Supreme court frags violent video game ban

[Duke87 1,070]

Linkety link

I completely support this decision. The state has no business trying to do parents' jobs for them. It just enables parents to be irresponsible and not pay attention to what their kids are doing.

[EyeofMobius 27]

I resoundingly support this decision also.

Personally I don't approve of censorship even though I sometimes abide by it for means of professionalism. I think censorship destroys and inhibits many great bits of creativity and also the basic ability to problem solve with any tool available. In my teenage years my dad remarried and the woman was a zealot. She tried to restrict what I read, listened to, owned and what I did with my friends. I naturally rebelled in large dramatic fashion despite that i am not really the rebellious type. I was up until that point uninhibited in what topics and ideas I could discover of my own action and will so I really didn't and don't care for any restriction. It actually offends me more often than not when I come across different censorship in the world.

[Easy Bakes 253]

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California clamp down on the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments lack authority to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed"

I guess that dont apply to school systems?

[Meg 368]

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California clamp down on the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments lack authority to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed"

I guess that dont apply to school systems?

An excellent question.

The actual quote is:

No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, Ginsberg, supra, at 640–641; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 165 (1944), but that doesnot include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.

It will be interesting to see how this will be applied to school systems.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

They are completely right. Parents have no business abdicating their responsibilities to the state, including the schools. It is also time for schools to stop supporting Bowdlerization of the classics including Shakespear and Mark Twain. All literature must be taken in the context in which it is written, and if something is objectionably out of fashion now, then explain it, don't hide it. The removal of the N word from Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn sets my teeth on edge.

Some literature can be kept out of the hands of children, for example the works of Rabelais, simply by not having them available. If the parents have a copy of Gargantua laying around the house that's their decision. School boards and others should butt out.

I am against burning books except for all copies that have been Bowdlerized. Those I would happily spike, shred, staple and burn.

No one keeps Grimm's Fairy Tales away from children, but this is a violent book.

Some Shakespeare can be left for college or adult discovery. I don't think I would prescribe Coriolanus for study by children under the age of majority. A teacher shouldn't be made to explain sadism, rape, and cannibalism in one short study period. It is something for more mature reflection.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. I bought a Tom Sayer and Huckleberry Finn double novel and it was not censored but the ones at my elementary school were.

2. I think that primary schools should not carry books meant for mature audiences.

3. I have yet to read the original Grimm's Fairy Tales but I know the modern adaptation and I know a little about the original. I would like to read the original translated version some day.

4. About videogames, I think that more videogames should be rated Adult Only (R18+), like Dead Space 2. Because extreme violence and gore is just as bad as graphic sex.

  Edited June 28, 2011 by OcramSeattle  

[Duke87 1,070]

extreme violence and gore is just as bad as graphic sex.

It's interesting how different objectionable things can have different standards. Americans are in general very tolerant of and desensitized to depictions of violence but comparatively quite squeamish about depictions of sex. Note how games can be quite violent with an M rating but any depiction of uncensored nudity (not even necessarily sex) earns your game an AO rating.

In Europe, meanwhile, it's the other way around. Depictions of sex which are fairly ordinary in various media in Europe would be shocking to many Americans. Depictions of violence which are fairly ordinary in various media in America would be quite shocking to many Europeans. American movies, video games, and whatnot that are very violent are often edited to tone it down for release in Europe.

[RipRap 4,400]

I don't like the decision of the Supreme Court (USA), although I agree that parents should not give the responsibility to the states.

[Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ 273]

extreme violence and gore is just as bad as graphic sex.

It's interesting how different objectionable things can have different standards. Americans are in general very tolerant of and desensitized to depictions of violence but comparatively quite squeamish about depictions of sex. Note how games can be quite violent with an M rating but any depiction of uncensored nudity (not even necessarily sex) earns your game an AO rating.

In Europe, meanwhile, it's the other way around. Depictions of sex which are fairly ordinary in various media in Europe would be shocking to many Americans. Depictions of violence which are fairly ordinary in various media in America would be quite shocking to many Europeans. American movies, video games, and whatnot that are very violent are often edited to tone it down for release in Europe.

Yeah, I've actually noticed this. However, maybe its just because I come from a European background but I find sexual content is probably better to be tolerated than violence. I mean I can't really prove or make any opinions concerning a link between tolerated depictions of violence and criminal activity due to the fact that I have no evidence to support this. However, I do think it is fair to question if tolerated depictions of violence does in-fact lead to violence itself.

What are your thoughts on this?

[astronelson 339]

Well, I'm still waiting for Australia to introduce a R18+ rating so we can actually get some of these games. It's likely I wouldn't buy any, but I don't think it's right they should be banned.

Some Shakespeare can be left for college or adult discovery. I don't think I would prescribe Coriolanus for study by children under the age of majority. A teacher shouldn't be made to explain sadism, rape, and cannibalism in one short study period. It is something for more mature reflection.

A teacher shouldn't have to explain sadism, rape, and cannibalism to a class of 16-year-olds (the age at which I studied Titus Andronicus, which has similar themes). By that age, students should have some idea of what those things are. The first two of them are certainly in the news and various popular media often enough.

I would definitely recommend Titus Andronicus to a class of 16-year-olds. It was the most interesting play I've ever read. It's hard to call a play boring when the majority of the cast ends up dead in various interesting ways (three in three lines at one point, if I recall).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

With Titus, it is a never ending blood bath. Sixteen year olds, maybe OK, but I think a lot of the people in power over the curricula in this continent are too prudish. They really don't want kids to know what a violent and brutal heritage we are descended from. Some of the stuff in the Bard's king plays are shocking to the little old ladies that sit in education departments and school boards.

I don't think anyone ever explains, before college, what Tiberius was up to on Capri. If you don't know, PM me, and I'll tell you. It is not PG13 content. Of course, you can probably find it all on Wiki (haven't checked). Caligula was one of Tiberius' protogés. He let it all hang out.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ 273]

Back to topic - the law was stupid in the first place.

Barbarossa

[hamsterTK 93]

No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, Ginsberg, supra, at 640–641; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 165 (1944), but that doesnot include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.

EXACTLY.

With no evidence that a ban of violent games would actually accomplish anything practical, then it is not justified.

I believe that minors do/should have rights, just that they can be overridden for their own protection or benefit. For example, schools are justified in controlling students in a classroom environment by making them wear uniforms.

Not "minors have no rights and should be subject to entirely arbitrary restrictions on personal freedom just because they can't complain". Maybe parents can say they have that power, but not the government. Think about absurd things would be if this were true.

4. About videogames, I think that more videogames should be rated Adult Only (R18+), like Dead Space 2. Because extreme violence and gore is just as bad as graphic sex.

No they aren't.

Most things in the horror genre are escapist and the "desensitizing" thing is overhyped.

Graphic sex can occur in more believable contexts that can more directly challenge established social mores. Suggesting that deviant situations likely to be encountered by ordinary people in the real world are OK is much more extreme than fantasy no matter how offensive it is to some people.

I don't agree with censorship, but yeah.

  Edited June 30, 2011 by hamsterTK  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Actually, one of the things I find to be most disturbing in our society is that people are more appreciative/accepting of violence ("escapist" or not - an argument I do not buy at all) than they are of sex. There is absolutely nothing wrong with boobies, nor bottoms, nor anything else that comes from human relations that we all experience. Assassinating someone in a game, or mindless killing, or gory visuals ARE desensitizing, especially in our youth.

Now, this has no bearing on my belief that the state should not control what a parent should be responsible for on a daily basis.

I know this guy, very religious, with two boys. He is more than happy to allow them access to violent material - games, movies - but will frown upon anything that involves nudity. Its ridiculous. One true thing that came out of the 60s is that we should make love, not war. People are far too uptight when it comes down to sexuality - but it is scarily prevalent.

Barbarossa

I just hate the hypocrisy of it all. I can watch 2 guys beat each other bloody for 15 minutes

in an MMA fight but they bleep out the curse words in the interviews.

[hamsterTK 93]

Actually, one of the things I find to be most disturbing in our society is that people are more appreciative/accepting of violence ("escapist" or not - an argument I do not buy at all) than they are of sex. There is absoutely nothing wrong with boobies, nor bottoms, nor anything else that comes from human relations that we all experience. Assassinating someone in a game, or mindless killing, or gory visuals ARE desensitizing, especially in our youth.

On one hand you say its so horrible that people find action and fighting entertaining, clearly we are the next Roman empire and soon we'll feed people to the lions ? Kids who play Team Fortress 2 are all violent killing machines. While we are at it, lets ban little league and youth football because they are too competitive and are sublimated conflict, right?

Then you say there is nothing wrong with sexual imagery, because that's all it ever is. When you watch a movie where the guy goes and picks up a prostitute its all just about the boobs, and nothing more, right? Sex is purely harmless with no consequences, and kids shouldn't be repressed with our primitive social norms I guess.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[RipRap 4,400]

I think this could turn ugly at some point...

The point is humans are born to be violent and born with sexual organs.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

First, let's deal with sexual puritanism. It is a carry over from centuries of repression from the religious prudes who had control for such a long time. The very wording of some laws referring to sexual activities that may be illicit as "criminal conversation" is a carry over from that time, and is ingrained into the psyche of most people with European heritage. If you want to blame someone, try John Knox or the founder of Puritanism, whose name escapes me. It will probably take us the rest of the century to shake off these blinders if ever. Our collective psyche is damaged, and it will take a long time to undo the harm.

Man is a predator. Vicariously depicted violence is a sublimation, no matter how explicit. However, since we have become a fastidious bunch, I wonder how much blood and gore we could take if we had smell-o-vision? The odor of a battlefield consists of ripped up soil, feces, blood, and intestines mixed with burned powder smoke, rotting flesh and the screams of the dead and dying. The truth might put an end to a lot of the gory games, if the smells were included.

Every group of teen agers should be toured through the killing floor of an abattoir. It might cure their lust for blood and/or help us spot incipient sociopaths and psychopaths.

In ancient times, warrior training had a final phase where the prospective warriors were taken to a herd of cattle and required to slaughter a few in as gory a manner as possible. The innards of the beasts were draped around their necks. Those that could not do this were denied warrior status.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hamsterTK 93]

Man is a predator. Vicariously depicted violence is a sublimation, no matter how explicit. However, since we have become a fastidious bunch, I wonder how much blood and gore we could take if we had smell-o-vision?

Well, that's the point of games. It just wouldn't be fun if it was too realistic. Generally the enemies you kill have about as much personality as a paper target. If its multiplayer, you are probably still talking to the person you killed over chat which doesn't exactly reinforce that they are "dead", and everyone is back next round. They call gore "gibs"(giblets) for a reason, it looks like a turkey exploded.

I would argue that most popular FPS games are a lot like paintball, except you get the imagery of someone getting shot. It just wouldn't be as much fun if you couldn't shoot rockets and have things that go boom, would it? Much like Barbarossa's argument that the mere image of breasts or genitalia should not offend people, the cartoony imagery of you or your your enemy getting blown up and turned into Alpo brand meaty chunks should not either.

I might agree that it is offensive if a game allows you to go murder innocent civilians or (non-corrupt)cops or something. But I would argue the majority of popular "violent" games played by teens and younger kids don't rely on that for gameplay(many do allow hurting NPCs, but you could remove that and it wouldn't change much). I wonder how many violent game critics have actually played games or know much about the most popular genres and the culture of their players?

You guys should read the way the ESRB comes up with standards. I can respect them because their reviewers are very reasoned in how they come up with decisions. I trust them a lot more than the politicians and judges who would like to censor games. No offense, but in most cases these are reactionary "think of the children" people who are very ignorant about games and are simply fearful.

In ancient times, warrior training had a final phase where the prospective warriors were taken to a herd of cattle and required to slaughter a few in as gory a manner as possible. The innards of the beasts were draped around their necks. Those that could not do this were denied warrior status.

Well modern people are a little too detached from this kind of thing, I think. I grew up going hunting with my dad and have killed and gutted various things.

Then again I am glad we are divorced from running around and slaughtering the other tribe for their cattle and their women, so whatever.

I'm not bothered by the sight of a weenie, of boobs, or anything else. Why should anyone be? We all have something in that category - we all grew up with them.

Me neither. I don't think that nudity, or very soft core porn(e.g. Playboy) is wrong.

But I think it worth questioning things that portray sexual encounters and what message they send. Common sense says there have been reasons why some societies are prudish, and that sex would be a unique case.

  Edited July 1, 2011 by hamsterTK  

[airman15 4,111]

What I never understood is why the parents have to take the long way by starting campaigns, petitions, trying to pass laws and other nonsense just to keep their own kids from playing games they find "inappropriate". When my family discusses when people throw hissy fits over superficial issues like violent video games, it's probably the whole "entitlement" mindset and they think everybody should conform to their ideas and that pretty much turns into fascism.

But what parents don't understand is that video games don't kill real people, people kill people. Most games I have played sometimes have a disclaimer that says something like:

"We will not be held responsible for actions influenced by this game, don't try to imitate any actions at home"

A good example of these whole "Parents Against (Insert game title here)" that turn into a big deal would be MAC from South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut when Sheila Broslovski gets the US to wage war against Canada all because of a Terrance and Philip movie that had a lot of swearing. What the parents should do instead of going through all that trouble and end up making fools out of themselves is to:

1- Turn off the game/TV

2-Sit down with their kids

and 3- Discuss with them why they feel they shouldn't play the game

This was also pointed out in the Futurama episode "Bender Shouldn't be Allowed on TV" when Farnsworth and Hermes start a campaign against the TV network (because their kids started acting like Bender) when they didn't have to. If more parents just talked to their kids about why they feel uncomfortable with the types of games they play, there wouldn't be any (or at least as many) unimportant issues nobody needs to know about and there wouldn't be as much time wasted that could have been used to fix issues that are important

[Easy Bakes 253]

Fathers Against Rude Telelvision

[Duke87 1,070]

But I think it worth questioning things that portray sexual encounters and what message they send.

The problem is that the way sex is depicted in various media is, as with anything else, gratuitous rather than realistic. It's unhealthy to expose kids to too much of this too many years before they're old enough to be having their own sexual encounters because you will create some incorrect notions and unrealistic expectations which then have to be unlearned, and that can be quite difficult.

But just nudity has no real harm to it.

Though, I would like to see the stars not all be perfect models. This is what makes girls go anorexic.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The whole "You're no good if you don't look like a model" is one of the diseases of our society. The whole anorexia and bulimia issue needs full public exposure. These disorders are getting to be epidemic. But we are getting off track.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I personally believe that skinny people look unattractive. Women need to have curves (at least in the right places) for me to find them attractive and men look best with muscle.

[jacksunny 741]

I personally believe that skinny people look unattractive. Women need to have curves (at least in the right places) for me to find them attractive and men look best with muscle.

Okay, now we are getting really off topic. Anyway I agree with the supreme court as well.

  Edited July 3, 2011 by jacksunny  

[RipRap 4,400]

Okay. Let's get back to topic. It is supposed to be violence, not about sexuality and nudity. Violent Video Games may influence someone, as reported by AACAP on 2005:

AACAP's Link

[jacksunny 741]

may influence??!! Of course it influences people. I have noticed that around my school, the kids that play violent video games a lot seem to struggle and often use innapropriate language while those who play kid friendly or no video games at all excel and are kind. Unless that is just a coincidence...