Yet Another Violent Games Ban 257
Gamespot reports on a proposed Tennessee bill banning extremely violent games. From the article: "The bill defines the phrase 'extremely violent video game' as 'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being," with a number of clauses specifying that a game would have to be patently offensive to prevailing community standards, among other things, to be considered extremely violent.'"
guess this means (Score:5, Interesting)
Like the Miller test of "adult" works (Score:5, Informative)
Guess this means [the developers of America's Army] can't peddle their wares in the volunteer state anymore.
Is America's Army any more violent than the 1998 film Saving Private Ryan? The patent offensiveness and lack of artistic value requirements of the bill [state.tn.us] as I understand it are similar to those developed in the Miller test [wikipedia.org], making the regulation more aligned with that of hardcore pornography than that of mere R- or M-rated fare.
Re:Like the Miller test of "adult" works (Score:4, Insightful)
The Miller test has long been a club for the government to threaten whoever it doesn't like at the time. So lets look at it in terms of games: Do you think your game is not "too violent"? The government thinks it is. So you trot out an average person who thinks its not too violent. The government trots out their well paid expert "more average than you" witness to claim it is. Uhoh, there goes part 1. If you've come this far, your game probably already has people being killed or wounded or maybe just gets a papercut. So, part 2. So now you start trotting out the expensive expert witnesses for part 3. Ebert and Kojima say games aren't art. Who do you have to convince the jury that games are, some kid with a website?
All of this... only after your game ships because it's impossible to know if something will offend someone until after you've offended them. The only safe thing to do in a world of Miller tests is "nothing".
O rly? (Score:2, Informative)
The Miller test only concerns prurient/sexual speech.
The Miller test, used to interpret federal and state obscenity statutes, says "prurient + offensive + not art = bannable". The test of Tennessee SB3981 says "specific types of violence + offensive + not art = bannable". Because the tests share the element of "category + offensive + not art = bannable", I reasoned that the Supremes might view them the same way.
it would be an ironic game to have to import (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:guess this means (Score:2)
Re:guess this means (Score:2)
Is it really effective? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the rest of us... people need to grow up. We do all agree that it's a game, right?
Re:Is it really effective? (Score:3)
Re:Is it really effective? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it really effective? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the rest of us... people need to grow up. We do all agree that it's a game, right?
Is it really effective? Absolutely! It's just as effective as "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror". I mean we won the "War on Drugs" right? And we are doing great in the "War on Terror"!
Sarcasm aside, you are absolutely right. People who will want to play these games even after a ban is in place, will be able. Someone has to explain these politicians what's the internet. What will stop people from downloading these games?
Re:Is it really effective? (Score:2)
CRAP is irrelavent to this, and TC can be turned off (you just can't run *anything* that requires a trusted environment, meaning probably Vista+1). I could definately interpret a bill this stupid as politicians supporting piracy. Although is it really stealing if it's not for sale? What about Steam... are they just going to block transactions from certain states, or force on low-violence mode? Surely there will be a conflict of intrest when the law blocks games like AA that a
That's just the problem (Score:2)
The mind adaptes and behaviours are created based based on the minds input. The more realistic games get, the harder it becomes for the mind to know the difference.
That is of course an incredibly simplistic statement, but the point is correct.
And to put a finer point on it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
Military applications (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Military applications (Score:2)
Re:Military applications (Score:2)
Re:Military applications (Score:2)
Zombie, zombie, zombie, zombie, virus, virus (Score:2)
You must have played a different Doom than everyone else, because I remember killing humans when I played it.
According to the descriptions in the manual, the "former human soldiers" of The Ultimate Doom and Doom II were more like zombies [4inthemorn.com] than living, breathing, thinking humans.
Re:Military applications (Score:2)
Re:Military applications (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Military applications (Score:2, Funny)
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.)
Althought it was funnier when raves were exploding with popularity.Re:Military applications (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, this points out the fundamental dichotomy that exists between our "violence is bad" cultural notions and our quickness to go to war, whatever the good or bad reasons might be (and I'm not making a stand on that today).
The point about 'America's Army' is a good one, because this explains the 'Sibyl' in our national consciousness . . . we use so many psychological tactics to resolve these little cognitive dissonances, but are we sufficiently aware of it?
I have yet to see a link proven between so called violent video games and real life violence, personally my WoW sessions do nothing to make me want to go out and gank a wandering priest;)
Re:Military applications (Score:2)
And besides, think of all those poor gosts of dead family members that the military would be forced to consume.
oblij Aliens Quote (Score:2)
The Sims (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Sims (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, while their at it, why don't they just ban life?
Well, there is always A tale in the desert left (Score:2)
Well, we could always play A tale in the desert [atitd.com]. This telling, you can't even kill yourself! :) (And it's pretty fun to play)
Well, I'm off finishing my beer brewing :)
Re:The Sims (Score:3, Insightful)
The bill (which I strongly disagree with) proposes to ban games which meet a test of objectionability (not unlike restrictions on hardcore adult films).. one of which is games which limit the player to a range of violent options. Clearly the Sims, final fantasy, and the ilk fall outside of this. What is more interesting are games like GTA, which are no mor
Nah! (Score:2)
Re:The Sims (Score:2)
Not Just Another Bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.
The logic is like this. If I wanted to walk to the crack house, I have to go one block south, then one block east, so that means I shouldn't go to the blockbuster one block south because that just takes me half way to the crack house. That logic is invalid because it contains a slippery slope falacy - the idea that I shouldn't walk one block south because it is on the way to the crack house.
To discuss it in your terms, we have existed for many decades in a society that bans alcohol for minors, but allows alcohol for people over a certain age. At one point, alcohol was banned for everyone by democratic choice, and then by democratic choice (and practicality) it was overturned. But most people are ok with minors not being allowed to buy alcohol, even though it would be a step in the direction of banning it for everyone.
When we draw a line in the sand, we have to know exactly why we're drawing it at that spot. It has to be the right spot. To argue that we can't draw the line because someone in the future might move the line is an invalid argument.
Personally, I'm against censorship or bans, but think that rating games for their content and restricting sales to minors is the right way to go.
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:2, Interesting)
From a purely logical point of view, you are correct but most people aren't very logical. If it takes me saying that if this law passes, the next step is going to be to ban movies to someone who doesn't play video games but enjoys violent movies in order to get them on board and to take some action - I'll do it. Logically, it
Incorrect. (Score:2)
They are not inherently invalid. A slippery slope argument can either be valid or invalid. It depends on the usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are relying on the assertion that passing "legislation such and such" does not create a political climate where similar legislation is more likely to pass. Without demonstrating this, you have no basis for calling the argument invalid. A slippery slope argument is not inherently a logical fallacy.
The people who wrote the slippery slope [wikipedia.org] article on Wikipedia claim that "Use of the slippery slope can be valid or fallacious," and I agree with that characterization.
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:3)
There's a big difference between logically sound and truthful.
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:2)
If it was true, then porn would have been banned 20 years ago.
As a people we can draw the line where we want.
Speaking of Bill... (Score:3)
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:3, Insightful)
Li
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:3, Insightful)
If video games are found not to deserve First Amendment protection then laws can be made against them on a state level for any random reason. In this case, a law would be valid restricting video games because they incite violence in children but it would be just as valid if the argument is made that they incite violence in unstable adults.
The First
There is a slippery slope. (Score:2)
When you have a small (or not so small) core of very determined people who want an outcome that most people would not like -- in this case, the banning of everything contrary to their "Christian" values, not just videogames, but books, television, and movies as well -- there is a very real 'slippery slope.' It may not be a logical argument, but it's a human one.
To use your example, it would be as if you had a friend who really wanted, for r
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that arguing whether to do this or not to do this on slippery slope.... is not really that valid. Just because you allow same sex marraige doesn't mean you're going to legalize incest.
However, what worries me more is the notion of precedent - that if they're allowed to get away with banning sales of a video game to adults with a violent context then the next thing down the pipe will be a ban on something else, and they'll hold up
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:2)
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:2, Insightful)
A semantic slippery slope is an argument where one argues that because the boundary between two sets is undefined, the two sets are actually identical.
For example: people can have verying number of hairs on their head. People with few hairs are bald. People with many hairs aren't. However there is no number X for which we can say that all people with less than X hairs ar
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your statement is logically equivalent to the assertion that "slippery slopes" do not exist--i.e. there are no circumstances such that change in one direction is much easier than the other. Considering that there are many physical circumstances in which such is the case--including a literal slippery slope, as well as innumerable examples of thermodynamically irreversible reactions in chemistry and physics, this is a fairly remarkable assertion. What empirical evidence can you provide to support the radical claim that this cannot occur in legal or social contexts?
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:2)
Not a fallacy since you made no concrete logical statement
"new legislation such and such will lead us
However, is a fallacy...
Maybe you should learn the difference first before accusing others of b
Re:Not Just Another Bill... (Score:2)
For example, I could predict that when you drop something, it will fall to the ground because the magic weight pixies will grab it and drag it there. If I then drop it and it does indeed fall to the ground, it doesn't mean that my reasoning was correct, just that I coincidentally reached the right conclusion.
GTA (Score:2, Funny)
Not just Violence, but sex too.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tennesse also is trying to ban sex toys. [decaturdaily.com]
Some people really need to mind their own business.....
Re:Not just Violence, but sex too.. (Score:2)
Re:Not just Violence, but sex too.. (Score:2)
Another thought on this subject.... Since sex toys are by far used more by women, I kind of see this as an attack on a woman's sexuality. Every step the Religious Right takes seems to bring them closer and closer to some kind of Christian Shari`a law.
Men, on the other hand (no pun intended), have built in sex toys found at the end of each arm.
Re:Not just Violence, but sex too.. (Score:3, Funny)
He must be a product of one of their education systems!
Re:Not just Violence, but sex too.. (Score:2)
Re:Not just Violence, but sex too.. (Score:2)
And ironically, at the top of my screen while I was looking at that article, my browser notified me that a pop-up was blocked.
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no way these people can be as stupid as they seem.
Are you a gambling man? (Score:4, Funny)
Ahem.
In any case, I think I'll start a pool taking dates when
A) The bill fails
B) Some court shoots down the bill as unconstitutional, or
C) Lizard men invade
Contradictions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Contradictions (Score:2)
Re:Contradictions (Score:2)
How is it a contradiction? I've never killed anyone with my firearms... Maybe if you made a video game who's theme was target shooting...
And it's not that I disagree with the general idea you're trying to get at but attacking gun ownership as a means to undermine those who'd ban/censor video games isn't really logical at all.
Another way to see this in action is to examine this body's attitude twords something for which most people consider firearms acceptable at such as
Choices (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Choices (Score:2)
image of a human being (Score:3, Funny)
Re:image of a human being (Score:3, Interesting)
There are reviews of some of 'em on Something Awful in case you're
Re:image of a human being (Score:3, Insightful)
If we let our government start banning things that might give us "impure thoughts", then we're fucked.
Re:image of a human being (Score:2)
It's available to dowload from atariage [atariage.com]. FWIW, it's really not that much fun.
Killing Humans? (Score:4, Funny)
Will Wal-Mart Sell it? (Score:2)
Would that be The Sims - PETA edition or Chinese Restaurant Tycoon? I'm up for either!
Hah (Score:2, Insightful)
Ban Toilet Paper (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/03/0
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Man-charged-i
Re:Ban Toilet Paper (Score:2)
When will humanity learn.
America's Army (Score:2)
Just showing the idocy of these laws.
Maybe they should visit Newport, TN (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, if these guys want to make laws, maybe they should look at Newport, TN. They had a big cock fighting ring busted down there. They even snagged cops and judges in the bust. Before cock fighting, it was stolen cars. Before that, drugs. Before that, moonshine. Although I'm fairly libertarian, I'd say if they want to work on eradicating "bad" behavior, maybe they should work on other things....
Anyone know what gun laws in Tennessee are like ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head, ask the obvious questions, and try to make the best choice you're allowed to at the ballot box...
Re:Anyone know what gun laws in Tennessee are like (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know what gun laws in Tennessee are like (Score:2)
Did I say it did ?
Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.
That's much closer to the point I was trying to make, actually...
Of course, the reality is that this is just the resu
Re:Anyone know what gun laws in Tennessee are like (Score:2)
That is very, very much indeed the spirit of the point I was trying to make. How does outlawing a book, movie, or other representation of violence make any sense when you have legal access to everything
Re:Anyone know what gun laws in Tennessee are like (Score:2)
Not just *can*, but statistically, *does*. Cars kill more people in the US than just about any other type of accident ( by *far), and *many* fewer people die as a result of homicide than accidents ( and not all homicides are a result of
Incredible, but expected. (Score:3, Interesting)
When will people realize that kids don't need to be protected? When I was younger, it was normal to go around playing with (toy) guns, and most parents let their kids run around wherever they wished. Now parents lock their kids away, and they aren't allowed to be kids. Kids need to be desensitzied to things at an early age so that they don't turn out soft. Video game violence isn't going to hurt anyone other than the extremely stupid or mentally handicapped kids who can't separate reality from fantasy.
I want to make a game.. (Score:2)
your sig... (Score:2)
Sounds like the kind of thing a Skaven clan leader would say...
thank god (Score:2)
hurrah for free speech!
If I can't kill people in video games... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing more relaxing after a long frustrating day dealing with morons than going home and shooting Nazi's in the head and watching their little helmets pop off.
I don't think it would be a very good idea to take away the one safe outlet I have for my anger.
Gotta Do Something! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, wait ... [tomgpalmer.com]
We don't need fewer incitements to violence, (Score:2, Funny)
So I can write a book, play, song, or movie... (Score:2)
I guess that means no video game adaptions of any kind of film or book involving horror, terrorism, state goons torturing victims, etc.
yea.. this is unconstitutional on the face of it.
I got an idea for a law... (Score:5, Interesting)
The way this bill would work is that any politician that votes for three bills that are later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and are prevented from coming into effect is kicked out of office. Any politician that blatantly fails to do their duty to uphold the constitution of the US three times in a row should have their ass thrown from office. End of story. They have violated the trust of the people far too many times and failed to uphold their oath to the constitution.
This is a non-story. This stupid bill, even if it is passed will be promptly struck down by the courts. What pisses me off is that I keep having to read about these stupid bills being passed and struck down. Someone needs to smack some sense into these dumb fuckers heads.
Re:I got an idea for a law... (Score:2)
Get out clause (Score:2)
So just put the main character in a Uniform, and call it "Grand Theft Iraqi".
Definitely censorship (Score:2)
What's wrong with simply banning the sale of games labeled for certain age groups to those not of those agre groups? Adults can play whatever they want. Adults can think for themselves.
next to the fireworks stands (Score:2)
I guess this means we'll see game stores next to the fireworks stands at the state line.
Hey, this business plan has an actual item #2!
yeah right (Score:2)
Easy fix... (Score:2)
Easy.
GTA becomes GTU. Grand Theft UFO. Now everyone's an alien!
Just legislative pandering (Score:2)
To have even a prayer of getting the courts to accept such a drastic restriction of the constitutional rights of adults, it would be necessary to prove that such games pose some grave threat. This would be pretty difficult, considering that as violent video games have gotten more popular a
Re:Just legislative pandering (Score:2)
In case it hasn't been linked else
Unhumane (Score:2)
Re:Not all regulation is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Like a book. Or a movie. Or a play. Or a TV show. Or a song. Or a poem. Or a campfire story...
I personally do not want the general public to find entertainment in simulating the rape of another individual. The effect on the individual is not something that I find acceptable.
Fine. Just as long as you're intellectually consistent enough to sugge
Re:Not all regulation is bad (Score:2)
Well, first I'll reiterate what I said to end my last comment, I think reading engages a person's mind--via the imagination--to a much deeper level than any other media, such as television, movies, and video games.
If written fiction has its intended impact on the reader, the reader is transported into the pages, the story and the characters in a very significant way. Audio/Visual mediums spell it out in rote, which may be explicit, but it inhe