Supreme Court accepts case over violent video games

Visual Novel Community Anime/Otaku Discussions
#1

Because B173 M3 complains when I don’t make a new thread for stuff like this. :stuck_out_tongue:

Just posted a few hours ago:

Supreme Court accepts case over violent video games.

Applies only to minors, so adults don’t need to worry. Hearing this Fall… so the ruling won’t be until 2011. Weird case. Game makers want unrestricted access to selling ultra violence to minors? Man… I didn’t think we were that ruthless: I must hang out with the industry saints. On the flip side: why are parents letting their kids play them? That can’t be right. The Law is very specific though… applies only to minors. Does it fall under the purview of censorship or protection? Let’s say if a parent doesn’t care if their kid plays Grand Theft Auto… how does this Law work? What if parents write a note, saying they don’t mind if their kid buys an Mature game? What if a parent has a kid present with them, and they buy a Mature game? Is it the same, as if I took a my kid into a porn store (which is illegal)? What’s the difference between buying, and seeing the game in action? IIRC, GameStop has shown previews (or has a demo) of MA rated games in the store.

#2

This is interesting but I think there’s more to it than that. I suspect people are worried that if the State starts trying to enforce classification, what else might they start to enforce? It’s really none of their business at all.

#3

I would be very surprised - given the dogfigbhting ruling, and the lopsided nature of that ruling - if this survived. Books and movies aren’t subject to the same restriction, and (as was cited by both the district and appelate courts when they looked at the issue) there is a very severe drought of convincing evidence to suggest that the interactive nature of games is a meaningful difference between these types of media. Therefore, under the current rules, the statute is invalid.

Underinclusion is grounds for unconstitutionality, when it comes to free speech. That is - if you say you want to prevent X from happening, and to do that, you need to censor speech: your argument will fail if it is proven that you are only censoring some speech that can cause X - but ignoring other speech. In that case, the mere existence of the law is discriminatory against one type of expression based on its content.

#4

lol… California is on a roll…

Toys banned in Happy Meals

Seriously… this is too much…

#5

Here’s something for you:

http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/200 … olden.html

#6

I heard about this yesterday, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. I kind of like the basic idea of removing an incentive to eat unhealthy food. Kids young enough to actually want such trinkets aren’t old enough to understand why the food you have to order to get it is bad for them, and all too often I’ve seen parents who don’t even care about their own diet. By the time kids are old enough to at least understand about nutrition somewhat, they are old enough that they most likely want a bigger meal than the ones that have toys. As an added side benefit (especially if this kind of thing spreads to other places) it should help reduce the number of crappy little plastic toys in landfills. :stuck_out_tongue:

#7

Won’t work. One word: Lobbyists

The video game version, seriously sucks. Reason? Despite being a multi BILLION dollar industry (makes more money than PORN), game developers and retailers are currently at each others throats, because they both have different ways of making money from said industry (GameStop and Nintendo are NOT friends). While gamers themselves are either confused, apathetic, ignorant, or insignificant.

It be funny, if it wasn’t so pathetic. Since there’s a void in the legislative arm, everything ends up defaulting to the judicial arm.

On the bright side: time is on our side. In a few more decades, the video game generation will be the “old farts” running Washington… it’s just keeping the ship afloat until that happens, that’s really the purpose here.

That and making sure the brainwashed ultra conservatives of our generation, don’t get elected instead. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

#8

Well at this point it isn’t about lobbyists, it’s about lawyers and in applet courts the industry has an advantage. I am pretty sure as it affects the entire state, and one of the world’s largest markets for gaming, they will do something to start the legal process rolling even if its not everyone.

On the bright side: time is on our side. In a few more decades, the video game generation will be the “old farts” running Washington… it’s just keeping the ship afloat until that happens, that’s really the purpose here.

That and making sure the brainwashed ultra conservatives of our generation, don’t get elected instead. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

Well by then they’ll have stuff like Mixed Reality to regulate.

#9

Or just realize how awesome violence is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ

:wink:

#10

And so it continues:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1105711p1.html

#11

While I don’t support this ban on video games garbage, I will admit that there is some evidence that video games can contribute to violence in children … but nowhere has causation been proven, merely some correlation. (In fact, the currently perceived formula for how this occurs depends on the child being antisocial to begin with - so the game isn’t causing the behavior, merely stimulating it some … in truth this is vastly complex and I don’t want to get into the details here; needless to say, correlation is not causation)

The reason video game companies don’t want a law passed to prevent the sale of violent games to minors is it creates a perception in stores that they should not carry those games and the media either has to tone down all its material or lose a vast amount of business. Personally I think parents should simply take some damned responsibility for raising their kids and keep track of what those same kids are playing … but why should people raise their children when they can make big business do it for them?

#12

There’s more evidence that Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster exist - or that aliens are mutilating cows - than there is that video games contribute to violence.

Just saying. :stuck_out_tongue:

#13

I was going to say you’re wrong - as there have been some serious psychological studies on the issue, not merely by the lunatic extremists that get all the media - but once I thought about it I realized you were correct. However, there is more evidence for Big Foot and Nessie than String Theory and Quantum Mechanics as well … those are two seriously popular munsters.

#14

Oh, no. There’s a mountain of evidence for Quantum Mechanics that easily dwarfs the evidence in support of Big Foot and Nessie. Modern computer chips are built out of components so small, that they have to take quantum mechanical effects into consideration; if they fail to apply QM to their chip design, then the chips won’t work.

(As for string theory, I don’t know enough about that to be sure, but you sound right to me.)

#15

According to my understanding, they haven’t even really established correlation. They’ve established basically bupkus that would really mean anything. The only thing they’ve been able to show a correlation to is behavior designed to be a “surrogate” for actual violent aggression (like playing a loud noise in someone’s ear momentarily), and then, only immediately after the fact.

And this “immediately after the fact” stuff is junk, not worth regulating anything over. It’s not a proper ground for regulating games, because so many other things can cause an immediate increase in aggressive behavior. Major sporting events, for example; there have been numerous cases of riots breaking out after a big game. Ever been cut off in traffic? That provokes an immediate increase in aggressive reaction. Hell, there have been people that had to be arrested because they got upset their order was wrong at a drive-thru.

They have nothing - nada - that I have ever seen which indicates a behavior that persists. They have the subjects play a video game (one group playing a violent game, the other playing something like Tetris), then usher them into another room and do their aggression test. I have not heard of a single study being done that was two-phase, where they have the subjects come in and play the video games, then - the next day - have them come back, and do their aggression test.

Without that, I think, I have to say … they basically have bupkis.

#16

Boiling it down this is the way it works: A kid is somewhat antisocial and doesn’t have any friends, so when he goes home he plays violent video game X which serves as the only thing like social interaction he gets. He learns some bad lessons about how to deal with people from the games and goes to school and tries to apply these - which only serves to chase people away and make him more of an outcast, so he goes home and plays more of his violent video game; and so forth. A similar event occurs with kids who spend more time dealing with others over the internet than in person - they do not develop healthy social skills and come to imagine they can treat people in their real life like they do on the internet.

It is a little more complicated than that, but I make it a point not to bring school home with me over vacation. But this has been studied by social psychologists and correlations have been made by more than just the right wing nutjobs. (but, again, not causation) The thing is, the exposure to the violence becomes one part of a complex formula of one’s social development … they can’t say “video games cause violence” because the video game by itself does not.

#17

I’m familiar with this theory … but I haven’t seen any studies that have data which would support this.

#18

When Mortal Kombat 9 is released in 2011, bricks will be shat. 8)

Because we all know that people who are raised to be good Christian boys and girls, completely devoid of violent influence or sexual tension, will [u]NEVER[/u] grow up to be evil killers or homicidal maniacs. I mean, it’s just unheard of for that to happen. :stuck_out_tongue:

#19

The main issue I see with the bans the sale of M-rated games to minors is that the legal definition of “minor” in most jurisdictions is a person who’s under the age of 18, yet the M-rathing itself is supposed to be for games that are ages 17 and up.

So if a supposed ban was upheld, a 17 year-old couldn’t buy an M-rated game even though the rating explicitly says he’s old enough to play it? Yeah, huge discrepancy right there…

#20

In my state, anyone under the age of 21 can’t buy a handgun… but it’s 100% legal for someone 18 years or older to own a handgun. They’re not allowed to practice using a handgun (i.e. can’t take it to a shooting range); but they’re allowed to use it in self defense. How you get a handgun you can’t buy (can’t give it a gift either), or use a handgun you’re not allowed to train with, baffles the mind and drives the NRA crazy. And then there’s the 17 and 18 year old youngsters who join the military: they can wear a handgun ON base… but as soon as they step OFF base, they can technically be arrested if still carrying it (for example driving off base to get drivethru at McDonalds, while still on MP duty). All this despite the fact that guns are basically what the military is centered around, and soldiers should be allowed to have them to do their job.

This all somehow makes sense to gun control supporters though. :stuck_out_tongue: