Azazello1313 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Supreme Court strikes down violent video games law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 I'm confused... a minor can purchase and play Resident Evil, but they can't see it in the theater without an adult? I would imagine stores are free to abide by game ratings age guidelines, just like movie theaters. the question here is one of government censorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 movie ratings are just guidelines so a theater can let under 16 watch R-rated movies if it wanted to? well, yes. it's not against the law for them to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 well, yes. it's not against the law for them to do so. What about porn? Is the whole "18 or over" thing just a suggestion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 What about porn? Is the whole "18 or over" thing just a suggestion? "obsenity laws" pertaining to porn have generally been upheld by the courts as a first amendment exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I don't understand why we would censor video games when we start a new war every 2 years. A six year old can turn on the news and see kids, injured by bombings, carried through crowds alot easier than buying a video game from Wal-Mart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) "obsenity laws" pertaining to porn have generally been upheld by the courts as a first amendment exception. Could one not argue that graphically violent video games are as "obscene" as porn? I'm not a gamer, so I can only go on what I've heard, but I've been told there are some rather graphic situations in games like Grand Theft Auto that seem no more suitable for kids than porn. Don't get me wrong, I'm not into saying these games should be pulled off the shelf. Just like I'm not saying they should close up the Adult bookstores. However, I do find it a bit odd that they bothered to go all the way back to Nursery Rhymes to justify why kids should be able to buy these games when they need only look at porn to see why they shouldn't. Either we're trying to shield our kids from gnarly things or we're not. And I find it odd that we certainly draw the line at porn and not at graphic first-person shooter games or games that deal with pretty intense crime-related themes. That one is an atrocity that we're prepared to suspend the first amendment over and the other is a shining example of free expression. Edited June 29, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I'm just amazed that someone got Justice Scalia to reference "Mortal Kombat" in a published decision. It would be even cooler if he concluded the the opinion by saying "finish him." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 Could one not argue that graphically violent video games are as "obscene" as porn? I'm sure california tried to make some variation of that argument, and it was rejected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 I'm just amazed that someone got Justice Scalia to reference "Mortal Kombat" in a published decision. It would be even cooler if he concluded the the opinion by saying "finish him." or "boom, headshot!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Could one not argue that graphically violent video games are as "obscene" as porn? I'm not a gamer, so I can only go on what I've heard, but I've been told there are some rather graphic situations in games like Grand Theft Auto that seem no more suitable for kids than porn. Yeah, but a major difference is that even kids realize that video games aren't real, much like Showtime or PPV porn... I see your point about where to draw the line, but I'd say right where it is. Things like this should be left up to the companies to decide... If EA doesn't rate its games or give adequate warning, or Best Buy doesn't enforce a policy of age limits for certain games, then they risk losing those customers (i.e., parents who give kids money to buy the games)... And of course at the end of the day it's the parent's responsiblity to know what their kids are playing, or wanting them to buy. Much like most other things, the government has no business (and is no way competent at) defining age restrictions for something as subjective as fictional "decency". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) I'm sure california tried to make some variation of that argument, and it was rejected. Obviously, it was. But again, why is one something that we're prepared to suspend the first amendment over and the other is a shining beacon of liberty? You can't simply say, "Well duh, the courts already decided that porn is exempt for the first amendment." That's like pointing to the bible to prove god exists. At very least, I would think this should be a moment where one hold's one's nose and says, "Well, it's a free country..." Sort of like the movie we all saw in civics class where the dude dresses up like Hitler and stands on the street corner talking about what a great man he was. It's one of those times where you realize that even the best of laws have a rather unsavory side to them. After all, this "victory" is about allowing companies to profit from selling games with some pretty intense themes to kids. Again, it's a free country. But, again, there is a precedent in play here. We've already decided that making something for adults only is not a violation of free speech. So, again, why bother going back to the Brothers Grimm for precedent when we need only go back to Vivid Video? We've already decided there are things we don't want to involve our kids with. Watching some woman suck a dude's cock, apparently, is one of them. Acting out the role of a criminal in a violent game, on the other hand, is fair game? The irony is that, given the lowest common denominator "copy cat" deal, where idiots repeat what they see. In one case, some kid gets his dick sucked, in the other, some kid could get seriously hurt. It says something that we're more concerned about kids getting the wrong idea from movies of people having sex than we do about interactive games with violent themes. Why is one cool and not the other? Mind you, I'm not simply saying to keep these games out of the hands of kids. I'm saying, why one and not the other. Edited June 29, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Old clip, but funny: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june...--player-haters "and as I stand there, watching them play these violent games, helpless to do anything about it, I can't help but wonder where the system has failed" Video games take their rightful place next to comic books, rock and roll music, saturday morning cartoons, rap music, and whatever else an older generation has flailed about while being ignorant that technology and culture have evolved and passed them by. On a side note, in some European countries extremely violent games are sold like porn-- though Europe tends to be pro-nudity and anti-violence (the opposite of America). As for the Supreme Court case, I believe the issues were technical in that the current bill was a bit over-reaching and a smaller, more focused piece of legislation was possible. I, however, am neither a lawyer nor well-versed on the specific technicalities of the ruling-- that was the 'layman's' version relayed to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Old clip, but funny: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june...--player-haters good stuff off to play Black Ops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Old clip, but funny: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june...--player-haters "and as I stand there, watching them play these violent games, helpless to do anything about it, I can't help but wonder where the system has failed" OK, that was hilarious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 Obviously, it was. But again, why is one something that we're prepared to suspend the first amendment over and the other is a shining beacon of liberty? since when is ruling that something is protected speech under the first amendment equating it with "a shining beacon of liberty"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 After all, this "victory" is about allowing companies to profit from selling games with some pretty intense themes to kids. Again, it's a free country. But, again, there is a precedent in play here. We've already decided that making something for adults only is not a violation of free speech. So, again, why bother going back to the Brothers Grimm for precedent when we need only go back to Vivid Video? We've already decided there are things we don't want to involve our kids with. Watching some woman suck a dude's cock, apparently, is one of them. Acting out the role of a criminal in a violent game, on the other hand, is fair game? Dude - do you read what you write or do you just like to argue? Why WOULD you equate straight up porn that is not sold to children, let alone marketed, with violent or sexual video games that are marketed and sold to children? One is the real life filming of actions and the other is an illustrated depiction. So, yeah Brothers Grimm and the violent ends met by people in those classic children stories are certainly much more relevant than Big Wet Asses Vol 14. Additionally, by and large sex is sex in porn. Sure, there are some more hard than others, but point of fact is that a clear line is crossed once you scan past the FBI warnings. Each game that came under critique in this case (and many more that didn't) do not have such a well defined line, let alone base the whole game around it, like a gonzo video. Sometimes we're talking about moments of an hours long game. Go back to your porn, det it's clearly on your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Could one not argue that graphically violent video games are as "obscene" as porn? I'm not a gamer, so I can only go on what I've heard, but I've been told there are some rather graphic situations in games like Grand Theft Auto that seem no more suitable for kids than porn. Don't get me wrong, I'm not into saying these games should be pulled off the shelf. Just like I'm not saying they should close up the Adult bookstores. However, I do find it a bit odd that they bothered to go all the way back to Nursery Rhymes to justify why kids should be able to buy these games when they need only look at porn to see why they shouldn't. Either we're trying to shield our kids from gnarly things or we're not. And I find it odd that we certainly draw the line at porn and not at graphic first-person shooter games or games that deal with pretty intense crime-related themes. That one is an atrocity that we're prepared to suspend the first amendment over and the other is a shining example of free expression. Let me get this straight: you're expecting consistency and logic from our legal system and/or society? Seriously? But yeah, why stop at letting kids buy/have the most violent images etc etc around? Kids of any age should be allowed to walk into any store and buy porn too. Oh yeah. Our society is certainly headed in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Can't sell kids porn. Can't market kids tobacco. Repetitive, violent games with some studies showing strong corrolations to lessened inhibitions to violence, fine. When corporations pollute the earth or air in pursuit of profit we allow them to be sued for theharm caused. One wonders if we will allow the same when it is minds that are polluted. In the end I agree with the decision. Parenting is a tough job. I don't look to the government for help. I just wiish the government was restricted from "helping" me in other ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Dude - do you read what you write or do you just like to argue? Why WOULD you equate straight up porn that is not sold to children, let alone marketed, with violent or sexual video games that are marketed and sold to children? One is the real life filming of actions and the other is an illustrated depiction. So, yeah Brothers Grimm and the violent ends met by people in those classic children stories are certainly much more relevant than Big Wet Asses Vol 14. Additionally, by and large sex is sex in porn. Sure, there are some more hard than others, but point of fact is that a clear line is crossed once you scan past the FBI warnings. Each game that came under critique in this case (and many more that didn't) do not have such a well defined line, let alone base the whole game around it, like a gonzo video. Sometimes we're talking about moments of an hours long game. Go back to your porn, det it's clearly on your mind. Like Azz, you seem to be using the logic that, since we've already decided porn should not be sold or marketed to kids and haven't yet done so with violent, crime-related games, that, in and of itself, is justification. Surely there was some time before which "porn" (in whatever form it took back then) was legally restricted to kids. When someone brought up the idea of not selling that to kids, couldn't someone say, "But we've been selling it to kids, so obviously it's fine." I mean, that's your argument in saying that violent games are not on the level of porn, because, thus far, we've been allowing kids to buy them. Well, maybe we've been wrong to do so. That's the point. Here's another thing. One is an interactive situation where things that are not legal for anyone of any age to do are acted out. One depicts acts that are perfectly legal to do once you've achieved a certain age. Yet, we choose to shield our kids from eventually legal one and not the other? So, the only thing in question is what you find to be something offensive enough to shield our children from it. That's really it. You seem to find sex fits that bill, but not graphic games involving violence and crime. I don't see why sex is the worse of the two. Another thing taken from the ruling. They seem to say, "where does it stop?" It's cool to have a game where you smash something with a golden mallet and it disappears, then why not a more graphic depiction of death and violence?" OK, how many scenes on TV or in PG rated movies imply that sex is going to happen or is happening, just without graphic depiction. So, like the golden mallet. The kid knows what's going on in American Pie, so what's the big deal if we just let them watch a more graphic depiction of the same thing? Edited June 30, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Next Generation Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I don't see why one is any worse than the other. I agree....porn for everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Let me get this straight: you're expecting consistency and logic from our legal system and/or society? Seriously? But yeah, why stop at letting kids buy/have the most violent images etc etc around? Kids of any age should be allowed to walk into any store and buy porn too. Oh yeah. Our society is certainly headed in the right direction. I'm not saying we should open the flood gates on porn for kids. I'm simply wondering why selling kids violent games is an example of "freedom of expression" if porn is not. If someone wants to actually break it down and say, "This game is cool, but this game is not", I'd be fine with that. After all, that's the deal with movies. With R-rated movies, it's merely a guideline. With porn, it's very much not. But that doesn't seem to be the argument here. That, any game, regardless of how graphically violent it is, should be open season. I mean, as long as there's no graphic sex involved. Oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Can't sell kids porn. Can't market kids tobacco. Repetitive, violent games with some studies showing strong corrolations to lessened inhibitions to violence, fine. When corporations pollute the earth or air in pursuit of profit we allow them to be sued for theharm caused. One wonders if we will allow the same when it is minds that are polluted. In the end I agree with the decision. Parenting is a tough job. I don't look to the government for help. I just wiish the government was restricted from "helping" me in other ways. Here's the thing. The government isn't saying that your kids can't play these games. If there's a game that fits the banned for children category that you happen to be cool with your kids playing, go ahead and buy it for them. They're just making it more likely that the decision has to go through you. None the less, do you wish the government wouldn't "help" you when it comes to restricting your child's access to other things? Everything that is legal for adults but not for kids is done so on the basis that we don't believe our kids are capable of making the right decisions with regards to these things if left to their own devices. We don't let them drink, smoke, or watch people screw. So, there's a precedent for this sort of thing. It's not the nanny state rearing it's ugly head. It's merely adding graphically violent games that may include acting the role of a criminal to that list of things. And, yes, I think there's a bit of a difference between a witch trying to cook Hansel and Gretl in a pot and many of these games. It's not just technology, as was alluded to in the decision, it's taking the content to another level as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I'm waiting to see counterpoints taken to court. You know it is just a matter of time before some child protective services unit charges a parent with neglect for allowing too young a child to much unsupervised access to these games, or before a parent brings the issue forward during custody battles as proof that the other parent, who allows such use, is unfit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) The ratings on games all ready restricts sell to minors when it's rated M(mature). I guess the point of this law was to make sure those game didn't get sold to minors at garage sales or out of a trunk of a car. Edited June 30, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.