Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Banning Violent Arcade Games Unconstitutional 533

Posted by CmdrTaco from the lay-down-the-fines-and-lemme-shoot-people dept.
zTTTz writes "The US District court ruled that it was not only unconstitutional to ban violent video games from public arcades, but also ruled that the city of Indianapolis pay $318,000 in legal fees to the video game industry. This will probably make other cities think twice about trying to censor video game content again." Update 17:45 GMT by J : We covered the Indianapolis story previously in July 2000, October 2000, and March 2001. Check out NCAC's open letter, too. We haven't bothered covering the recurring news of declining real-world violence (while video games just get more gruesome and explicit), mostly because it's the same story over and over.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Banning Violent Arcade Games Unconstitutional More

Banning Violent Arcade Games Unconstitutional

Comments Filter:

  • GTA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by clinko ( 232501 )
    Have any of you played GTA? That game is violent as hell. Shoot a cop, you win!...

    I think games can be too violent, but I don't think it really matters that much.

    What violent games was Hitler Playing?

    • Re:GTA (Score:3, Funny)

      by Moonshadow ( 84117 )
      What violent games was Hitler Playing?

      Risk [boardgames.com] :)

  • Thank you Thomas Jefferson! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by plover ( 150551 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:18AM (#2785515) Homepage Journal
    I was at the Jefferson Memorial this summer. It's nice and all, but he deserves so much more. I don't think enough people know what he did for us.

    Is this a great country or what? :-)

    John

    • Thank Madison. He was the Federalist. The US District court wouldn't have had jurisdiction under a Jeffersonian anti-federalist system. But then, Jefferson was more of a civil libertarian than Madison. It's the balance between the two that's important.

      BTW, how did the parent of this comment get modded "off-topic"?

  • The world is now free for Elevator Action! For a moment, I was afraid I wouldn't be able to go into those "secret" red doors anymore!
  • but also ruled that the city of Indianapolis pay $318,000 in legal fees to the video game industry...

    Thank goodness, this ruling comes not a minute too soon. Have you seen John Romero's monthly hair care bill lately?

  • Correctness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:21AM (#2785533) Homepage
    I was watching a movie on TBS a few nights ago... They showed a persons heart being ripped out while at the same time bleeping the word "bastard"...

    It just seems that people are so worried about being correct these days, that they've forgotten what correct is.

    It's refreshing to see a limit placed on the kind of standards for "clean society" that can be imposed on the public.

    • Re:Correctness (Score:2, Informative)

      by arkanes ( 521690 )
      I was watching Shock Video on HBO the other night, and it's odd what they'll show and what they won't - erect penises are taboo, but you can show lesbians sucking on each others nipples and close ups of female genitalia. And, as always, the disparity between how much violence is okay and how much sex is.

    • Re:Correctness (Score:5, Funny)

      by breon.halling ( 235909 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:39AM (#2785685)

      I concur. Up here in Toronto, one of our local stations (CityTV) has a tendency to bleep out the word "mother" while leaving the word "fucker" untouched.

      It's a constant source of amusement. ;)

      • Re:Correctness (Score:3, Interesting)

        by limber ( 545551 )
        There was an interesting article by Tad Friend in the Nov 19 2001 issue of The New Yorker (alas, no link as they don't seem to have a real online archive) about the conflict between the major TV networks' Standards and Practices departments and their creative departments. Lots of amusing anecdotes about past tussles.

        i.e.

        - the story of how after a year of negotiation after NYPD Blue's debut in 1993, Steven Bochco was able to persuade ABC to use exactly 37 vulgarities per episode, as long as he did not stray from an agreed on glossary of words. He could show breasts from the side (no nipples), and dorsal but not frontal nudity. He could suggest, but never show intercourse. 57 affiliates refused to air the first episode, and ABC couldn't charge its full ad rate on the show for years.

        - In 1959 on CBS's "Playhouse 90", when 'Judgment at Nuremberg' was presented by the American Gas Association, they cut the word 'gas' from the script. So millions of Jews died in "...chambers."

        - Aaron Sorkin (resp. for 'The West Wing') relates how "Standards and Practices made it very clear that I will be able to say 'motherfucker' on the air before I can take the Lord's name in vain. They fear that religious groups will aggressively boycott our show." The article goes on to detail how "in one episode last year, President Bartlet exploded about being bested by a 'damn street gang.' "It didn't ring true," Sorkin said. "I originally wrote 'goddamn street gang.' In the movies, it would have been 'fucking street gang.'""

        A funny article. The issue also has a decent historical overview of the roots of Islamic conflict with the West. Your local library should have a copy...

    • Re:Correctness (Score:5, Funny)

      by einer ( 459199 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:40AM (#2785696) Journal
      Oh I know, just the other day I was watching the "tee-vhee" and they cut out the majority of Animal House on TNN. However, they had no objections to showing a man spraying a can of liquid hair onto his bald head. I think we all know which one is going to be more damaging to our nations children in the long run.

    • Re:Correctness (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @01:19PM (#2786492)
      > I was watching a movie on TBS a few nights ago... They showed a persons heart being ripped out while at the same time bleeping the word "bastard"...

      I saw a newscaster apologize for "bad language" when the unedited amateur tape of the first plane going into the tower 9/11 (with the camera holder going "Holy fucking Christ!" or some variant thereof) was aired. 3000 dead, and the news guy is worried about bad fucking language.

  • don't put your quarter in the machine.
    but don't take the right to choose away from everyone else.

  • Yeah! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Brendan Byrd ( 105387 )
    The Us Supreme layed the smackdown on Indy! (Of course, this is a rarity that the "smackdown" is good. I will still remember the big stink about the California measure to legalize hemp, only to have somebody arrested because the federal courts still said it was illegal.)
    • Technically this was not the Supreme Court that tackled this. Eventually, this ruling could be overturned be the Supreme Court in a later ruling. I doubt the bok is closed on this one. This is only a small victory.
  • You have to look at it this way, there definitely are games that small children should not be playing. Anyone who says that all games are good for kids of all ages just doesn't know what they are talking about. I do have to give props to Indy for at least trying to do something about the situation, their heart was in the right place just not their minds. Again it comes back to this being a parental issue, if parents would take the time to teach their kids right from wrong and maybe show them a little affection they wouldn't feel they have to turn to video games for vindication of their worth. Games should be for recreational purposes not to measure someones worth as a person because they are good at all games. I am ranting a little but I think most of you get what I am saying.

    • The Place Is The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by virg_mattes ( 230616 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @12:18PM (#2785994)
      > I do have to give props to Indy for at least trying to do something
      > about the situation, their heart was in the right place just not their minds.

      No, it wasn't in the right place. The entire problem with this sort of thing is that what they tried to do cuts counter to the very principles on which the U.S. is founded, and since they're the city government they're more wrong than any private citizen initiative could ever have been. Despite the fact that these games are not appropriate for children, they are trying to force the decision for all kids, even those whose parents allow them to play. In a very real sense, they're trying to legislate morality. There are some cases where morality has external effect (legislating "thou shalt not kill" is legitimate because of the obvious repercussions outside of the individual), but since there's never been a credible study that proves that violent video games cause real-world crime, there's no external effect to legislate. This is the morality for which parents must be responsible, and for which the state must not be allowed to be responsible, because making laws to "protect people from themselves" is paramount to outlawing skydiving because it's dangerous.

      Virg
  • This is most excellent. It should be up to the parents to monitor what their children are playing anyways, not the local government.
  • This bill didn't cause any problems, though. It was more of a "look at how much I care about the children" move by a politician. I don't know of any instances that it was ever enforced.

    I am glad to see it annihilated though.

  • Sometimes the Court System gets it (Score:4, Funny)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:26AM (#2785580) Homepage
    Its every American's right to be outrageously offensive through expression. Be it sex, violence or politics, its every American's right to make other people incredibly uncomfortable by their speech and expression. The more disgusting and disturbing, the more freedom it should enjoy. These violent video games are nothing more than an expression of ideas set forth by a person or group.

    Hopefully, the courts will also start striking down "Hate Speech" codes at public institutions next. Once Government and our public institutions start governing what can and cannot be said, it limits the ability for the disenfranchised to respond. No one has the right not to be offended.

    • There can be limits on speech; that is established. Apparently violent video games just don't cross the line to shouting fire yadda yadda. I wonder what would happen if you made a video game involving shouting fire in a crowded theater...
  • This is currently taking place in Norway too .. where someone in the government is trying to get a full ban on Grand Theft Auto 3. This has led to every store in Norway being sold out of GTA3, which probably is more than rockstar games ever hoped for :-)
  • I was really troubled by the fact they struck down the statute on violent games, but the ban on sexual content was left alone. Does anyone besides me find that really troubling? I find it really troubling that its alright to show someones head being blown off, but you show a breast and suddenly its banned.
    • Simple: The Bush administration and its robed lackeys are getting nostalgic for the Taliban (the reigning masters of the pro-violence, anti-sex agenda). Re-elect Bush and we might catch up!
    • ...
      I find it really troubling that its alright to show someones head being blown off, but you show a breast and suddenly its banned.
      In the original Dune book, evil baron Vladimir Harkonnen goes to bed with a slave-boy.

      When they did the movie, no more bed scene, but rather a gory scene where the baron drinks the kid's blood straight from his aorta.

      Looks like the yankees have a sick, perverted mentality where it's okay so suck blood, but not to suck dick.

  • Sex? NO! Violence? YES! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldurbarn ( 111734 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:28AM (#2785601)
    The agreement the court approved Monday bars the city from enforcing the portion of the law related to violent video games. The industry did not challenge the sexual-content provision.



    Didn't I hear someone once say that "the function of parents is to isolate the children from the realities of the world until they're too old to learn to cope with them?"



    It bothers me that the very laws of the land underscore the public's acceptance of violent behavior and rejection of sexual behavior.

    • Europe's completely the opposite. They love sex(nude beaches, porn more accessible), but they cringe at blood.
    • This is typical north-american behavior.

      It seems to me that we are reversing priorities.

      Sex is a Good Thing, if it wasn't there, I wouldn't be writing this and you would not be reading it either.

      Violence is a Bad Thing, it kills people. (Colombia High-Shcool anyone?)

      I have seen movies of autopsies where we see a person's guts exposed but the genitals are blured, why? What's so shocking about genitals compared to guts?

      I just don't get it.

      It's probably ok that there is some censorship on hardcore PrOn but give me a break, naked breasts and/or butts aren't really offensive...even for a 5 y.o. kid.
      • Sex is a Good Thing

        Ok, I was fine up to there, but this next part seriously weakens your argument:

        , if it wasn't there, I wouldn't be writing this and you would not be reading it either.

        I think both of those points are an argument against it...

    • Yeah! What happened to "Make love, not war"? Sexuality is a biological part of normal, everyday life, while violence is the fringe behaviour of certain individuals with chemical and psychological imbalances. (Well, not really, but we'll go with that anyway)

      And sexuality has far more positive uses than violence. :-)
      • Violence is just as natural as sex. The problem with humans is that we've lost our instinct for controlled violence. Take a look at two males of pretty much any other mammal species fighting for dominance or mating rights; it's ritualistic combat. Humans don't have that any more, so we go overboard. Also, you'll never hear a lion claiming religious reasons for slaughtering that other pride.
    • I'm with you on this. I have no problem with my kid seeing naked people, but the violence that's on tv during primetime is way too much for him. I'd like to see a better rating system for the various media (tv, movies, games, music), with different scales for different things. Like rate from 1-5 each on nudity, sex, violence, and language. That would give you some real information to work with in judging the suitability of programming.

      I just saw LOTR, rated PG-13, (here on imdb [imdb.com]) last week, and lots of parents brought their kids. We were sitting next to a woman and her 6 yr old daughter. I think that movie was a seriously traumatic experience for that kid. And yet sirens (here on imdb [imdb.com]) was rated R for people running around naked, and barely even any sex. I'd take my 3 yr old to that any day.

    • Yes, make war, not love. It's simple population control: violence kills people off and makes for less of a problem for the rulers - but sex tends to breed more people who need day care, schooling, unskilled labor employment, welfare, etc.
    • The objectification of people as sexual objects is the primary cause of violence. Think about it. Armies are groups of men deprived of sex and often rewarded with the rape of whole cities. The person most likely to kill you is the person you have a sexual relationship with. This only happens because people are trained to think of each other as objects rather than other people to be respected as themselves.

      Porn, therefore, is one of the largest contributers to violence behavior. Competition for scarece resources pales in compairision. Once basic needs of food and shelter are met, what's left to fight over? Why are precious metals and stones valuable? Because they sparkle in some people's eyes and are thought of as a means to buy sexual company. The whole economy is bassed on this. Porn represents this kind of thinking in it's rawest form.

  • Instead of banning the games, which violated the rights of the video game manufacturers as well as the arcade owners, they should have pushed for better control over who is exposed to those games. 10-year old kids should not be able to play those games at the arcades without their parent's (or other adult's) consent, just like they cannot go to a rated-R movie by themselves.

    It was stupid for Indy to think they could take the quick and easy approach to the problem and just ban them.

    • Indy *DID NOT* try to "Ban" the games.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tadghe ( 18215 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @12:08PM (#2785911) Homepage
      Before commenting, please actually *read* the law. The "ban" prohibited kids from playing the games "without parental consent" *exactly* like the poster below thought they should try.

      " 10-year old kids should not be able to play those games at the arcades without their parent's (or other adult's) consent, just like they cannot go to a rated-R movie by themselves."

      Yup, this is exactly what they were pushing for. The games themselves were *NOT banned*, and even the restriction was intended for *Public Arcades* only.
      Instead of the knee-jerk "it's censorship" and "won't somone please think of the First Admendment" reactions that pervade the comments on this story, look a bit deeper.

      If you actually have children you understand a bit more about not wanting your 10 year old to glorify in ripping the heart out of a virtual opponent in some game that you'd damn sure not want them playing until they are actually old enough to "give peace a chance", and about the RESPONSIBILITY of raising *balanced* children, IMHO this involves a lot more of spending what little "free time" you have as a working parent with your kids trying to teach them how to think and why glorifying in taking the "Rambo" approach to situations is not an answer ANYTIME in life that prevades pretty much every show on network TV and video game in the U.S.

      I'm perfectly in favor of having the NC17 type ratings on Video games enforced. This has *NOTHING* to do with "free speech" and everything to do with helping parents control the crap that American society tries to force on our Kids today.

      To those that think that video games *don't* influance kids in any way, all I have to say is..."all your base belong to us"

      --Tadghe

  • Gameworks Solution (Score:3, Informative)

    by jparker ( 105202 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:33AM (#2785634) Homepage
    Here in Seattle, Gameworks had a nice solution to the problem of violent video games:
    When they brought in Silent Scope (very bloody sniper game), they put it in the bar. Since no minors could go in that area anyway, problem solved.
    No legal mess, no fuss.
  • The agreement the court approved Monday bars the city from enforcing the portion of the law related to violent video games. The industry did not challenge the sexual-content provision.

    Even though there is also no evidence that sexual-content has any ill affects on children. So I'm not quite sure where the video game industry's moral righteousness comes from. They seem willing to accept political based censorship, despite their claims to the contrary.
  • People can be so short sighted. Only one of the many reasons kids end up in arcades in the first place is lack of good public parks and facilities, and here's a large urban center spending money trying to keep kids doing nothing, rather than spending on creation of more places for these kids to go!
  • now if we can only get the parents, state officials, etc... to accept the fact that video games are not necessarily the cause of creating a "violent/evil minded" child... usually the cause of a child gone bad is because of bad parenting... and the parents have to use a scapegoat such as video game companies, TV shows, music groups, etc... to get the blame off their shoulders...
  • I support the courts ruling. Lets face it, if the court did bane violent video games, than someone would make the case for banning violent video movies (and p0rn) from video stores. And who knows what would be next on the pipe line for being "___" (fill in the blank).

    What we need (and this is just for starters and as an example of my $0.02) is a system similar to what video stores have: ID check, group videos with titles, separate p0rn from none-p0rn in an isolated section, etc. After getting those basics elements in place, we can now start fine tuning things. A complete 7 is not the solution.

  • Nice judgment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:41AM (#2785707) Journal
    This finally pokes the so-called "Moral Majority" in the eye and, hopefully, will make them realize that it is the part of the parent to regulate what his/her child is playing. My wife, when we were still just dating, asked me how I can justify my love of violent games when I know I want children and am wary of them being exposed to violence. I answered her very clearly that I am an adult - I know the difference between violence and death in a movie or a video game and violence and death in real life. Playing GTA III or Quake III isn't going to affect my view of the world, though it could affect the view of a five-year-old. Hell, I don't think I would let a kid under 11 or 12 play Shenmue, even, because Ryo is dealing with things that even teenagers are just beginning to understand.

    But, that isn't the place of government or another organization to judge - if I feel my child is ready to play a game, see a movie or read a book then it is my judgment to make. We all have to be responsible for our actionsand the actions we take as parents - allowing a city to take said action is allowing the parents to serve inabstentia and with minimal involvement...

  • Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by inc0gnito ( 443709 )

    Granted, I hate censorship as much as the next guy, but am I missing something here when the article talks about public arcades? I think a certain amount of restriction properly placed on public arcades is not such a bad thing as everyone seems to think it is. I mean, these are kids who are potentially as young as 6 years old, maybe they're with their parents, maybe an older sibling, maybe not. The point is, at that age there should be a lack of exposure to the level of violence common in most modern day video games (which I love btw). I'm not saying do away with excessively violent arcade games, just don't put them in public places.
  • What if I make a game that you gain points by going on a shooting rampage in a mall? (you know game over when the police sniper takes you out) or better yet you play the game as a serial rapist?

    There are some things that do need to be seperated from children, Granted parents should have 1/5 of a brain and do this work themselves. Where do you draw the line?

    I'm waiting for the lawsuits to srart like back in the 80's of parents suing the game companies because johhnie went out and drove the family car over a group of children... just like in GTA5-Extra gory version.. (remember when Kiss and the other rock bands were sued for subliminal messages or telling kids to go kill kill kill?)

    My opinion is to not regulate fantasy items but not allow morons to have children... but then that will cause a few people to whine and get outraged.
    • Yes, there are some things that need to be separated from children. Paedophiles, pederasts and censors spring to mind. Other than that it's my job to instill my values into my children (which will have a greater or lesser degree of success depending on their personality). I don't want my children drinking in bars, but that doesn't mean I want to close down all the bars in my neighbourhood.

  • Violence is okay, but not sex? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:54AM (#2785805)
    This boggles the mind. Of course I'm very happy that the banning of video games has been declared unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has very typically put sex in a different category, saying that communities can ban sexual displays and businesses based on 'community standards'.

    In my mind, it's not permissable to ban either, but I think it's more appropriate to filter violence than sex. A lot of people don't agree with me, but you'd think that if you can't ban one, then you shouldn't be able to ban the other.

  • A Look at Violence (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RazzleFrog ( 537054 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @12:03PM (#2785872)
    Another battle has been fought over this age old discussion of the effects of violence in games and movies on young children and in my opinion it was a victory for reason and logic.

    There is always some new study that comes out that tries to link violence in movies to violence in real life and immediately afterwords there is another study that debunks the first. In my opinion we only need look at history for a reasonable answer.

    I think we will all agree that we are far from living in the most violent time in history. The Dark Ages weren't just dark because of lack of innovation but because of the death, violence, and disease that dominated society. And yet as far as I can tell they didn't have movies or arcade games. Someone else here has already used the Hitler example and there are countless others that I could make.

    The point is - violence has NOT increased in our society since the advent of movies and games. Even with the recent acts of terrorism here and abroad and the violence in the Middle East we are still living in one of the mostly peaceful times in history. Even the violence that is occuring is based on age old wars. The Middle East has been a hotbed for war for thousands of years.

    Some people might say - what about the kids killing other kids in schools. Surely that has increased. There is no doubt that that has increased but did games or movies make those kids kill? I don't think so. They may have given them ideas on HOW to kill their classmates but it didn't encourage them to kill. The problem is much more deeply seeded and blaming movies or games is an absolute cop-out by parents and teachers. In many of these cases parents, friends, teachers, or counselors had an inkling that there was something wrong with the killer children but either didn't know what to do or thought it was just a phase. This is why I believe that parents should be held criminally liable for the actions of their minor children.

    I would like to close with my own life story to bore you all. I grew up like many kids playing AD&D in the early 80's. I remember so many news stories about kids killing each other with swords and how it was all AD&D's fault. And yet I never wanted to kill anybody. None of my friends did either. As a matter of fact - the vast majority of people who played AD&D NEVER had seriously contemplated killing somebody. To this day I play many games that might be considered violent by some and yet I can't watch the surgeries on the health channel.

    I also remember viewing porn and having adult magazines as far back as 12-13 and yet I am not a sexual deviant. I don't have any less respect for women because of it.

    In summary, don't worry about what your kids watch and play. Instead worry about teaching them right from wrong and reality from fiction. Listen to your kids. Find out what troubles them. Talk to their teachers and counselors. Meet their friends' parents. Help them with their homework. Watch their ballgames, recitals, concerts, etc. Be a part of your child's life and all the porn and violence in the world won't make them be deviant or violent.
  • For ONCE they do something right.

    I think there is inside interest though. I don't think the government thinks too highly of our constitutional rights, espectially the first amendment in light of the new legislation they have recently passed or are trying to push through :/

    I think this move was motivated by two factors, the first being that they (the government) wants to protect it's image, especially in the face of the youth, who would be most outraged by an outright ban on violent games. The second motivator being the gaming industry itself. Violent games make violent people. Wrong. But people who play such games *may* develop strong hand-eye coordination and reflexes, and maybe even basic tactical strategy in the case of realistic FPS. The military would love to have a country full of soldiers just ready to tap.

    I think this is a very good move, mainly because the gaming industry is responsible for the rapid technological advances we are seeing in systems today. Who needs 2.2GHz word processors? I can run vi on a 286.. It helps our economy.

    Also many use violent games to release some of their tension and frustration that could potentially create statistics in the real world.

    Just my $0.14. (Adjusted for inflation and tax)

    -fc
    .
  • Excellent. The Supreme Court took their Metamucil this morning, and made a good call. Yay for personal freedom and responsibility. But the question still remains: is anything that two (or more) consenting adults come up with still a good idea? Just because schoolgirls-being-raped-by-71-tenticles-and-alien- headmasters doesn't explicitly hurt anyone, is it still a benefit to society to release it into the mainstream? As much as folks would like to ignore, there *is* a middle ground between Anything Goes and the Moral Majority. I'd like to call it Common Sense, but that's not right. And I'd be a hypocrit on this one: I love GTA3. Not flamebait, just food for thought. Somewhere, you need to draw a line. The need for personal (and especially parental) responsibility exists, but many 'mature' adults can't handle complete creative and expressive freedoms. Jesus, I'm getting old.

  • The law would have required minors to show parental consent before playing violent
    or sexually explicit video games in public arcades.

    It mazes me that the US imposes very little censorship on violence (as a rule), yet gets horrifed at the thought of sex appering on TV/video games.

    Murder is very rare but is shown happily on prime-time TV. Sex is perfectly normal but is hevily censored. (Even to the extent that a woman cannot breast feed in public in the US!)

    I lothe censorship, but I know that I find violence more repulsive than sex!

  • In some ways, it is interesting how the courts have realized that video games are a form of expression and as such require protection. This is easily paralled with the perception in the 30's that movies were just a way that children wasted time. This perception was had, of course, by the generation of people who grew up without movies. Now we have a generation of people who have never really experienced gaming, a generation of people of whom some have and some haven't, and a generation of people whose paradigms of life will revolve around it.

    The following statement cuts quite deep, and should be written into the big book of good things that came out of the 7th circuit.

    "attempting to shield children from exposure to violent images would be 'not only quixotic, but deforming.'"

    It is estimated that US bombing in Afghanastan has killed 68 people per day (directly, not counting starvation / injury / illness / etc). The 7th Circuit has said that, basically, exposure to the uglyness of violence is a necessary part of becoming a complete human being. And as that exposure can come through the form of a harmless game, then gaming is therefore an expressive medium. Quite frankly, after having just completed MGS2, I can't think of a better medium to express the horrors of war (though Francis Ford Coppola comes very close). We're talking context here, of course. GTA hasn't done a good job showing the high points of what is possible in the medium any more than Lady Chatterly did for literature.

    Of course I would support opposition to the sex portion too: I agree that it should be considered worse by this society to show someone's guts nonconsentually being sprayed out across a table (arguably the worst thing to happen in their life) than to take off their pants and pleasure them (arguably one of the better things). But I can understand why they wouldn't bother to oppose the sexuality portion when nobody has yet found a good way to use the new medium to express intimacy. I can't think of a single game this provision would apply to. AMOA is doing very badly these days (financially), and I can understand why they would choose their battles carefully. I'm just sad that I didn't see the ACLU on their side.

  • Christian Influences (Score:2, Informative)

    by copponex ( 13876 )
    The Old Testament has a lot of Pissed Off God moments, where mass murder, the killing of infants, and stoning people to death is all Good and Holy. Violence can be used to accomplish Good things, such as victory over Hitler in WWII. Sexual perversion has never accomplished anything good. Regardless, I say rate arcade games like movies, and check their ID at the door.

    Offtopic: Censorship Christians, you must remember a few things about the Good book. In it, God specifically ordered his followers to "take" virgins from conquered nations after killing everyone else (Numbers 31). He laid down guidelines about owning slaves (Leviticus), when it's OK to beat them (Leviticus), killed the firstborn of an entire nation (duh), and advised parents to beat their children like slaves (Proverbs). Were censorship truly blind and even, the Bible would be the first book out of the library. So, uh, be careful what you legislate for.

  • A story about an Indianapolis arcade (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @12:36PM (#2786143) Journal
    I was recently on a trip to Indianapolis with a friend and one night we had some extra time... so we were spending some time at the arcade in the big mall right downtown. As it got later, the arcade began to fill with more and more city kids.

    While I was standing there playing at a (particularly violent) first person shoot-em-up, some kid (maybe 20 years old) pokes me in the back and says "You better watch where ya go when ya get outta here 'cuz I might just wanna shoot ya with my real piece." Great... I've just been threatened with death.

    Yes, I know that the problem is the kid and NOT the game... but if that's the attitude of a human being on in this country... that he might just like to shoot me for the fun of it... then maybe games like this shouldn't be allowed to coexist in the same place with this person. There ARE clealy people in this world who have very little respect for human life. Who aren't intelligent enough to delineate between a video game and reality.

    The experience of having a complete stranger threaten to shoot me did leave me a little shaken. It gave me pause to think about such laws and to make me reconsider my long-standing anti-censorship position. I'm honestly on the fense on this one. Just look at my .sig. Censorship is something that I take very seriously. I'm bothered by what happened and I'm bothered that my convictions have been weakened.

    -S

    • While I was standing there playing at a (particularly violent) first person shoot-em-up, some kid (maybe 20 years old) pokes me in the back and says "You better watch where ya go when ya get outta here 'cuz I might just wanna shoot ya with my real piece." Great... I've just been threatened with death.

      See?!? He obviously knew the difference between the simulated violence in the game and the nine in his pocket. Who say's kids can't differentiate between video game and real violence?

  • Is this a Good Thing(tm)? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tshak ( 173364 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @12:39PM (#2786173) Homepage
    I have two points to make regarding this issue:

    1) I liken games to movies. We do NOT censor movies, rather, we rate them to aid parents who decide to censor the movie from thier child. One step further, R (and "worse") rated movies require proof of age (theoretically). This also aids the parents because no parent wants to put thier 14yr old on a leash, but they also don't want them to see some of the very disturbing content found in some R movies. Why is it, then, that a very violent game can go unrestricted where kids under 18 are playing? Is a parent to say, "Don't look or play that one game" and expect the kid to obey? Why not just put porn games (which arguably have less of an affect) in the arcade as well?

    2) Disclaimer: I've been playing violent video games since I can remember (Wolf3D,Doom, etc.). I have always resolved conflicts with words not violence. This being said, violent media is still proven to have a VERY SERIOUS affect on many children and young teens. My mother is a behaviour specialist in the local school district and through her personal experiences has found most of these studies to be accurate. If I want to express violent and pornographic speech, I have every right to do so, just not in a public place with children around.

    Personally, I wouldn't mind the arcade having an "18 and older section" (as silly as it may sound).

  • Indianapolis hasn't gone nearly far enough. (Score:3, Funny)

    by gdyas ( 240438 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @01:09PM (#2786408) Homepage

    Despite this minor setback, hopefully Indianapolis will be able in the future to regulate what games children may play. The world of the child is stuffed with a plethora of unhealthy, evil entertainments that need to be purged so that we may produce moral, upright children ready to perform God's will.

    Take for example the realm of board games, those mental cannibals of cardboard that swallow our children's time. There's Monopoly, teaching children to ruthlessly crush the dreams of prosperity possessed by others. And what of Battleship? Have we learned nothing from Pearl Harbor? Do we really need a generation of children trained in the dive-bombing arts? I can't even begin to approach Candyland, that pernicious purveyor of tooth-rottening sweets to our youngest and most pure.

    Vigilance must also be a priority on the playground. For far too long have our most defenseless been savaged in the hour-long assualt & battery of a dodgeball tournament. Today the ball, tomorrow the bombs. Heed my words. And "tag", that cruelest of isolationist evils masquerading as a recess diversion. Stop the madness now, lest your child be the next to become IT.

  • Inform me, but don't be a parent for me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:32PM (#2787070) Homepage Journal
    I don't want people playing 'parent' for me. I am not a parent yet, but I'm worried that the day I become one I'll have choices already made for me. "Well, this content is offensive to my oversly sensitive nature, we better prevent kids from seeing it."

    I'd like to use Harry Potter as an example. When I first heard about Harry Potter, some group was trying to prevent children from being exposed to it for unsubstantiated reasons. One quote that comes to mind is "Harry Potter desensitizes children for the coming of the anti-christ", or some baloney. The reason I use the term 'unsubstantiated' is that I've read the first book and have seen the movie, and I've yet to find any religious implications at all, certainly nothing that has offended my sensibilites. Perhaps it is the later books that supposedly contain this offensive content, but frankly I don't really care. The parents groups were so overreactive that I just don't trust their judgement after I looked into it. Gathering a mob to burn books is not the sensibility I want to instill in my children.

    My 8 year old sister really enjoyed the movie, and I bet it is not too long before she is picking up the novels and reading them. They are pretty advanced reading for a kid her age, but I think the interest the movie sparked may cause her to really enjoy reading. Given that I see no conflict in the novel or in the movie and our beliefs, I think it's perfectly okay for her to go off and enjoy Harry Potter in it's various forms.

    If the over-reactive parents groups had their way, Harry Potter would never have been available to me or my sister to enjoy. I don't appreciate this at all. I do appreciate being informed. Something as simple as "be careful of Harry Potter because we believe some values expressed in it may be impressionable on your child." is perfectly acceptable to me. But to deny me the right to say "I think it is okay for my children to be exposed to this" is to deny me fundamental rights granted to me by the constitution.

    Just because you don't want YOUR child to play a particular video game, doesn't mean that you are righteous when you deny MY child that priveledge.

  • Here in Indianapolis (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cyberllama ( 113628 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @04:55PM (#2788087)
    This has been nothing but headaches for arcade goers. I'm a college student and I can't tell how irritating it was to get carded at an arcade. The way most arcades were doing it (the ones who use cards not tokens) they'd put out two sets of cards, one programmed to play any game, and one that won't play the over-16 games. Alot of the time I'd just end up trading with some poor under-16 smchuck, take his card and go back up to the counter and complain that I was given a under-16 card. I liked to think of it as "freedom-fighting". :)

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close