Editorial in the Tacoma News Tribune
Arklier
recently passed a law forbidding the sale of games that depict
violence against police officers from being sold to minors. This
editorial ran in the TNT yesterday, so I thought people might be
interested. Their web site is www.tribnet.com. I particularly like the
part where they state that the level of free speech protection for
video games should be the same as for nudie dancing. Read on.
Title: A sensible ban on violent video games
The News Tribune
Gov. Gary Locke invited a lawsuit Tuesday when he signed a bill
banning the sale or rental of certain violent video and computer games
to children under 17.
A group representing the video game industry promptly announced plans
to challenge the statute - the first of its kind nationwide - which
will go into effect in July. The new law imposes civil fines on
retailers who ignore the law.
In this case, however, a lawsuit would be welcome. It could put to
rest once and for all the questionable legal claim that restricting
the sale of games depicting realistic attacks on law enforcement
officers somehow violates the First Amendment.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this specific issue,
one thing is clear: Violent video games - which are toys - simply
don't belong next to political speech, serious artistic expression and
other bedrock areas of constitutionally protected activity.
Even if a court found that violent video games were entitled to some
level of constitutional protection, the level of protection isn't
likely to be high. Not all activities and expressions are equal under
the Constitution.
For example, although erotic dance is a form of expression, the
Supreme Court found that it fell within "the outer ambit of the First
Amendment's protection." The constitutional protection extended to
erotic dance and other peripheral activities can be easily outweighed
by a number of other public interests. In this case, the city had the
right to regulate erotic dance - by requiring dancers to wear a
minimal amount of clothing - to prevent "crime and other negative
secondary effects" associated with adult entertainment clubs.
In much the same way, the state should be concerned about the negative
effects of cop-bashing video games on impressionable young kids. It
shouldn't be a surprise that exposing children to a steady diet of
violent visual images tends to numb them to the real-life consequences
of violence and to lower their moral inhibitions against committing
violent acts.
Supporters of the new law can point to a growing body of research
establishing a strong link between the exposure of children to violent
movies and television shows and aggressive anti-social behavior as
adults.
In light of the research, the state Legislature and Gov. Locke would
have been remiss in not doing something about violent video and
computer games.
The state has a legitimate interest in curbing aggressive behavior and
fostering respect for police officers through a reasonable age-based
restriction on the sales and rentals of games that graphically depict
anti-police violence.
The law still allows retailers to sell or rent these games, but only
to customers old enough to tell the difference between virtual reality
and reality.
(Published 12:30AM, May 23rd, 2003)
If you can't figure out my address, you need help.
Girl gamer since 1984, DC/GC/PS2/Xbox owner
DB
> Although the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this specific issue,
> one thing is clear: Violent video games - which are toys - simply
> don't belong next to political speech, serious artistic expression and
> other bedrock areas of constitutionally protected activity.
>
Video games are no more toys than movies or books. Sure GTA:VC might be the
literary equivalent of a "Letter to Penthouse" but the latter is protected,
why not the former. A book about killing cops is protected no matter how
gratuitious escapist fiction it might be.
Video games deserve the same protection as movies and books. Maybe that
means they can't all be sold to minors (after all we have restricted movies
and magazines ...) I don't have an issue with that, though I find the law as
it stands to be poorly written. Shooting Iraqui Soldiers is 'adult only'...
but using a crowbar to dismember hookers is okie dokie.
But who ever wrote this editorial needs to pull his head out his ass and
recognize that video games are just as legitimate a forum for politcal
speech and artistic expression as any other medium. By that logic the
boatloads of pointless "Romance novels" that get written every year should
justify the observation that books is no place for politcal speech... etc...
Scott H
"Arklier" <ark...@hotnospammail.com> wrote in message
news:ac9ucvc34dfvefbea...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> The state has a legitimate interest in curbing aggressive behavior and
> fostering respect for police officers through a reasonable age-based
> restriction on the sales and rentals of games that graphically depict
> anti-police violence.
>
> The law still allows retailers to sell or rent these games, but only
> to customers old enough to tell the difference between virtual reality
> and reality.
If any state has an interest in fostering respect for police officers,
they need to consider altering their damned socialist driving laws, and have
a focus that lets their officers focus on real crimes, rather than
babysitting drivers and fining us for going 10MPH over the speed limit, or
not wearing our friggin seatbelts.
For example, the police force here has a focus on customer service, they
even deal with complaints against individual officers, holding officers
accountable for what they say and do, I also never see them setting in speed
traps ticketing, and in five years I have yet to hear anybody complain about
the force here. If they want the people to respect the police force, they
shouldn't force their officers to turn into little more than tax officers,
generators of revenue. People should feel safe when they see a patrol car,
not have to worry if they're going to get pulled over for something, unless
they were driving recklessly in some way of course.
Standard63
Plus, I think the lik between violence in movies, TV, videogames,
etc... and people commiting violent acts in society are tenuous at
best. NO ONE in our society today is willing to take responsibility
for their own actions. Isn't there such a thing as "crazy people'
anymore? It's always, "so and so MADE me do it." Yeah, right,
whatever. I play videogames as release from day-to-day pressures
which helps keep me sane. I beat up a hooker and kill the cop in GTA3
rather than doing it in real life. The guy who beats up the hooker and
shoots at the cop in real life is gonna do it at sometime regardless
if he saw it on TV or not. If they fine a clerk for selling a minor
one of these games, will they also charge the ignorant parent if they
go in and buy one of these games for their kids? Who exactly is
responsible for the kids anyway?
Also, not to mention WA state is laying off teachers and our
legislature has enough time to be debating and passing laws about
videogames? Gimme a break! And to rant on, the current Bush
administrations REAL LIFE policies I think have a more negative effect
on societal relationships than any videogame could ever have. Don't
like someone? Plant some evidence and blow them up!! Might makes
right, we don't need no stinkin' debating society.
--JD
dewright
> recently passed a law forbidding the sale of games that depict
> violence against police officers from being sold to minors. This
> editorial ran in the TNT yesterday, so I thought people might be
> interested. Their web site is www.tribnet.com. I particularly like the
> part where they state that the level of free speech protection for
The link between violent video games and violent individuals is this:
Violent people like violent video games/movies, etc.
Violent games do not CREATE violent people.
In all the statistics they state that a large percentage of all violent
offenders watch x amount of violent movies and played x amount of violent
games.
They never take gamers and say that of all gamers who have played violent
games a large percentage have become violent offenders.
nightwriter
>
> Plus, I think the lik between violence in movies, TV, videogames,
> etc... and people commiting violent acts in society are tenuous at
> best. NO ONE in our society today is willing to take responsibility
> for their own actions. Isn't there such a thing as "crazy people'
> anymore? It's always, "so and so MADE me do it." Yeah, right,
> whatever. I play videogames as release from day-to-day pressures
> which helps keep me sane. I beat up a hooker and kill the cop in GTA3
> rather than doing it in real life. The guy who beats up the hooker and
> shoots at the cop in real life is gonna do it at sometime regardless
> if he saw it on TV or not. If they fine a clerk for selling a minor
> one of these games, will they also charge the ignorant parent if they
> go in and buy one of these games for their kids? Who exactly is
> responsible for the kids anyway?
>
> Also, not to mention WA state is laying off teachers and our
> legislature has enough time to be debating and passing laws about
> videogames? Gimme a break! And to rant on, the current Bush
> administrations REAL LIFE policies I think have a more negative effect
> on societal relationships than any videogame could ever have. Don't
> like someone? Plant some evidence and blow them up!! Might makes
> right, we don't need no stinkin' debating society.
> --JD
good point. although i do think there is a link in violence in media and
society. i don't think that america is the "#1 place to get shot" for no
reason. do i want to ban games? no. but i do want the issue to be
explored, because i think it's a chicken and egg scenario. people buy those
games because of societal programming. don't blame the game companies for
satiating a demand that's already there. the root of the problem lies in
apathy/empathy for other people. coming up with bills that ban a product is
just a band-aid solution for politicians who are too lazy or dumb to come up
with an actual solution.
Arklier
My biggest fear is that this issue is going to be decided by pickled
old men who were too old for arcades when Pong came out and couldn't
tell a game with plot from a hole in the ground. Remember the last
trial they had when the Judge decided that games had nothing in them
worthy of being protected by the First Amendment? People like this are
still stuck in the 70s. Plots in games have been complicated as far
back as the Infocom text games.
Whoever wrote this editorial obviously hasn't seen an RPG, probably
ever. Scary that they think they are expert enough to say that games
don't stand next to 'political speech, serious artistic expression and
other bedrock areas of constitutionally protected activity.' I'd like
to see them say that after playing Xenogears.
Phil
> recently passed a law forbidding the sale of games that depict
> violence against police officers from being sold to minors. This
> editorial ran in the TNT yesterday, so I thought people might be
> interested. Their web site is www.tribnet.com. I particularly like the
> part where they state that the level of free speech protection for
> video games should be the same as for nudie dancing. Read on.
>
> Title: A sensible ban on violent video games
> The News Tribune
>
>Although the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this specific issue,
>one thing is clear: Violent video games - which are toys - simply
>don't belong next to political speech, serious artistic expression
and
>other bedrock areas of constitutionally protected activity.
Idiotic, videogames are a form of entertainment NOT A DAMN TOY. Also
if shit thrown on a wall is protected under the 1st ammendment then
videogames have to be, as that shows the knowledge on the courts part
that it's not the courts place to deceide what is serious artistic
expression. This is yet another exmaple of someone ignorant of both
what videogames are and constitutional law.
Joe Ottoson
news:ac9ucvc34dfvefbea...@4ax.com:
> I live in Washington, which as most of you probably know by now,
> recently passed a law forbidding the sale of games that depict
> violence against police officers from being sold to minors. This
> editorial ran in the TNT yesterday, so I thought people might be
> interested. Their web site is www.tribnet.com. I particularly like the
> part where they state that the level of free speech protection for
> video games should be the same as for nudie dancing. Read on.
>
> Title: A sensible ban on violent video games
> The News Tribune
>
> Gov. Gary Locke invited a lawsuit Tuesday when he signed a bill
> banning the sale or rental of certain violent video and computer games
> to children under 17.
"Ban" doesn't really fit IMO. Makes it a wee bit overdramatic given what
the law actually does.
elsworth
> If any state has an interest in fostering respect for police officers,
> they need to consider altering their damned socialist driving laws, and have
> a focus that lets their officers focus on real crimes, rather than
> babysitting drivers and fining us for going 10MPH over the speed limit, or
> not wearing our friggin seatbelts.
I don't know much about Tacoma's police force but I think you are
missing something when you say that officers should focus on "real
crimes" and leave speeders alone. Usually, posted speeds are there
for the safety of others as well as yourself. If there was no
enforcement, few would actually obey them. If you think it's too low,
there are ways to get it raised. And what do you do about the
citizens that complain about speeders in their neighborhood? Should
they just be ignored in favor of "real crimes"? A lot people complain
about the speed limit being too low until you start talking about the
one that runs by their own house.
Besides, most police forces have departments designated for traffic.
It's not like the whole department is out doing traffic stops in favor
of fighting "real crime". Unless, of course, you are talking about
stuff like the Mayberry PD with a whole force of two officers, but
then I doubt they have much "real crime" to deal with.
As for the videogame law, I agree with the poster that says parents
should be held responsible.
Scott H
"elsworth" <els_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:186ee292.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "Scott H" <Weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<j8Kza.5590$8i4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
> > If any state has an interest in fostering respect for police
officers,
> > they need to consider altering their damned socialist driving laws, and
have
> > a focus that lets their officers focus on real crimes, rather than
> > babysitting drivers and fining us for going 10MPH over the speed limit,
or
> > not wearing our friggin seatbelts.
>
> I don't know much about Tacoma's police force but I think you are
> missing something when you say that officers should focus on "real
> crimes" and leave speeders alone. Usually, posted speeds are there
> for the safety of others as well as yourself. If there was no
> enforcement, few would actually obey them. If you think it's too low,
> there are ways to get it raised. And what do you do about the
> citizens that complain about speeders in their neighborhood? Should
> they just be ignored in favor of "real crimes"? A lot people complain
> about the speed limit being too low until you start talking about the
> one that runs by their own house.
I'm not talking about not enforcing driving laws, I'm talking about not
focusing on them to improve PR.
Kirbeh
/cricket claps
Even if the majority are 12 ??
Kirby
>
>
Kirbeh
With all due respect....
> > If any state has an interest in fostering respect for police
officers,
> > they need to consider altering their damned socialist driving laws, and
have
> > a focus that lets their officers focus on real crimes, rather than
> > babysitting drivers and fining us for going 10MPH over the speed limit,
or
> > not wearing our friggin seatbelts.
>
You sir/madam are truly a fuckwitt of the highest order.
You stipulate seat belts. Well, in my un-blessed eyes, you don't wear a seat
belt, you get butt fucked by the law, you figure the answer out.
10MPH, that fucking 10MPH can and will save a childs live, unfortunately,
it's not your fucking head and we all can't cheer. Fuckskull.
It's a good job I aint horny you fucking looser, or we would see who squeals
the most, wouldn't we ?
/antagonises arse wipes.
Oh, they have all hid.... Shocking
Kirby
Kirbeh
"dewright" <dewri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p8Mza.959825$3D1.564322@sccrnsc01...
/punches Dewright23,
Only jerking meh laddo.
:oP
Kirby
>
Kirbeh
"Phil" <ps2isn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:a9c2e129.03052...@posting.google.com...
/cricket claps
Well done that man/woman/thingy.
:o)
Kirby
Inu-Yasha
When did you ever take responsibility for your actions? You want to do any
thing your little partially educated brain or libido desires and let your
parents take the rap (You can't discipline me I have my rights). Some poor
sap that you probably would spit on like they did to Vietnam vets paid for
your freedom with his like or arm or leg or best friend. Grow up and leave
law making to people who have paid the price with a little service to their
country.
Inu-Yasha
Feh!!
I have a Gamecube and wanted to get info on games and other things
pertaining to the game machine, but all I find here is a bunch of whinny
snot-nose brats. I'll give you a shot or two at me but bet you can't make
an intelligent point, then I dump the group.
"nightwriter" <spam_is...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:diMza.25933$cK1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
nightwriter
don't know what the word 'satiate' 'apathy' or 'empathy'.
"Inu-Yasha" <tjar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BcVza.121127$N45.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Jason Costa
> recently passed a law forbidding the sale of games that depict
> violence against police officers from being sold to minors. This
> editorial ran in the TNT yesterday, so I thought people might be
> interested. Their web site is www.tribnet.com. I particularly like the
> part where they state that the level of free speech protection for
> video games should be the same as for nudie dancing.
The parents will still buy the games and give them to their kids,
which usually happens anyways, so in effect this law really doesn't do
anything. Plus, what's to stop a kid in Washington buying a copy of
GTA3, or whatever, on the internet or trading for it with a friend, or
playing it at a friend's house? Another useless law on the books, and
more tax money wasted.
Scott H
"Kirbeh" <kir...@burbeh.com> wrote in message
news:GwTza.1757$OP4...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "elsworth" <els_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:186ee292.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > "Scott H" <Weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<j8Kza.5590$8i4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> >
>
> With all due respect....
>
> > > If any state has an interest in fostering respect for police
> officers,
> > > they need to consider altering their damned socialist driving laws,
and
> have
> > > a focus that lets their officers focus on real crimes, rather than
> > > babysitting drivers and fining us for going 10MPH over the speed
limit,
> or
> > > not wearing our friggin seatbelts.
> >
>
> You sir/madam are truly a fuckwitt of the highest order.
> You stipulate seat belts. Well, in my un-blessed eyes, you don't wear a
seat
> belt, you get butt fucked by the law, you figure the answer out.
Way to go buddy, that's how you start a stupid statement, with insults
and offensive words. I wear my seatbelt, I've always worn my seatbelt, it's
a habit, as is making sure I don't speed unless I'm paying complete
attention.
> 10MPH, that fucking 10MPH can and will save a childs live, unfortunately,
> it's not your fucking head and we all can't cheer. Fuckskull.
So could more strict regulation on vehicle types and safety features, or
better yet real driver education that teaches people defensive/offensive
driving, slide and spin control, high speed driving control, etc, but no,
people just think that making everyone go slower will save lives right?
I can and have dropped the speed of my car 50 MPH in the "blink of an
eye" people claim accidents happen. 10MPH at collision could save
somebody's life, 10MPH on the open road will do no such thing, what matters
is how fast you're going when you stop. That's all beside my point though,
I'm saying that if they want people to respect police officers more, make
sure that they're officers are seen doing more than just traffic stops by
the general public, PR is everything.
> It's a good job I aint horny you fucking looser, or we would see who
squeals
> the most, wouldn't we ?
>
> /antagonises arse wipes.
I, seriously don't know why I even bothered with this.
Lyapunov
<els_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As for the videogame law, I agree with the poster that says parents
> should be held responsible.
But does this law not accomplish that by making it require the parent
to buy the game? This law does not ban violent games any more than porn
mags or beer are banned. You just have to be an adult to buy them.
And, heck, the adult can get in trouble for then giving the porn mag or
beer to a child whereas they can hand the child the game with no
problem. This law is less stringent than many already in existence. It
isn't a First Amendment issue at all.
Lyapunov
Ottoson <gro...@landfill.net> wrote:
> "Ban" doesn't really fit IMO. Makes it a wee bit overdramatic given what
> the law actually does.
Shhhh! Never bother a Usenet thread with facts! These young-uns need to
feels like rebels and that the Big Evil Government is after their
precious bodily fluids.
Lyapunov
<d...@notatshaw.ca> wrote:
> Sure GTA:VC might be the
> literary equivalent of a "Letter to Penthouse" but the latter is protected,
> why not the former.
It is protected. The games are not being banned. The First Amendment
does not even belong in this arguement. Nothing is being banned.
What states allow minors to purchase Penthouse?
DB
"Lyapunov" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:80ec1c6391dff8aa...@news.usenetrocket.com...
You clearly didn't read the entire article. Nobody said anything about
banishment of video games, nor did anyone suggest that Penthouse should or
is sold to minors.
Here: Allow me to provide you with the relevant paragraph from the original
post:
"Although the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this specific issue,
one thing is clear: Violent video games - which are toys - simply
don't belong next to political speech, serious artistic expression and
other bedrock areas of constitutionally protected activity."
(The 'specific issue' mentioned above is the 1st amendment)
My entire response was in response to this peice of garbage.
Violent video games (any video games) DO belong next to politcal speech, etc
etc ...
Hope that clears it up for you.
Joe Ottoson
news:8e35c264ad8d575c...@news.usenetrocket.com:
It seems to be thrown around a lot in the articles about it in papers etc
too, so it seems more like a way for the politicians involved to appear
proactive than usenet spin.
That aside, sex and fluroide have nothing to do with this either darn it.
;)
SINNER
While strolling through alt.games.video.xbox, Lyapunov was overheard plotting:
The first amendment protects you from the government taking away your
right to free speech, by implementing a law, they have done just that.
You no longer have a right to buy it without impending doom, even if you
feel your children can deal with it, if your neighbor disagrees, you
'get in trouble'. Everywhere else stores implement the policy to comply
with voluntary ESRB ratings. Note the word Voluntary in that last
sentence.
--
David
Verba volant, scripta manent!
elsworth
> In article <186ee292.03052...@posting.google.com>, elsworth
> <els_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As for the videogame law, I agree with the poster that says parents
> > should be held responsible.
>
> But does this law not accomplish that by making it require the parent
> to buy the game?
No, it just means that an adult has to buy the game, not the parents.
Parents will still blame violent videogames when their kid goes on a
shooting spree rather than themselves for letting the kid play them.
It's one of those ineffective laws that politicians pass to make
themselves look better. When's Locke up for re-election?
elsworth
> I'm not talking about not enforcing driving laws, I'm talking about not
> focusing on them to improve PR.
I'm not sure I understand the difference. What do you say to the
citizen that complains about speeders? What criteria do you use to
let one guy fly by at 10+ over the limit while stopping the next?
Most officers already ignore people going 5+ or so over the limit as
it is. I'm sure you've heard of people getting warnings instead of
tickets, too.
Again, I don't know Tacoma's police department so maybe they do have
the wrong focus. I don't think all police departments have this
problem, though. It may be your perception since your only
encounter(s) with the law have been through the traffic division. I'm
sure you could find others that would complain that police only focus
on other "victimless" crimes, etc, because of their own experience.
I don't think asking police to not enforce laws would not help PR. In
fact, it would probably hurt it more than anything.
Scott H
news:<miPza.6146$8i4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
> > I'm not talking about not enforcing driving laws, I'm talking about not
> > focusing on them to improve PR.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the difference. What do you say to the
> citizen that complains about speeders? What criteria do you use to
> let one guy fly by at 10+ over the limit while stopping the next?
> Most officers already ignore people going 5+ or so over the limit as
> it is. I'm sure you've heard of people getting warnings instead of
> tickets, too.
Maybe you haven't ever seen a speedtrap town, or dealt with state patrol
cops then. There are towns in Texas where you'll only ever see a cop doing
a traffic stop, and you'll likely get pulled over in that town for some
reason, even if you weren't doing anything wrong. For example, I got pulled
over in one for driving through it at 3AM, and got a warning for having one
license plate light out, and got ticketed in another for running a red
light, when in fact the light was yellow all the way through, the cop could
not see the light from the perpendicular intersection, and he only thought I
ran it because the car next to me saw him and skidded to a stop, nearly
causing a three car pileup. I'm talking about Cops sitting around speed
checking everybody instead of driving around looking for serious violations,
pulling over reckless drivers, checking plates for criminal history and
pulling over ones that are likely to have drugs or other illegal stuff in
their car.
The citizens of the city I'm in like the police force, because they
won't pull you over except in an area there's been a complaint about
speeders, that's actually the only time they do traffic stops is when
somebody complains about people speeding on that street. Yet the police
force of our sister city, that's literally attached to ours, is hated by
everybody, and called pretty much everything in the book, because all they
are ever seen doing is speed trapping and ticketing for speeding, ever.
Nobody's going to think that a police force is there to serve and protect
when all they're seen doing is traffic ticketing.
SINNER
>> I'm not sure I understand the difference. What do you say to the
>> citizen that complains about speeders? What criteria do you use to
>> let one guy fly by at 10+ over the limit while stopping the next?
>> Most officers already ignore people going 5+ or so over the limit as
>> it is. I'm sure you've heard of people getting warnings instead of
>> tickets, too.
> Maybe you haven't ever seen a speedtrap town, or dealt with state patrol
> cops then. There are towns in Texas where you'll only ever see a cop doing
> a traffic stop, and you'll likely get pulled over in that town for some
Where in Texas?
--
David
Don't patch bad code - rewrite it.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plaugher)
Psycho Kitten
anti-police (or even pro-police) violence ???
On Sat, 24 May 2003 08:02:19 GMT, Arklier <ark...@hotnospammail.com>
wrote:
Jordan Lund
> I live in Washington, which as most of you probably know by now,
> recently passed a law forbidding the sale of games that depict
> violence against police officers from being sold to minors.
What they should do is apply the fine to all M-Rated games and leave
it at that. Implying that kids can't tell the difference between
attacking cops in a game and attacking cops in real life is purely
asinine.
- Jordan
elsworth
> Maybe you haven't ever seen a speedtrap town, or dealt with state patrol
> cops then.
I've been through small towns that have speedtraps, though I wasn't
driving. I'm not defending what they did but I really doubt they had
much else to do, that is, I doubt there was much "real crime" for them
to be working on. I can't recall going through any speedtraps in
larger cities but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
As for the state patrol, traffic is their major function by default.
They don't handle a lot of criminal cases except through field
discovery after a traffic violation or accident.
Scott H
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing police officers at all here. I'm
just saying that if the policy makers are concerned about PR, this is where
they should start.
Lyapunov
<d...@notatshaw.ca> wrote:
> You clearly didn't read the entire article.
> Nobody said anything about
> banishment of video games, nor did anyone suggest that Penthouse should or
> is sold to minors.
I was responding to the posters in the thread, and not the article.
TheAlternativeMind®
numerous encounters with the police, even been roughed up a bit. I didn't do
anything any of the times.
I never break the law except when I smoke pot and I've never gotten in
trouble for that. Been caught with pot three time with no consequence. Been
stopped in my car more than 10 time, and I was not guilty of anything on any
of the occasions. They pull you over give you tickets the courts fine you to
high hell, Cities have to make money some how. At the same time someone's
being murdered, robbed, rape or anything else. Were are the cops? giving me
a ticket because my license plate had a bend in the lower left corner.
I hate police and I enjoy games that let me shoot them. Would never
attempt killing a cop in real life though. Ill save that for the retards who
blame movies and games for there stupid behavior.
--
TheAlternativeMind®
Jordan Lund
> Although the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this specific issue,
> one thing is clear: Violent video games - which are toys - simply
> don't belong next to political speech, serious artistic expression and
> other bedrock areas of constitutionally protected activity.
Fortunately for all concerned the Federal Court disagrees:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/03/technology/games_firstamendment/
Constitution protects video games
Appeals court overturns controversial district court ruling, saying
games qualify as free speech.
June 3, 2003: 4:48 PM EDT
By Chris Morris, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A federal appeals court gave the video game
industry a big boost Tuesday, reversing a controversial lower court
decision and ruling that games are protected by the First Amendment.
Last April, Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled that
computer and video games had "no conveyance of ideas, expression or
anything else that could possibly amount to free speech" in a St.
Louis County case that sought to limit children's access to mature
video games.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying a
"particularized message" is not required when it comes to the First
Amendment.
"If the First Amendment is versatile enough to 'shield [the] painting
of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse
of Lewis Carroll,' we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design,
concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video
games are not entitled to a similar protection," the court said in its
ruling. "The mere fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no
legal consequence."
St. Louis County had argued that stories are incidental in games, and
players often skip straight to the action. The court acknowledged
this, but noted the same could be said of today's action-packed
movies, such as "The Matrix." Additionally, it said, home viewers of
these films can easily skip to the action sequences using their DVD
players or VCRs.
"The fact that modern technology has increased viewer control does not
render movies unprotected by the First Amendment, and equivalent
player control likewise should not automatically disqualify modern
video games," the court said.
Experts say the ruling could have broad implications. Specifically, it
could be a key factor in the upcoming appeal of Washington state's
recently signed law banning the sale of certain violent video games to
people under the age of 17.
"There's a lot in here that spells doom to that Washington law," said
Damon Watson, an attorney who focuses on the video game and
interactive entertainment industry for Bryan Cave LLP in Los Angeles.
"The court's really putting lawmakers on notice that you can't say
there's a problem without really backing it up."
Specifically, the ruling said the County "must come forward with
empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video games cause
psychological harm to minors" before restricting access to those
games. St. Louis attempted to make that argument even bringing in a
psychologist to testify during the hearing. The court rejected this
theory, though, saying it was "simply unsupported in the record" and
lambasted the "vague generality" of the psychologist's testimony.
The gaming industry cheered the court ruling.
"Better late than never," said Doug Lowenstein, president of the
Interactive Digital Software Association (the gaming industry trade
group). "The decision sends a powerful signal to government at all
levels that efforts to regulate consumers' access to the creative and
expressive content found in video games will not be tolerated."
Tuesday's ruling probably won't have a dramatic effect on video game
stocks, even those publishers who specialize in action titles, such as
Take Two Interactive Software, said analysts.
"Anytime one of these [lawsuits] comes up, it's something the short
community has tried to use to scare people, but most fundamental
investors aren't that worried about this issue," said Stewart Halpern,
managing director and analyst for RBC Capital Markets. "Because most
[investors] are sophisticated enough to know that it would be really
hard to implement any sort of meaningful restrictions on these
companies."
Gene Poole
<snip>
I've had a problem with the law since the beginning, but I think
everyone knows that...specifically, claiming that video games aren't a
form of speech.
anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid 2 can figure out that movies and
books don't give you the same interactive experience while trying to
tell a story...video games have the potential to get the ideas
transmitted much more effectively through the interaction of the
player...watching Solid Snake from the side and the whole "Fission
Mailed" (as well as the colonel's schizo speech) helped nail home MGS2's
message very effectively...IMHO anyway :)
shame Judge Stephen "Resident of Evil Creek" Limbaugh never played that
one in particular :)
--
Gene Poole
Spoon!
DB
"TheAlternativeMind®" <thealtern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RUEDa.561$87.1...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Your doing something to get their attention; after all most people don't
have any problems with them.
> I never break the law except when I smoke pot and I've never gotten in
> trouble for that. Been caught with pot three time with no consequence.
Been
> stopped in my car more than 10 time, and I was not guilty of anything on
any
> of the occasions. They pull you over give you tickets the courts fine you
to
> high hell, Cities have to make money some how.
If you weren't guilty I highly doubt you would have been found guilty. Sure
it might not have been "fair"... getting a ticket doing 35 in a 30 or for
having a broken tailight isn't exactly "fair" but it is the law. Count
yourself lucky they never busted you for possesion.
> At the same time someone's
> being murdered, robbed, rape or anything else. Were are the cops? giving
me
> a ticket because my license plate had a bend in the lower left corner.
You think thats what they wake up looking forward too? Blame the politicians
and accountants, the guy on the street isn't to blame... nobody becomes a
cop because they want to rid the world of its scourge of jaywalkers,
litterbugs, and broken tailights.
DB
> anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid 2 can figure out that movies and
> books don't give you the same interactive experience while trying to
> tell a story...video games have the potential to get the ideas
> transmitted much more effectively through the interaction of the
> player
"interactive experience aside". Books and movies are still better at
"transmitting ideas".
Gene Poole
explain.
--
Gene Poole
Would you like to know more?
DB
> > "interactive experience aside". Books and movies are still better at
> > "transmitting ideas".
>
> explain.
Well I agree the video games are more interactive.
But interactivity typically distracts from persuasive or expository
transmission of ideas.
Its the same reason hypertexts don't make good fiction. To tell tell a story
most effectively the author/director controls pacing, the timing, the whole
experience. Video games provide an immersive world in way, that can and does
contain and communicate ideas but the game developer doesn't exert as much
control over the experience so he loses the ability to maximize the impact.
Few games tell the story within the game. Most rely on cutscenes... which
means they are really relying on movies to tell the story. To say the video
game tells a story in this situation would be like saying that your
microwave can transmit ideas ... provided you glue a vcr/tv to it.
Some games (rpgs in particular) do tell the story within the game, but not
as effectively as a book/movie due to the inability to control where/what
the user sees and does. They provide a engrossing and entertaining
experience to be sure but they have yet to communicate Orwellian paranoia as
effectively as the book 1984, or the myriad of themes present in a
Shakespearean tradegy like Titus, or even speculate on the nature of the
soul as effectively as a title like Dark City etc...
Sure video games can match movies like T2 or The Matrix but that's more
because these movies don't have much in the way of deep complicated ideas in
the first place.
Gene Poole
I'm not arguing with any of that...what you say is true for as far as
you take it.
however, I cited MGS2 for a reason...
if one were to say that the message being conveyed was that "we have to
be careful about information we receive; we must analyze it, consider
its importance, determine its validity and ultimately decide on whether
it is worth keeping or disregarding"; were this the message one said was
being sent through Metal Gear Solid II: Sons of Liberty", I would be
forced to say that MGS2 did an excellent job of conveying it, and did so
in a manner not duplicatable under any other medium.
the reason is ~because~ of its interactivity. the only one that comes
close for the same message is The Matrix, but even then, as it is not
interactive, you are merely forced to sit there and watch, instead of
being an active participant as in MGS2.
in MGS2 (spoilers ahead), in essence, ~you~ are the person that the
General and "Rose" are talking to; of course the main character is
Raiden, or Jack, but the person who did the VR training, the one who did
the simulation of Shadow Moses, the one who was talking to an AI is the
same one with the dog tags at the end of the game; it's the player
themselves...the message is made more pertinent because of two
particular events towards the end of the game; the Colonel talking to
you, saying "turn off the game console now, it's only a game. It's a
game just like usual. you've been playing an awfully long time. Don't
you have anything better to do?" lends the story a surreal quality, as
if the game knew it was just a game, taking the level of presentation to
include the reality outside the game; this is further emphasized during
the back to back battle in the VR Room, where "Fission Mailed blocks out
your screen, the game continuing in the small window, simulating a
messed up game screen...the viewer is not just a viewer, he is an active
participant, being forced to deal with the information presented; is it
really a corrupted game file? as ridiculous as it sounds, does the game
know I've been playing too long? what's going on?" One may cite
gullibility, but the fact is that at least one of those ideas ran
through every one of our heads upon the first time playing the
game...forcing us to ~think~, rather than following the plot like
complacent Hindu cows.
movies and books simply cannot nail home the message quite as
effectively... by making us watch the main character from the sidelines,
it creates a surreal quality to the story; by putting the weight of the
missions solely on the main character's shoulders, it makes one care
about the character, and pay more attention to his story, making it
almost personal.
whether it's a point worth noting is not the topic, the game ~does~
deliver a message in a way that books and movies can not convey, and
does so effectively, possibly more effectively than books or movies
could. that is why video games can be an effective method of speech, and
are worth protecting :)
--
Gene Poole
Trying to think of a good signature...
TheAlternativeMind®
news:bMQDa.159370$Vi5.4...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
entertaiment.
--
TheAlternativeMind®
DB
> I dont think many people want deep and complicated games, they want fun
and
> entertaiment.
Probably, but people shouldn't always get what they want. The ratings of
reality shows, and movies like Jackass demonstrate that if you just give
people what they want they'll wallow around in a cesspool.
I'd far rather watch a complicated art film twice than see a single half
hour of brain-rot like elimidate.
Tubular Jak
benefits, and most of all - the power trip. Plus they get to supplement
their income on the take like 90% of them do. Corrupt bastards.
DB
"Tubular Jak" <tubul...@removemehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sIBEa.30762$j9%.28370@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> That's for sure. People become cops because it pays fairly well, good
> benefits, and most of all - the power trip. Plus they get to supplement
> their income on the take like 90% of them do. Corrupt bastards.
Waiters at decent restaurants make better money than most cops. And the odds
of getting shot at are considerably lower.
The power trip? Yeah... nothing like picking the same punks up every week
only to let them go an hour later. That sure strokes the ego. That and all
the respect they get... oh wait... they don't get much, its actually a
pretty thankless job... and they so much as toss pepper spray at riot and
the media screams police brutality... trip on that.
I don't doubt there are corrupt cops, and I don't doubt that even most
uncorrupt ones have played a little fast and loose with the rules
occasionally...nobodies perfect. nobody in any job never cuts loose
occasionally but to suggest 90% are power tripping, corrupt, and on the take
is just plain ignorant.
Tubular Jak
one. What you said isn't true except for the money. I said it pays "fairly
well". Here in Canada a starting salary of 35,000 plus the best benefits
going (city and government benefits are the best here) is "fairly well".
Considering also medical is covered, physio, massages, everything. Some homo
in a fancy restaurant makes more I am sure, and so do a lot of other people.
They love the power trip, the punk argument is not logical. A comment on our
ridiculous judicial system has nothing to do with there attitude. Here in
Canada they will shoot your ass for any reason. And 90% ARE corrupt in some
way. I do not respect them in the least. And NO I would not call them if I
need them. They are too busy stealing weed of kids to smoke on there own. I
would take matter into my own hands. Do you think all those drugs and money,
etc. just sits in the evidence, or even a third of it actually makes it
there. Don't be naive.
"DB" <d...@notatshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:RtDEa.175160$Vi5.4...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
TheAlternativeMind®
why so many people enjoy the crap they show on TV.
Its a good thing they make all different types of games.
--
TheAlternativeMind®