Video Games Not Protected Form of Speech 482
E-Rock writes "Video Games are lumped with child porn as unprotected forms of speech. "A federal judge said local governments can limit children's access to violent or sexually explicit video games, saying games are not constitutionally protected forms of speech." Story with limited details at Nando."
Virtual video games? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the end of the story (Score:5, Funny)
Videogames are violent? (Score:2, Funny)
They'll pry this joystick out of my cold, dead hands!
Re:Not the end of the story (Score:5, Funny)
Don't they do this already? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't they do this already? (Score:2)
Re:Don't they do this already? (Score:3, Insightful)
I only read the Nando article, so it may have garbled the issues, but if something is not "protected speech," it can be banned. It strikes me that a better (and narrower) rationale for upholding the statute is that the games at issue fall into the category of "indecent" speech (think George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words bit), which can be regulated so as to prevent accidental access by children, but not banned outright.
The quotation in the article suggests that this particular judge doesn't think that the games qualify as "speech" at all, which sounds sort of ridiculous, but it may have been taken out of context.
Anyone have a link to the text of the decision?
some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, our government is supposed to protect us, its citizens.. But everyone i talk to agrees with me that micromanagement in a corporate environment sucks, isnt this just micromanagement from the government into a family unit?
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My only thought at this point is, who should set the rules on what is acceptable and unacceptable for a developing child to see? I'm not talking about ages 8-12 or whatever.. but mid to late teens... are growing constantly at that age...
Sometimes, letting them discover some parts of the real world is necessary. You and I both know what a gun can do, and I think it can sometimes backfire keeping a devloping teen locked away from being able to experience certain elements of the real world.
Surely, a parent would tell their children what is right, and what is wrong. So, after the child was raised properly with the knowledge of right and wrong, if they desire to go learn of the *real world* i dont think there should be a magic cut off at 17-18 when they are then declared arbitrarily to be "mature enough" to be exposed to it all at once.
Its just a part of growing up, IMHO.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:2)
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:2)
Parents. Of course, they can't do that if they're being undermined by greedy retailers. If, as a parent, I want my child to play GTA, I can go to the store with them to buy it. No one is keeping kids from playing games, just from buying them.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We agreee that the judge botched the ruling, and I agree completely that I don't need to be, nor should I be, around my kid 24x7 to make sure she stays out of trouble, but it's not the government's place to do my job for me.
The point here, as others have mentioned, is one of micromanagement. If I don't want my kid playing violent video games (or smoking, or watching R-Rated movies), I tell her not to and, if I've done my job as a parent, she won't. Same goes for drugs, pr0n, teen sex, etc. Yes, there are some cases (ethanol, cigarettes) where there are proven harmful consequences where I don't mind their intervention, but there is no proof whatsoever that video games are going to hurt anything but the kid's thumb muscles.
The movie ratings are, in many respects, a farce. The whole concept of strictly "age dependent" ratings is inane. Yes, it's convenient and there is some justification for it (statistical averages) but there is no mystical transition in head space when someone turns 17,18,21 that makes them suddenly able to understand things they couldn't understand the day before - or take responsibility for same.
All the ordnance does is put additional burdens on retailers with no real benefit to the people it's trying to protect. THAT is what is patently wrong about it.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:3, Informative)
Yikes. I feel like flailing my arms and shouting, "danger!" There is indeed a huge amount of evidence that violence in media -- music, games, movies, and books -- influences people. Hell, the entire advertising industry is built upon the idea that media can influence people.
I suspect you're saying what you're saying because either you personally are unaware of any evidence, or you're perfectly aware of it and reject it as hogwash. But psychologists going back to 1864 (I think, that number is off the top of my head) have documented something called the "werther's effect" which nowadays is called social proof. Wether was a writer (or the main character of a book, again, this is off the top of my head). Anyway, the main character of this moving, well-written book eventually killed himself. The book was immensely popular, and soon a wave of similar suicides began to sweep across multiple countries. By 1866, the book was banned by entire continents. Since that time, this has been studied to death -- they've studied accidents where everyone drove by without offering assistance, video games, rock music, laugh tracks, advertising, movies, you name it. It all ties in to social proof, which states: the more a person identifies with the environment, the more likely the person is to be influenced by it.
So your normal, healthy, well-adjusted slashdotter (cough) is NOT going to identify with pac man and start eating ghosts. Nor will he/she identify with doom and start shooting up everything in sight. But a young angry white boy who sees a lifelike portrayal of young angry white boys is going to be influenced. A middle-aged Asian dad who interacts with a game or movie or people who are also middle-aged, Asian, and fathers, will be influenced. There are a lot of reasons for this, and you can use Google to get some really great, really boring papers and essays about the research in this area. But the bottom line is realistic portrayals of anything will influence people of similar background.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not legal for a minor to buy pornographic magazines but as far as I know there is nothing stopping that minor's father/mother from buying it for them for them to have in their own home.
So yes, there should be a reconsideration on what does and does not fall under protected speech but the Parental argument just as easily swings the other way
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
None. It would have been legal.
Re:some times i get so angry about this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Many things are protected speech. Porn (for the most part) is protected.... at least insofar as the Court has refused to define obsenity in any real meaningfull sence. Justice Stone once said "I'll know obsenity when I see it" which more or less sums up our Judicial System's take on the issue.
That said there is a difference between what is protected and what is freely available. Playboy's pictures (nudes) are protected speach, but you can't buy a Playboy until you're 18.
Printing something is direct speech. It's a form of expression.
Buying something is indirect speech. Voting with your wallet if you will.
In order for Congress to restrict what you have the right to buy it must restrict your right to indirect speech. The Court (not court) has a test for this. It is known as the "compelling state interest test." The upshot of this is that the State must prove that it has a compelling reason to restrict this speech. If no such reason is proven the challenge fails and the law is overturned. It is one of the few cases wherein the DEFENDENT has the burden of proof (assuming the state is being sued for restricting my freedom of speech).
I want to make this clear because of the misleading nature of the title. A decision which limits what I can buy does not in any way make a ruling as to weather video games are or are not free speech. It simply states that a judge thought that the Government has a compelling reason to limit who can buy what.
That being said, the normitive upshot of all this is fairly simple. If a parrent wants their kid to play this game they can buy it for them. The force of law only prevents a child from going behind a parrents back and buying the game himself. There is little danger of some sort of governmental intrusion into anyone's life considering the allready curtailed freedoms allowed to minors in this country.
This ruling is troubling, the original law wasn't (Score:5, Interesting)
"The ordinance, passed in 2000, would require children under 17 to have parental consent before they can buy violent or sexually explicit video games or play similar arcade games. "
(from the article)
I don't see anything wrong with this; it's the same way with movies in many places.
The problem is, of course, that once video games aren't protected as free speech, that they can start cracking down on whatever they feel like cracking down on.
Better protect your copies of GTA3!
Re:This ruling is troubling, the original law wasn (Score:2)
MPAA Film ratings not a "law" (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, the MPAA rates the film (their methodology is as controversial as the ratings system in general) and the exhibitors (that is, the movie theaters) agree to restrict ticket sales in accordance with the MPAA ratings.
The MPAA ratings are also used to determine when advertisements for movies are permitted-- that's why you don't see ads for R-rated movies during hours when kids are watching TV. Or at least that's the idea-- there was a scandal about a year ago where a lot of R-rated films was being advertised to children on TV.
Apparently, the film company's defense was that ad-purchasing time packages did not match the resolution of the MPAA ratings system-- so there was no way to buy advertising time in slots that exactly matched the demographics of the ratings. (And I'm sure the fact that most theaters weren't checking IDs made the spillover ok too)
I think (but I'm not sure) that blockbuster and other video rental places also check IDs just as theaters do. But I wonder if they care about video games... anyone know?
W
Re:MPAA Film ratings not a "law" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:MPAA Film ratings not a "law" (Score:2)
self-police itself.
I don't think the original poster meant to imply that the movie ratings system is mandated by law, but simply that we (as a society) in general do not have a problem with some restrictions on what media children have easy access to, the most prominent example being movie ratings, and thus most people (or at least the poster) do not object to some restrictions on what computer games children can buy.
(Although many within the federal government make it clear they feel movie ratings should be more heavily mandated and it's also readily appearant that if the industry did not police themselves, the government would enforce their own standards.)
We must march on Washington. (Score:3, Funny)
We as Americans must demand unrestricted access to virtual crack hos getting blown up. Our Fore Fathers would be proud if they knew that little Jane and Jimmy American had the constitutionally protected right to mass gibs.
How is that possible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is that possible? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How is that possible? (Score:2)
Bogus (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bogus (Score:2)
Re:Bogus (Score:2)
There goes your theory, Mr. Smartypants!
It only takes three generations (Score:2)
The first generation schooled by the government is taught a full curriculum.
The second is taught a watered-down curriculum to make things easier for more kids to pass, since by now the graduation is meaningful to employers, and we want everyone to be employable.
The third is taught by the undereducated second, and so begins to think in terms of self-esteem and participation and such, rather than actual knowledge or ability. It's a downward spiral from there.
The best defense against idiocy: home school your children.
Re:Bogus (Score:2)
Corporations also don't give a damn about what arms you carry, unless they're in that business.
You want to blame somebody? Blame everybody who refuses to follow political news, who fails to apply rational thought to issues, and who fails to vote, let alone partake in politics in any other way.
Why should games be any different from movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is that *any* different from restricting minors' access to certain video games? If society is going to allow freedom of expression in the content of games, it also has the responsibility of protecting vulnerable children from potentially harmful content. With freedom comes responsibility.
Parents, at home, they can let their kids play whatever games they want, or watch whatever movies, or look at whatever magazines. But in public space, there is a certain generally accepted level of protection for children that applies to all of these.
Re:Why should games be any different from movies? (Score:2)
Used to be, local censorship boards would cut objectionable material out of the films before they would be allowed in theatres. Producers, understandably, didn't like this, so they inforced their own ratings system to keep the boards out.
So, this is different than movie theatres. However, the sale/rental of porn is limited by laws to adults. In that way, this is similar.
-Brett
Re:Why should games be any different from movies? (Score:2)
That's not by law, though. Movie theaters are recommended by the ratings board not to allow minors into the movie, and most theaters comply because they are afraid of the liability if they were sued by angry parents.
The ratings board is more of a lawsuit protection policy than it is a legal standards board...
Re:Why should games be any different from movies? (Score:2)
Re:Why should games be any different from movies? (Score:2)
Parents, at home, they can let their kids play whatever games they want, or watch whatever movies, or look at whatever magazines. But in public space, there is a certain generally accepted level of protection for children that applies to all of these.
Until your kid tells someone else they watched naked people doing weird stuff on the tv at home and child protective services comes along, slapping you with child endangerment. Doesn't even have to be that clear cut, CPS was called on a divorced friend of mine. Her kid saw pornos at daddy's house and came home with a filthy mouth. CPS came, inspected *THE MOTHER's* house, told her if she didn't shape up they'd take the kid away. Her house is impeccable. They then went to daddy's house. She called him ahead of time and warned him, but he didn't bother to put the videos away. They made him throw away the videos and secure all the weapons he had lying around, but he only got a slap on the wrist.
Re:Why should games be any different from movies? (Score:2)
Bottom line - I don't want the government trying to act as a parent. That's why we have parents.
Simple question (Score:2, Flamebait)
Every day you see more and more proof that the left is gaining more and more ground in this country. Things like this where government protection seems to be the only solution, so we slowly learn to accept more and more governmental control.
Yeah, I know, T(H)GSB, but oh well. This is important to me.
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple question (Score:2)
Or something. Obviously, his brain is wired differently than mine, but I don't think he was trying to suggest it was the left that was behind this ruling.
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, conservatives need to divorce the religious right before they can claim that they stand for personal freedoms at all.
Re:Simple question (Score:2)
Re:Simple question (Score:2)
Quick question: why do people use the term "gay" is if it's something negative?
Dinivin
Re:Simple question (Score:2)
Four Different Games? (Score:2, Funny)
Wow! Four games and he's got the whole thing figured out? Imagine if someone claimed they had read four books and understood the complete posibility of literary expression. How did this guy graduate from high school, much less law school?
-BlackFoliage
Re:Four Different Games? (Score:2)
Re:Four Different Games? (Score:2)
Leisure Suit Larry (Score:3, Interesting)
Whats the news here? (Score:2)
We have a LOCAL LAW (important part) that states that children We have a judge that says that the law is OK.
These must be the same people that say that certain movie titles are not appropriate for children So again ... I fail to see what the problem is here.
Re:Whats the news here? (Score:2)
The people who say that certain movie titles are not appropriate for children < 17. do not have a law backing them up. The movie ratings do not have a legal enforcement route of their own. You could potentially sue a theater for admitting a 16 year old to a porn flick, but the rating on the film wouldn't matter. If someone were to make a law backing up the film ratings, who would get to assign what movie which rating? Would it be in the private or public sector? Who would be responsible for mistakes? etc...
The reason the ordinance is flawed is twofold. Its definitions of what it prohibits seems vague, and either it prohibits content already prohibited by obscenity laws, or it oversteps its bounds by prohibiting more than is constitutionally permissible for a law to prohibit.
What is the point of this story? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not American so forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't children's access to violent or sexually explicit videos/books/sex shows/whore houses already limited over there as in the rest of the world and further more isn't this regarded as a good thing?
why is anyone surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
What those who might protest are forgetting is that until someone reaches the age of majority in the US, his/her rights - particularly "Constitutional" rights - are severely limited. Most rights that children have are those given to them by their parents.
they have time for this?! (Score:2, Insightful)
If the county has the time and manpower to help parents "protect the physical and emotional health" of their children by worrying about what video games they play then the county needs to have it's budget cut. Most counties can't keep the potholes in their streets filled or balance their budgets and yet these guys want to help folks raise their kids... nope, sorry guys, I don't think so!
Welcome to the club. (Score:2, Insightful)
Movies, music, magazines, etc. have been suffering the same way for years. This is not a troll: I am all for age-restriction of content. If I want my kids to see something, they'll see it, because I'll buy it and give it to them. Otherwise, I prefer that inappropriate speech be a little harder for them to access.
Re:Welcome to the club. (Score:2)
WARNING: CONTAINS EXPLICIT LYRICS is not on records by choice. Of course, stores can make their own policies about selling them. Movie theaters, however, have no choice. It's the law that they not allow children under 17 into an R-rated movie without a guardian, hence the phrase "Children under 17 not permitted without parent or guardian" on movie trailers, which are theater-independent.
protected speach and limited access (Score:2)
If you limit the access of some videogames to children, would be just like a playboy magazine or alcoholic drinks, that can only be sold to an adult. One could argue that this is also bad, but it is certainly better then the above option. And if you are a father that don't agree with this, you can aways buy the game for your kid.
The article seem to indicate that this is case for this law.
My $0.02.... (Score:2)
Re:My $0.02.... (Score:2)
Violence is real, nudity is not bad, but these things have a place and time for introduction into a child's life and they should not be on the way home from school, playing a video game.
Re:My $0.02.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Things "that may portray a distorted or possibly dangerous view of life for a child" -- I'd say that the Bible and the Koran both qualify. Faith denies reason, and promoting faith over reasoning does not seem particularly beneficial.
Are we for this or against it? (Score:3, Insightful)
On this one I'm not so sure though. Are we supposed to think that video games are a legitimate form of self-expression? Because that seems like a bit of a stretch for me. I don't ever recall seeing a video game that was seriously being used to get a point across in artistic or political fashion (Okay, maybe the one where you were a Palestinian fighting Jews with rocks, but that's still only one).
I don't know how to feel on this, which makes me uneasy. Where's JonKatz? If he'd attach a little rant here somewhere I could just take the opposite position and feel fine with myself.
Re:Are we for this or against it? (Score:2)
Re:Are we for this or against it? (Score:2)
I would contend that you haven't played the right games. Even if you are mostly correct, that doesn't mean video games aren't a form of free speech. And on the other side of the coin, there's a lot of constitutionally protected speech out there that's completely worthless [nsync.com].
To counter your assertion, I give you Xenogears [gamespot.com]. While the game's backstory is arguably heavy-handed, no one can argue that it doesn't speak out on a lot of issues. Xenogears (and many other RPGs like it) are speech, and deserve as much protection as movies, books, and music. Their interactive element (and the fact that many people in government don't know a damn thing about them) shouldn't disqualify them from the same protections other media enjoy.
Re:Are we for this or against it? (Score:2)
Now before I get flamed (and modded) to death about that one, let me say, though, that I am against government regulation of games. Like another poster here said, we already have similar entities called PARENTS to do that.
Straying a little offtopic here, but you ask a very interesting question in the subject. But I have to wonder why you feel it's so important that we all are, as you asked, for or against this and other issues.
While we are undoubtedly part of a community here at Slashdot, I don't post under the false pretense that we should all agree (just look at some of the posts I've had modded down) on the issues that are presented to us.
A better way to present your side of the argument (which I believe is 100% correct, but suspect many here will disagree with you) would be to just come out and say "this is what I think, and here's why" instead of "does the collective agree with me on this?"
Wow. What timing. (Score:2)
What about the Supreme Court? (Score:2)
a strange outcome (Score:2)
Since the origins of this country, Free Speech has been one of our most treasured amendments. Over the course of the years, we have seen these non-alienable rights slowly eroded by the politics of the times. Sadly, what is lost cannot always be regained. The Prohibition was the exception that proved the rule.
But are we now crossing the final line? Who is to say what the difference is between a console game and a web-based game? From there, a short leap from web game to web news site (anything come to mind?), and from that point it isn't hard to imagine the end of what was once the only Free Press in the civilized world.
In the past we have learned to treasure even that speech which is most offensive, including pornography, slander, Nazism, lynchings, and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
I wonder if this ruling will be remembered in times to come as the beginning of the proverbial end.
Re:a strange outcome (Score:3, Informative)
Nazism is the only thing you listed that IS protected speech.
Slander, speech that presents a clear and present danger to the US, and speech that endangers the public safty are all illegal forms of speech.
these have been set forth by cheif Justice Marshall. the 1st cheif justice of the United States.
so giving away national secrets is not protected speech, elling fire in a crouded theater is not protected speech, and telling a lie about a person to people in a credible mannor (ie not satire)that damages their reputation (like saying a person rapes little boys when you know he does not) is not protected speech.
What's the big deal here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm... doesn't say anything about limiting what you can depict, nor about limiting sales, nor about what you can do with it... It just says minors can't purchase it without concent. Now where have we seen that before?
Cigarettes?
Alcohol?
Firearms?
Porn videos?
Ok, so Little Johnny has to get his big brother to buy a copy of GTA4 (now with force-feedback hookers!)... annoying, but not any kind of threat to freedom that hasn't already been accepted for years.
Make up your minds people. Either children are NOT treated differently, in which case they can do all the bad things adults can do, but also have to pay all the penalties we do... or they ARE, in which case they get "protected" from things "we" think are "bad".
The judge saw the wrong games... (Score:3, Insightful)
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
---End quote
This guy didn't try and play and of the final fantasy games. All those games push a fairly similar agenda of machine == bad and protect the earth. Or MGS, if you don't think that killing is wrong after playing MGS, then you didn't watch the cut scenes ( that games lives in contridiction, because it preaches that violence and killing are wrong, but the only way to beat it is to be involved with killing people ).
If he was only playing MK4, SFXXXSuperCapcomMarvelFighterTurboMegaAlphaSpecia
I feel that most games released today resemble the HollyWood schlock rather then the artistic projects that get produced. More like Scorpion King rather then say Pi. For every artistic game like MYST, there are a hundred shoot-em-up death game 2000 knock offs.
The guy only saw 4 games, I bet that if you showed certain movies to a judge who had never seen movies before you could get the same verdict, that movies have no artistic merit as well.
Final Fantasy X was a game??? (Score:5, Funny)
Heh heh... maybe the judge just couldn't beat the final boss and missed out on the closing fmv and thus didn't get the entire story?
Re:The judge saw the wrong games... (Score:2)
This is foolishness (Score:2)
Deus Ex is an example of what I consider a game with a message.
I hope there will be more games like Deus Ex in the future. This is a new medium, and our legal system must recognize it. I'm not so worried about the speech that will be lost today, but I am worried about what video games will be like a decade from now.
A decade from now we could have real art being created with video games. Think of the messages that creators could use video games to send. People would have the choice of playing state of the art, edgy games. And of course they would have the choice of playing crap -- just like in any medium.
Or a decade from now we could have a giant conglomorate like Disney pushing out mediocracy on a traquilized public. Vanilla mediocracy without any ideas that hadn't been approved by a dozen focus groups and six lawyers.
Paintings are protected speech. Sculpture is protected speech. Books are protected speech. Movies are protected speech. Games deserve the same. We will regret it later if the protection is not extended.
Um, you guys just don't understand.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Keywords: Limit, Children
Because, you know, adults can buy child porn.
Video games aren't leaving the realm of protected speech. They aren't banning them. They're saying children shouldn't have access to it, like porn, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and many other things 95%+ of America says children shouldn't have access to. And to be honest, I've played some games that I don't think children should play.
Possibly missing the point (Score:2)
Re:Possibly missing the point (Score:2)
We did RTFA. Especially the first and last last sentences:
A federal judge said local governments can limit children's access to violent or sexually explicit video games, saying games are not constitutionally protected forms of speech.
and:
St. Louis County modeled its ordinance after one in Indianapolis. That ordinance has been invalidated by a federal appeals court in Chicago.
What no one has mentioned (and maybe I just missed it) is that now, since we have two conflicting federal rulings, the Big Nine Goombas are going to have to decide on an official basis whether video games are free speech. I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that one!
this is such shite (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying that children should be allowed to buy what ever they want. I think that there should be restrictions on what they can buy and that ultimately that decision lies with the parents. But to lump video games in with child porn is a travesty to those laws. IMHO this judges ruling lessens the laws regarding child porn. The immediate effect of this ruling doesn't bother me, but the specifics of why it was ruled the way it was, does.
So many of the posts here... (Score:2)
A lot of people seem to have forgotten, or perhaps never learned, that at least half the stuff posted on /. as "stories" are just post-bait.
Remember, kiddies, /. has no content without the posts you make.
So quite often you'll see "news for nerds" that's nothing more than a cheap attempt to up the daily post count -- remember, it's the volume of posts that make /. valuable to the advertisers...
t_t_b
Judges Opinion online: (Score:3, Informative)
You can get the Judge's opinion here [uscourts.gov] (96k pdf).
Normal adult Porn is a protected form of speech. (Score:2)
Arg. (Score:2, Insightful)
choice bit (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, then, that's settled. I agree with the "four items, one judge" standard. Next up: books! Find four books, and a judge who thinks those four are devoid of substance, and I think we can all agree we can rightfully declare that at that point, books would become "non-speech".
After books, of course, the next thing to lose its speech status should be speeches!
Re:Speech???? (Score:3, Funny)
Ahem. You have a very creative way of writing books. Most of us uses pens/keyboards with out fingers.
This says nothing about fucking video games.
It also says nothing about fucking swearing on fucking internet message boards, my dear Professor Shitfuck.
Re:So, name four games that *do* meet the standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Having named some games in this genre, I think anyone else can recall several more advernture games that are essentially an interactive novel.
Ultima as a religion (Score:3, Interesting)
Note the name Limbaugh. (Score:2, Interesting)
So dont be surprised that steve is issuing fascist rulings.
What about a movie. (Score:2)
How much interaction can a movie have before it becomes a game? (dvd)
Aren't movies free speech?
What about screenplays?
What about books?
What about oral stories?
How about verbal instructions on how to polish my jackboots?
I had better polish them now while I still can!
It's getting awfully slippery.
What's the fuss? (Score:2)
Parents can still consume porn and violence, and give it to their children. I don't see the big problem.
And I thought we all agreed that opt-ins were a good thing.
Why this isn't such a bad thing (Score:2, Informative)
Why can't parents, and not the government, keep their children from violent and explicit games?
I agree. I'm a parent, but it's not always that easy. Let me explain why parents can't always keep children from violent and explicit games.
About a year ago, I took my 5-year-old daughter to the local movie theater. In the lobby there was a row of games, including House of the Dead 2. The games in the theater lobby are situated so they face you as you stand in the lobby/concessions area. My daughter took notice of the game, ran over to it, grabbed the gun controller and stood there looking at the running demo of rotting zombies being shot and exploding gorily before her eyes. I rushed over to her and pulled her away, but obviously, I would have preferred she not have seen it.
Now, before anyone assumes I'm some religious goody-two-shoes, I will assure you I love these kinds of games. I'm totally addicted and Quake and Quake 2 will always have a home on my hard drive. I own quite a few violent games but I keep them locked up and my daughter never sees them. I maintain that control. I see it as my duty as a responsible parent.
These kinds of games, on clear public view in places where the public, including children, gather are a serious problem as it removed some measure of that control from me as a parent. I resent that. It pisses me off.
I later called the corporate offices of Regal Cinemas and complained about this and got back a completely defiant attitude about how they had the right to put those games there and how much money those games brought in, and how nobody else compains about it, etc. etc. I pointed out that if a film contained those kinds of gory and violent images, they would be required by law to ensure than a minor has a parent or guardian with them before viewing the movie. This point went right over the guy's head.
I even mentioned that perhaps they could situate the games so they aren't on clear view of the public, but I was told that it would make the games less appealing and make them less profitable. I then asked if they could turn off the demo mode and was given the same excuse.
IMO, some legal control over video games is not going to hurt anyone, exactly the same way legal control over objectionable material in films is not going to hurt anyone. Quite the contrary. As long as we're controlling where it can be displayed and who can play it, not distating what the games makers can or cannot do.
Let's not have some knee-jerk reaction to this. When corporate America can't see beyond its profits, then I have no problem with allowing the government to step in and teach them better.
--Rick
What about Choose-Your-Own-Adventures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Start with a book. Turn it into a choose your own adventure. Protected?
Now make it a little more sophisticated; Something like "Grail Quest". It has the player keep track of things like inventory and health and armor, but is still a choose-your-own adventure. Protected?
Okay, now lets take the SAME exact thing, but have a computer do the book keeping for the player. Protected?
Now lets make it a little more sophisticated, but still wordy, like Zork. Protected?
Replace wordy imagery with the occasional ASCII graphic. Protected?
Give the user a map, like in Zork Zero (if I recall correctly). Protected?
Use the map primarily, and the text secondarily, like in NetHack. Protected?
Apply better graphics, like the graphic ports of NetHack. Protected?
Give the user a first person perspective in the maze, Ultima Underworld or something like that. Protected?
It is a SMOOTH continuum from books to games. I can take any game, and gradually transform it into a book, and any book and gradually transform it into a game.
Give me any two expressions, one slightly more interactive than the other, and I can construct an expression in between.
Not speech? (Score:2)
So let me get this straight; if a movie tells a story, or expresses and idea, it is protected speech, but if I make a video game based ON that movie, with the same plot, the same characters, the same locations, and the same themes, the only real difference being the additon interactivity, suddenly all premise of expression is lost?
If I take a choose-your-own adventure book, convert it to a simple program, and the only thing lost is the paper and ink, I would essentially have any of the early video games. How is this not speech?
And how is a board game not speech? Many board games are obviously designed entirely to express various ideas; ranging from promoting a drug-free lifestyle to acting out a war to teaching the traditions of judaism.
This judge is obviously incompetent. His judgement has no chance of holding up in the supreme court. I only hope that the people of Saint Louis have the sense to get rid of him.
Mutually exclusive? (Score:2)
Re:Mutually exclusive? (Score:2)
*sigh*
Re:Mutually exclusive? (Score:2)
Also, your "reasonable woman" standard is not so unprecedented. Many laws have to be interpreted in light of a subset of the population...for instance, judges or juries deciding whether or not a practice discriminates against the handicapped have to consider it from the point of a reasonable handicapped person. And remember, it's still a jury of men (and women) who decide what a "reasonable woman" should think.
Re:File this under "duh" (Score:2)
So, I guess movies, music, and a good deal of literature are not speech, either.
Re:File this under "duh" (Score:2)
Re:File this under "duh" (Score:2)
From a user's perspective, there isn't a difference between DVD's and video games. In both cases, a user interacts with the medium to cause change.
[Flame blocker] I am not from the states, so I am not 100% sure if movies are 1st amendment protected or not[/Flame blocker]
Re:File this under "duh" (Score:2, Informative)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I have an infinite number of rights. The only rights the government has are those set forth in the Constitution.
Re:File this under "duh" (Score:2)
Re:which four? (Score:5, Insightful)
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
Four games. Four fucking games. Out of a entire fucking INDUSTRY, this asshole reviews four games. This is like reveiwing 'Ishtar', 'Waterworld', 'Howard the Duck', and 'Glitter' and then saying that all American movies suck.
I can list four games off the top of my *head* that have more speech and artistic values than all four of those movies I just mentioned put together.
'Black and White' - Morality play, pure and simple. What's the difference between right and wrong?
'Max Payne' - Dark Psychological Thriller with some gritty 3PS thrown in for taste.
'Starcraft' - Betrayal, Greed, and Cosmic justice carried out against a RTS background.
'Diablo II' - Relgion versus damnation. Hell, most RPG's have storylines. Some are better some are worse. What if the plotline of a RPG was that I was a judge trying to stamp out virtual kiddie porn?
Four fucking games. Gimme a break.
Re:which four? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a bad list, but I can do one (or four) better.
The Longest Journey - Adventure games are really the closest thing you can get to a movie in a game. TLJ is one of the best to come out recently, though it was a toss-up between this and Grim Fandango.
Zork - It's almost like reading! Surely even he can get that through his thick skull.
Deus Ex - One of the more literate FPSes. You've got to throw an action one in there.
Tetris - Hey, if we can get him hooked maybe he'll see things in a different light.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that he has NO PLACE JUDGING WHAT IS SPEECH AND WHAT ISN'T . But if he was a good judge I guess he'd know that already.