting)
Penalty???
You are kidding.
People don't want non-foolish politicians or lawmakers; they want people in power that they can feel superior to. How do you think George W Bush got in power in the first place?
People don't want to feel inferior! So they vote for the idiots!
Duh!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
you're thinking about it the wrong way (Score:5, Insightful)
no. all around you, every day, is someone, somwhere, in some form or another, thinking it is a good idea to limit your freedoms. in fact, the worst sort of enemy are those who do this, thinking they are actually helping you (as many of the well-meaning but deluded legislators intend)
so when a little ray of light, like this story of universal failure on the front of limiting violent videogames breaks, then you should celebrate. don't be despondent
you'll need to celebrate. because tomorrow is another day, and tomorrow, some well-meaning but stupid legislator will cry "think of the children!" yet again. and again. and again
and you must go to battle yet again to protect your freedom. it's never easy. it's never over
and that's another important point: the people who pass these laws are not the minions of emperor palpatine, establishing the beachhead for the rise of fascism across the globe. they are in fact mostly well-meaning people, but are just deluded on the facts. you have to know your enemy to defeat him, and to give in to paranoid fantasies about evil operators of the illuminati finessing and manipulating the system in service of some dark agenda: no, you've been watching to many bad hollywood movies. don't attribute to evil that which is obviously the work of stupidity. and even worse, WELL MEANING stupidity. their heart is in the right place, but their mind is it. when we cry "won't somebody think of the children!" it's a simpson's punchline, and we all laugh. but for some people, "won't somebody think of the children!" is an earnest heartfelt honest to goodness cry of desperation and call to arms to fight to protect children
from what? well i'm not going to argue their stupidity here. that's not my point here. my point here is to simply demonstrate to you that the fight is not easy, and it's not a fight against evil. it's a fight against stupidity. and the fight never ends, and the fight is never easy
know the REAL nature of your enemy, roll up your sleeves, and get to work. it's the price you pay for your freedom: constant vigilance. the fight is never easy, the fight is never over
Parent
Thank you very much (Score:5, Insightful)
Flexible Posner Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, with the possible exception of the part about fairy tales, substitute "sex" for "violence" in the Posner quote and it would still be pretty accurate... and many of those fairy tales arguably have sexual undertones, so maybe it's a perfect fit.
The truth is, "childhood" as we know it--especially childhood that lasts until the age of 18 or 21--is a relatively modern invention. It has its advantages, economically and academically and in other ways, but frankly we spend a lot of time protecting an "innocence" that only exists in the minds of naive parents across the first world. I am the father of three children the protection I owe them is to protect them from people who would hurt them or take advantage of them, and from the consequences of their own ignorance--not to protect them from their own curiosity, except where that curiosity poses a danger they do not yet understand or are not yet able to handle on their own. And I don't need a liberal or conservative nanny state [kennethpike.com] interfering with that.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship priorities are in this order (in North America anyways):
1) Nudity
2) Language
3) Violence
That's right, it's worse for a kid to see a breast, than it is to hear the word fuck, than it is to see a violent murder. Ratings systems allow children access to #3 much sooner than #2, and then finally #1 once you're an adult.
Scary system where we'd rather our children see murders than hear words or see other people as they are born.
But this is the choir here, I do realize th
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh... They will hear you and starve my 2 month old while making her listen to eminem.
Re:Thank you very much (Score:5, Interesting)
But what about sex? I'm not talking love, I'm talking pure, lustful, sex. What about double, or even triple penetration? What about people having sex with animals? We're all just animals anyway, right? And so what if that woman wants a combined three feet of throbbing man love in her? I mean, she's got that Right, to choose to do that, hasn't she? How about gay sex?
While I agree that the nude body is nothing to be ashamed of or censor, and I understand that you didn't say you think I should turn to a public channel and be able to see a gang-bang in progress, I think we must draw the line somewhere as a society.
Is that line drawn at soft-core pornography? Or before? Is it drawn whenever the nudity is involved in a sexual act? What if it is just posing in a sexy way?
I'm genuinely curious what you think about this.
Parent
Re:Thank you very much (Score:5, Insightful)
And here's another thing to remember, kids have about as much trouble finding porn as they do finding booze; which is to say they don't have much trouble at all. It would be better to expect kids are going to see nasty things, and to give them some bearings early on so that they are prepared. In North America, we're a pack of cowardly prudes, so afraid of talking about sex that the best we can do is to have somebody come into the classroom and answer all the awkward but important questions the kids have. Even there, paranoid uber-Christian types (you know, the ones that want to cover up Justice and Liberty) won't let their kids near that, so their kids are completely ignorant of the nuances of human sexuality.
I'll tell you what is perverse. It's our stick-in-the-mud, Fundie-paranoia anti-sex culture which makes the more twisted forms of pornography so desirable. By creating this taboo around human sexuality, we have produced a schizophrenic, fetishistic society.
Parent
Re:Thank you very much (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Perhaps violent video games are the solution (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a graph that's been floating around that tracks violent crime rates and maps them against the release dates of various "watershed" violent video games. While correlation does not equal causation, it's certainly intriguing.
Re: (Score:2)
Push for a constitutional amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, the Founding Fathers were smart enough to think ahead to precisely this kind of self-servering demagoguery and put in some rather difficult amendment formulas to stave off most of the frivilous demands for altering the Constitution. If they couldn't get a gay marriage ban amendment through, what makes you think they cou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
should read "laws against fail" (Score:2, Interesting)
Laws which ignore the reality that a given banned activity/item/passtime has widespread public popularity always fail.
What's really scary though is no government since the 30's has had the guts to stand up, admit they were wrong, and repeal such a law.
Prohibition failed.
Drug laws have failed.
anti-downloading laws have failed.
speeding and racing laws are and always have been in a continued state of failure.
Laws prohibiting X age group from obtaining Y product are ret
Denizens of hell, break out your winter coats... (Score:3)
This has got to be the most insightful and intelligent thing I've ever heard a person of political or judiciary status say.
Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, not all parents are responsible. Some parents give their child birthday money or allowance or whatever and let them buy whatever they want. This child that plays Postal2 who thinks that whacking people with a shovel is OK, is not going to beat himself up. He's going to go after my child! Now I can't stop this kid from playing Postal2, and I wouldn't if I could, but I would like to at least know that his parents are aware of what he is playing. I like the idea that the parents have to go to the store with their kid and see what game they are purchasing. I would hope that they would ask their kid, "Johnny? Why do I have to show ID for you to have this game?" If the parent still wants to buy it, great! That's their choice. They are mature enough to make it. A 10-yr old child is not!
Of course, these laws do not prevent any adult from purchasing these games. And when I say violent video games, I'm not talking about Mortal Kombat. I don't care about impossible, cartoon violence. No kid is going to do the Sub-Zero kill move on my daughter! I'm talking about Postal2 and games that are violent for the purpose of being violent. Games where the point is violence over game play.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said, I don't care about Mortal Kombat. Impossible cartoon violence doesn't bother me. As to horror movies, those get rated R. I don't know of a theater that will let a 10-yr old in to see Hostel without a parent. Theaters are pretty good about self regulating. Game Sto
Getting old. (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Insightful)
Hurrah! I've been saying for years that the obsession with nerf-coating the world was a Bad Thing. The best way for the masses to learn due caution is for a few to serve as a negative example, not to round every corner and pad every edge.
This is true psychologically, too. Sex and violence is part of the human creature. Pretending it's not "for the children", the children who will eventually inherit this mess, does a disservice to us all for exactly the reason stated - they will be unequipped when it's their turn. Nevermind the bozos making these stupid laws - find me one among them who didn't flip through a playboy and play cops and robbers as a child him/herself. These things are desirable, perhaps even required, for a well-balanced adult to form. We all grew up watching GIJoe shoot at everybody and Sam Malone hit on everything in a skirt. We had monkeybars on asphalt, BB guns, steel sliding boards with exposed bolts and pinch points. We never had those ridiculous bike helmets and elbow pads. There were scuffed elbows and scraped knees, maybe even a broken arm or two, but seriously, how many of the kids you went to school with were maimed or killed on the playground?
So go, kids, run and play! Climb trees. Jump from the swingsets. Play dodgeball. Play doctor. Explore the world around you, it belongs to you, too, after all.
Off with their helmets! Lawn darts for everybody! Hip, Hip, Hurrah!
new plan (Score:3, Interesting)
Just have to make sure that Romeo and/or Juliet die before they...well we can't go there can we
Meanwhile back to adding the Big Bad Wolf mod to my architectural drafting program...at least that one is still safe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps we should be banning the Bible from childrens' hands, with its incest, murder, mass-murder and degradation of humans, it's surely every bit as repugnant as some of the video games that are out there.
Why should games be any different than movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
My six-year-old daughter asked me recently about what the police do to bad guys that they catch, and what to the bad guys do to get in trouble. Knowing that it wouldn't show her anything too bad, I turned on 'Cops' and let her watch an episode of that. I told her that it seems that is probably more of what police officers have to deal with, but of course there are days where the bad people are "a lot badder". She seemed to understand, and immediately asked if that's why they carry guns. She then made a comment about some of the games that she has seen me play, and asked me if I have ever shot anyone. I replied no, I've never even pointed a gun at anyone. She replied again with "I've seen you shoot people in the games that you play, but I know that's not real, so its a lot different than doing it for real."
As bad as it sounds, she even cheered me one while watching me play Resident Evil 4 on my Wii. (Silent kid, I didn't hear her sneak up behind me) and she also was able to discern what is real and what is not.
People are saying that games with excessive violence shouldn't be able to be sold to minors. As much as I hate censorship and govermental control, I think there is some merit to this. I wouldn't want my daughter when she is 11 or something to be able to go buy some movie like "The Hills Have Eyes" without me knowing, and I'd feel the same way about video games. Until I know for sure that she can handle things, I will continue to prescreen what she watches and what she plays, but as a parent I feel it is MY choice, not the government's.
Re:Violent Video Game Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Well fuck Jesus and God, bring on the tranny porn and show images of Jesus getting shit on. Amen brother, and pass the Bible so I can urinate on it!
Now, it's quite possible I'm going to get modded down, but that's fine, as this is a private site. But neither you, the Reverend Billy Graham or even God Almighty have any right in a free country that honors liberty telling me what I can say, or what movies I can watch or what video games I play. You are perfectly free to not partake of it, and keep it out of the hands of your children, but what you aren't free to do is to shove your standards on other people.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People have long had a fixation with death, and with the means by which it can be accomplished. It's hardly new, nor is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Romans used to dig going to the arena and watching the bloodsports, often involving the killing of animals. Now we can sit here and pass judgement on them [...], but the fact is that Rome flourished as a society even with this [...].
Rome flourished as an imperial power because of this. By dehumanising their enemies, making the the torture of their prisoners into a form of communal entertainment, they made the population complicit in the brutal regime that they imposed on conquered lands. In the amphithea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Boxing your siblings in the ears is violence too, does playing GTA make you more likely to beat your brother with a stick? because I watched so many of my friends do just that back when the Colecovision was the best video game technology. You could argue it was because WWF was big back then, but I suspect if you go back before WWF you'd hear the same old stories of violence between kids. (just a guess)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hey are immersive. They compel the gamer to become better, more effective, at completing the game's objectives. If those objectives are relentlessly violent, they what you have on your hands is a simulator that's explicitly designed to strengthen violent antisocial tendencies in the playing audience.
To be a simulator you have to actually simulate an activity. I shoot handguns competitively and can tell you with much certainty that games will not make people better shooters. Ever. Never ever. The behavior rewarded in videogames is tactically unsound and will get you killed if you tried to apply those theories in a real firefight. Factor in adrenalin in real life and you have some pretty bad shooting.
AS far as physical violence goes, you have to quit believing what you see in video games and movies and