East Coast Okie, you make some very valid points.

There is no way I would have let my 5 year old ever play GTA. I don't think any responsible parent would.

Of course, in many cases you are dealing with the very issues that I think causes these behaviors in the first place - uninvolved and irresponsible parenting.



Some of the girls are the worst and violent female crime is definitely up.


I'm online playing video games pretty frequently and typically, I can count on one hand the number of girls who play violent video games if I ever run across them at all.

So, whatever the reason is that girls have become more violent, I don't believe it's caused by playing video games.

A society that is more accepting of that type of girl behavior, in my opinion, is at least partly to blame. It's not popular to be a lady anymore. I'll admit, I'm not the most lady-like woman out there (you can ask my husband) but I don't act like I'm on Jerry Springer, either. A lot of these girls don't have good female role models.

Yes, controlled aggression can be extremely valuable in certain situations, for example, when self defense is required. If only, somehow, GTA also taught self control, sound ethics, personal responsibility, and critical thinking....

I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned it already, but a violent video game that does teach ethics is America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/). Apparently the US Army (who created and maintains the free to download and play game) believes that video games do influence young minds, even if most of you do not.

There have been violent games which have taught ethics since Ultima IV came out in 1985 (the game was primarily structured around the hero being virtuous rather than killing stuff, it was filled with moral dilemmas, etc.)

More recently, games like BioShock, Mass Effect and others allow moral choices to be made by the player.

More recently, games like BioShock, Mass Effect and others allow moral choices to be made by the player.

Interesting. I wonder what code of ethics, if any, guides the game designer in the development of these in-game situations, especially with respect to deciding which choices end up being most beneficial for the player.

Don't forget to take yourself entirely too seriously.

Good point OGTS.

When the issue is the welfare of our children, we should make jokes, discuss the issue flippantly, ignore the scientific evidence at hand, and generally discount any arguments that might be made regarding appropriate regulatory policies. What was I thinking?

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that children 8-18 play on average 1 hour of video games per day. Thus, they have plenty of opportunities to 'commit acts of mayhem'.

First of all, kids who are into video games play for longer durations than just 1 hour. I wonder if that "1 hour" number isn't the result of an across the board average to include many children who don't have $400 gaming consoles or $3000 gaming PCs.

Even if those kids had plenty of free time to commit acts of mayhem they wouldn't have any opportunity to do so if their parents were in the picture and actually involved in their lives. Too many parents are asleep at the job or just not even around at all. Let's dope up our kid on Ritalin and stick him in his bedroom with an electronic pacifier called a video game so we can have enough peace and quiet to watch our TV shows.


Passively watching television, even violent shows, is NOT the same thing as the interaction that goes on with a video game.

Harmful messages from TV and radio still hit their mark and influence people, especially young people, in many different ways. This doesn't require a game pad or joystick to accomplish. We would have no advertising industry at all if this wasn't true.


Young children's brains, judgment and moral development vary, depending on developmental stage. The impact of a video game on a 5 year old is not going to be the same as on a 17 year old or a 30 year old. If you are 15 and wouldn't be inspired to be violent that does not mean a 5 year old wouldn't, either.

Who in their right mind is going to allow a 5 year old kid to play Grand Theft Auto 4? I wouldn't even let a 15 year old boy play it much less a child of Kindergarten age.

The biggest harm happening to kids 5 years old and younger is poor quality parents or absentee parents. Video games are hardly a factor at all on the list on things emotionally damaging young children and getting them screwed up for life.

And the notion that we need to ban something or censor something kind of gets back to the habit of so many parents to just not be properly involved with their children. It's just so much more simple to make a certain kind of entertainment not be available to anyone at all. It's easier to do that rather than have a discussion with one's child about the subject matter and put it in its proper context.

We don't live in a G-rated world. It is impossible to make the world G-rated for 5 year olds. Anyone hoping to do that will be hoping in vain. Instead, parents actually have to do their jobs as parents.

I believe that someone who is willing to bring a child into this world must also make that child his/her top priority and primary fixation of interest in life. Lots of parents say their kids are the most important things in their lives, but for many it's just talk. The career, favorite hobbies and pastimes, partying on the weekend at clubs and lots of other stuff has to pushed down to a lower priority and the child truly has to come first. In practice, many parents are just not willing to do that. Some aren't willing to do that at all, dumping the kids off at the grandparents' place or anywhere else they can be dumped so they can go out and drink with their friends.

Good point OGTS.

When the issue is the welfare of our children, we should make jokes, discuss the issue flippantly, ignore the scientific evidence at hand, and generally discount any arguments that might be made regarding appropriate regulatory policies. What was I thinking?

Or we can be skeptical of anyone who wants to use scientific "studies" of questionable value to limit our free speech to "save the children" when good parenting would be a perfect substitute.

If we concede even one small bit of our speech to lawmakers in order to 'protect the children,' what comes next? Our kids don't need a nanny state to protect them from whatever harmful mental stimulation they might encounter.

The "for the children" line has been used to justify horrible legislation in the past, it will continue to be used in the future.

-- I guess this means that I'm "against the children" now.

Or we can be skeptical of anyone who wants to use scientific "studies" of questionable value to limit our free speech to "save the children" when good parenting would be a perfect substitute.

Just to be clear, to date, I've only argued the scientific evidence in this thread, never any policy position. I certainly never argued that violent video games should be off limits to adults.

Who will go out and convince all parents to be good parents? Many parents don't have the time or education to decide what media is or is not appropriate for their children. Most need help, and that is why a legally enforced rating system governed by a body independent of the video gaming industry is a good idea. Children should have no access to violent video games, in the same way that children should have no access to pornography. Anyone caught allowing children to play violent video games should similarly be charged with "corruption of a minor". A child's rights to play violent video games is out-weighted by the potential harm to the minor and other individuals by the minor. For adults, I think that the balance tips the other way because there isn't strong enough evidence to support the conclusion that violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adults.



The "for the children" line has been used to justify horrible legislation in the past, it will continue to be used in the future.


Can you give us some examples where horrible legislation aimed at protecting children has been passed into law?

The child pornography laws come to mind as "for the children", but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that this is horrible legislation on the grounds that it oversteps our first amendment rights to free speech, would you?

Most need help, and that is why a legally enforced rating system governed by a body independent of the video gaming industry is a good idea.


We already have a rating system in place.

But say it got even more invasive.

How would you enforce that law? Neighor A looks into Neighbor B's home and sees Junior playing a video game, calls CPS, child is taken away and put in foster care? Is that how it would work?

And I'm curious about another thing, how would you define 'violence'?

Everyone has different ideas, beliefs and theories about what constitutes violence.

Would you take away a Sports Video game?

Would you consider a Football game violent?
I think it is. Slamming men to the ground and jumping on top of them and tackling them seems pretty violent.

So, who decides and where do you draw the line?

Can you give us some examples where horrible legislation aimed at protecting children has been passed into law?

Sure. How about just about the entire child protective services scheme? Our laws "protecting children" have created a program where DHS often pulls kids out of homes based upon false reports (sure it's illegal to make a false report, but how many prosecutions do you think there really are?).

The entire scheme of the foster care system is fundamentally flawed in that it often eliminates kinship placements based upon irrelevant criteria.

The entire "No Child Left Behind" schem.

In the FDR years, numerous milk industry protective schemes were founded upon a "it's for the children" basis.

Essentially, the advocates of many bad laws will defend those laws with the flawed premise that if it's "for the children," it has to be good. Well, in this case and many cases, the children don't want or need the additional regulation and in many cases would be better with less regulation.


The child pornography laws come to mind as "for the children", but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that this is horrible legislation on the grounds that it oversteps our first amendment rights to free speech, would you?

Child pornography isn't a speech issue. It's an exploitation issue. It's a physical and serious mental harm that the children endure. To compare child pornography to video games is absurd and you know it.

Aside from that, child pornography is not "protected speech," but guess what -- virtual images of child pornography [e.g. 3-d models, drawings, cartoons] win the Nobel Prize according to our first amendment case law. To try to argue video games should be 'unprotected speech' flies in the face of what we know protected speech today.

Unless you're advocating that the United States Supreme Court suddenly decide that video games are unprotected speech (ain't going to happen), then to do what you propose to do would probably take a Constitutional Amendment. Again, not going to happen.

look, this whole topic is Lame!
it would be pretty easy to say Yes, it does harm under the right circumstances with parents that are violent to there kids & offer no role model & spend no time & allow their kids to do as they please. and to say that kids can be violent even with good parenting is possible, but to say those parents were good is to say you knew what happened behind closed doors in their household. no one knows certain abuses that may happen in a household but the witnesses. people can lead dual lives, but i'm sure some never considered that that's one of the most basic behaviors of abuse.

everyone's idea of what violent is in accordance to a video game has to be the same in order to even begin to argue the merits of either side of what it may or may not cause to children playing said games.

from the responses so far, i imagine paint ball or dodgeball would be considered violent to some. and some aren't remotely familiar with video games in the first place.
there's no real way to have a discussion over this without defining "violence" & "appropriate ages."

OKCrime, please quit with the child porn talk. this has nothing to do with that.

We already have a rating system in place.


Yes. ESRB (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_process.jsp) and I'm glad that it is in place. However, it is not mandatory and there are no legal consequences for parents or children associated with violating the ratings.



How would you enforce that law?


The police would enforce the law in the same way they currently enforce laws that protect children from pornography, alcohol and tobacco.



And I'm curious about another thing, how would you define 'violence'? Everyone has different ideas, beliefs and theories about what constitutes violence. Would you take away a Sports Video game? Would you consider a Football game violent? I think it is. Slamming men to the ground and jumping on top of them and tackling them seems pretty violent.
So, who decides and where do you draw the line?


It isn't black and white, there are shades of grey. Violence is like obscenity. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it". Just because it is hard to draw a bright white line that delineates violence, doesn't mean that it is impossible to regulate. Take a look at the ERSB ratings procedure (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_process.jsp). They manage to differentiate among at least 6 different levels of game appropriateness using independent raters.

Violence is like obscenity. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it".


That's exactly what I'm afraid of.

When it comes to morality or even video games - I don't want people like Stewart, Jerry Falwell or Sally Kern telling me what they think is violent or moral.

What I might deem appropriate, they wouldn't.. uh, uh, stay out of my house.

It isn't black and white, there are shades of grey. Violence is like obscenity. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it". Just because it is hard to draw a bright white line that delineates violence, doesn't mean that it is impossible to regulate.

The "I know it when I see it" example is not the law. Justice Stewart wrote that in a concurring opinion, so really, it never was the law. Still, he backed off of it in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

In that case, they announced this three factor test:

1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

So no, violence is not like obscenity. In fact, I think most games would pass all three prongs -- even GTA IV.

Just to be clear, to date, I've only argued the scientific evidence in this thread, never any policy position. I certainly never argued that violent video games should be off limits to adults.

Who will go out and convince all parents to be good parents? Many parents don't have the time or education to decide what media is or is not appropriate for their children. Most need help, and that is why a legally enforced rating system governed by a body independent of the video gaming industry is a good idea. Children should have no access to violent video games, in the same way that children should have no access to pornography. Anyone caught allowing children to play violent video games should similarly be charged with "corruption of a minor". A child's rights to play violent video games is out-weighted by the potential harm to the minor and other individuals by the minor. For adults, I think that the balance tips the other way because there isn't strong enough evidence to support the conclusion that violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adults.

i just don't understand your thinking. we should all agree that children develop at different speeds toward maturity. if something could be considered educational by the parents, they should have the ability to be with their kids & allow the kids to play that particular activity whether it be video games or books that are considered mature reading. you certainly wouldn't argue a child's education if he/she were smart enough to go to college at age 13, so the same would be to material that the parent may regard as appropriate for their children.

i won't fall victim to the dumbing down of america & bad parenting by being told how to raise my children because of the many morons that are bad at parenting. watch the movie "idiocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy)" & get back to me on your thoughts with educating our youth.

Hey -- y'all know what would really be good for the children? We should require all parents to mount security cameras in their homes so that the state may monitor them to make sure they're being good parents. That'd be really great for the children!

How about just about the entire child protective services scheme? Our laws "protecting children" have created a program where DHS often pulls kids out of homes based upon false reports (sure it's illegal to make a false report, but how many prosecutions do you think there really are?).

Given all the rants about bad parents in this thread, it seems like DHS would be justified in yanking children away from parents in the large majority of cases. It seems that infringement of the rights of the parent are out-weighted by the safety of the children. I believe that only a minority of such cases are due to false reports. Of course, there are probably ways to improve DHS. I wouldn't argue that it is perfect.



The entire "No Child Left Behind" schem.


What parental rights does this educational mandate violate?



Essentially, the advocates of many bad laws will defend those laws with the flawed premise that if it's "for the children," it has to be good. Well, in this case and many cases, the children don't want or need the additional regulation and in many cases would be better with less regulation.


Not sure what the children want is as relevant as is what is best for the children. However, good people do disagree about the best way to accomplish the same goals. "For the children" is the goal not the means. You are right that using rhetoric to overemphasize the goal and avoid debate about the means and method is inappropriate. It happened with freedom and patriotism in the justification for the Iraq war, so I believe you that is has happened in the past with respect to children.



Child pornography isn't a speech issue. It's an exploitation issue. It's a physical and serious mental harm that the children endure. ... child pornography is not "protected speech," but guess what -- virtual images of child pornography [e.g. 3-d models, drawings, cartoons] win the Nobel Prize according to our first amendment case law.


Child pornography is both a free speech and exploitation issue. We regulate people like Larry Flint from producing or selling, and anyone from owning child pornography because of the harm to children in its creation. Our free speech right is overweighted by the government's legitimate interest in protecting its citizens. Virtual child pornography was illegal in the US from 1996 to 2002, when the Supreme Court overturned the Child Pornography Prevention Act believing that evidence of the harms of virtual child pornography (not involving the use of a minor in its creation) were not sufficient to over weigh the citizenry's right to free speech.



To try to argue video games should be 'unprotected speech' flies in the face of what we know protected speech today.


I do not argue that we should restrict the rights of adults to own, sell and produce violent video games. I argue that the rights of a minor to play violent video games are over weighed by the government's legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of children. The justification is the same as that the government uses to restrict the use of alcohol, cigarettes and pornography by minors. The supreme court has said that the rights of minors are sharply reduced as compared to the rights of adults. Therefore, the government has more power to regulate the behavior of minors.

I think most games would pass all three prongs -- even GTA IV.

Please make your case for GTA IV.



1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;


You don't think GTA "appeals to the prurient interest"?



2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law; and


Have you seen this (http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/04/30/ign-yanks-gta-iv-sex-and-hooker-shooting-video/)? Quote from article:
"Did you hear about IGN’s “Grand Theft Auto IV” montage that exclusively featured clips of the game’s lead character having sex and shooting the women he had sex with?"

Patently offensive.



3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


Which does GTA have? literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

Interesting. I wonder what code of ethics, if any, guides the game designer in the development of these in-game situations, especially with respect to deciding which choices end up being most beneficial for the player.

You should play Black & White. It's a game where you play God. You can be a good god or a bad god, and gameplay adjusts accordingly.



As for the rest of this thread...I mean really...What's with the quest to blame a (relatively) new media on societal ills?

That's like blaming D&D for murderous/suicidal kids, or blaming Ozzy for your kid killing himself. Ozzy didn't do it...Your kid did it because he was mentally ill.

ZOMG!!!GTA KILLS BABIES!OH NOES!!!!!

Are you Sam Brownback?

You should play Black & White. It's a game where you play God. You can be a good god or a bad god, and gameplay adjusts accordingly.


Interesting. I will. thanks.



As for the rest of this thread...I mean really...What's with the quest to blame a (relatively) new media on societal ills?


No one in this thread has done this. The most reaching statement has been that playing violent video games is a contributing factor to aggressive behavior. Simply that claim has generated quite a backlash.

Given all the rants about bad parents in this thread, it seems like DHS would be justified in yanking children away from parents in the large majority of cases. It seems that infringement of the rights of the parent are out-weighted by the safety of the children. I believe that only a minority of such cases are due to false reports. Of course, there are probably ways to improve DHS. I wouldn't argue that it is perfect.

How much experience do you actually have with DHS? Your statements tell me its very, very little. I'm a trained volunteer for Oklahoma Lawyers for Children (non-lawyer for now) and have assisted on quite a few cases involving DHS.

When contacting DHS, you're basically rolling the dice. In one extreme case, I saw what was almost certainly evidence of sexual abuse of the child by a custodial parent. It took DHS about 2 weeks to even conduct an interview. In another case, a certifiably crazy woman called in and the kids were taken from this couple who is basically supermom/superdad and placed in a DHS facilitiy over an extended weekend without any investigation whatsoever. You just never know what's going to happen.

In some states, not Oklahoma, thankfully, often, foster parents are favored over kinship placements for silly reasons like 20-year-old criminal convictions. All of these schemes were passed "for the children." Good stuff, eh?


What parental rights does this educational mandate violate?

None. That's not what's protected here. The speech of the video game manufacturers, i.e., their product is what's protected and threatened here.


Child pornography is both a free speech and exploitation issue. We regulate people like Larry Flint from producing or selling, and anyone from owning child pornography because of the harm to children in its creation.

CP is not free speech -- it is an area of unprotected speech. As I said though, if you look at court decisions, it's not the speech they're worried about, but the exploitation. How else do you explain the court's opinion (I can get you the cite if you really want it) that virtual 3-d images where no real children were photographed are a-ok since no child is being exploited?

How else do you explain the several opinions of the court (United States v. Playboy, a couple of Ashcroft v. ACLU cases [I know, those name cites are about as vague as it gets]) which say that statutes punishing individuals for posting pornographic material on the internet which could "harm children" or Playboy TV's possible scrambled images on old-style TVs showing the occasional breast were violations of the 1st Amendment protections?

I just don't think it's very realistic to think a generally conservative court with Kennedy as the swing vote is going to rubber stamp a new version of unprotected speech based on the doubtful claim that children are being harmed here.


Our free speech right is overweighted by the government's legitimate interest in protecting its citizens. Virtual child pornography was illegal in the US from 1996 to 2002, when the Supreme Court overturned the Child Pornography Prevention Act believing that evidence of the harms of virtual child pornography (not involving the use of a minor in its creation) were not sufficient to over weigh the citizenry's right to free speech.

Well, the government doesn't need just a "legitimate" interest to restrict speech. It needs a "compelling governmental goal" and there can't be a "less restrictive alternative."


I do not argue that we should restrict on the rights of adults to own, sell and produce violent video games. I argue that the rights of a minor to play violent video games are over weighed by the government's legitimate interest in protecting the health and wellbeing of children. The justification is the same as that the government uses to restrict the use of alcohol, cigarettes and pornography by minors. The supreme court has said that the rights of minors are sharply reduced as compared to the rights of adults. Therefore, the government has more power to regulate the behavior of minors.

Alcohol and cigarettes ain't speech and even pornography statutes are given 1st amendment protection in many cases. For your regulatory scheme to pass Constitutional muster, you're going to need a new Constitution.

Watching people behave in real life is a contributing factor in aggressive behavior. Much more so than something on the boob tube.

Let me see somebody push their cart out into the parking lot at WalMart instead of a cart return and you'll see some aggressive behavior.

And don't get me started on how aggressive I feel after driving in heavy traffic.

GTA hasn't a snowball's chance in hell at making me do something stupid to my fellow man, but my fellow man does something every day that says he deserves it.








Lazy POS douchcanoe can't bother to walk twenty feet so I'm out another $150 in paintless dent repair....

You don't think GTA "appeals to the prurient interest"?

That's only one part of the prong. You have to satisfy the whole prong. You forgot to apply community standards. You don't get past that. In Oklahoma, playing GTAIV is acceptable. That you have a fringe opinion which states otherwise is not really relevant here. Assuming arguendo though, that the community standards test applies, let's turn to the definition of prurient:


marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire

The key thing here is sexual. GTA IV is not about sex, although, if you so choose, some very poorly depicted sex acts exist where nothing really is shown (unless you modify the game). Do you really think the average person would play GTA IV and say "My goodness, what a sexual game"? I really doubt it.


"Did you hear about IGN’s “Grand Theft Auto IV” montage that exclusively featured clips of the game’s lead character having sex and shooting the women he had sex with?"

Patently offensive. Again, that's not the whole test. The sex act has to be shown in a patently offensive way. The interesting here is that nothing is being "shown." This isn't a passive experience. If the player wants to make it offensive, it is the player, not the game which makes it offensive.

There are much, much worse scenes depicted every night on prime-time TV. I hardly think you get to the "patently offensive" prong at all here.


Which does GTA have? literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

Artistic? Definitely. The graphics are stunning. Political? Possibly. It, in a rather dramatic way depicts organized crime.

Which does GTA have? literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?


Not sure if this applies but the main reason it is so popular is that it offers entertainment value, which some might argue will keep the teens busy enough in a safe environment in the home... instead of running around town unsupervised getting into trouble.

Watching people behave in real life is a contributing factor in aggressive behavior. Much more so than something on the boob tube.


True enough. Violence, in all forms is bad for you.



GTA hasn't a snowball's chance in hell at making me do something stupid to my fellow man, but my fellow man does something every day that says he deserves it.


Remember, the discussion and claimed effects are about children. Not relevant to you playing GTA unless I guess your age wrong.

I almost expect a post in this thread something like

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)

True enough. Violence, in all forms is bad for you.

Really? Practing martial arts is pretty healthy I thought?

-- if you want to play on this one, I'm walking you off a cliff.


Remember, the discussion and claimed effects are about children. Not relevant to you playing GTA unless I guess your age wrong.

The most-cited study (Anderson, 2001) is a study on college students taking Iowa State's basic Psychology class. It asked kids to play a game (probably Doom), then say how they'd respond to a hypothetical situation afterwards.

The study never leaves the realm of hypothetical and is therefore has nothing to do with predicting actual violence.

[QUOTE=OKCCrime;142529]I almost expect a post in this thread something like

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)[/QUOTE

Just about. The 1st Amendment, IMHO is much more important to liberty than is the 2nd.

(but they're both important)

Well, the government doesn't need just a "legitimate" interest to restrict speech. It needs a "compelling governmental goal" and there can't be a "less restrictive alternative."


Protection of childrens' well-being. Can't think of a less restrictive alternative but would be willing to hear about one so long as it accomplishes the same goal.


Alcohol and cigarettes ain't speech...

Good point. But pornography is speech and is restricted for minors. Violent video games (violent media in general) should be as well. Artistic, educational or scientific use of violent depictions aside, as it is for pornography.

Really? Practing martial arts is pretty healthy I thought?



Violence is the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence)

I hope this isn't the goal of practing martial arts.



-- if you want to play on this one, I'm walking you off a cliff.


Watch your step lest you take a fall too :)

Protection of childrens' well-being. Can't think of a less restrictive alternative but would be willing to hear about one so long as it accomplishes the same goal.

Well, we don't get to the less restrictive alternative test unless it's a compelling governmental goal.

And you don't get there without incontravertible proof of harm.

firstamendmentcenter.org: Arts & First Amendment in Speech - What's on Horizon (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/horizon.aspx?topic=arts_horizon)

The above chronicles several of these laws being struck down as of July 2006.

As of today, though many states have tried to pass these laws, not a single time has a state succeeded.


Good point. But pornography is speech and is restricted for minors. Violent video games (violent media in general) should be as well. Artistic, educational or scientific use of violent depictions aside, as it is for pornography.

As above, ain't no way you're winning that case at the Supreme Court or even in front of any state body. You're of course entitled to your beliefs, but those beliefs will never become the law.

You can keep repeating yourself as you have been, but that doesn't change the law.

I almost expect a post in this thread something like

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)

Nice strawman.



Remember, the discussion and claimed effects are about children. Not relevant to you playing GTA unless I guess your age wrong.

My point sill stands. It doesn't matter how old you are. People in this world can do some mean and nasty things to each other, and it's not like children have asshole myopia...They see it too. I bet that seeing a lady being a jerk in the grocery store is going to stick with that kid a lot longer than shooting a cop in GTA. Mom cursing out other drivers while her kid is in the back seat is going to go a LOT further towards fostering aggressiveness in a kid than some silly game.

lol...I've not even played the latest version of the game (or any game at all in 6 months for that matter, I'm a VERY casual gamer), The games are a roaring good time though. The gameplay, graphics, and sheer scope of the games are what draws people to play them anyway, not the violence. There are many more violent, screwed up, in-your-face-wrong games out there than GTA. But all the elements of the others don't come close to GTA in terms of how much fun it is. People just single it out because it's popular, and has stuff in it that isn't allowed in normal society.

It still comes back to parenting...The game is rated for 17 years old and up. Any parent that lets their kids play those games without at least screening them first (not to mention taking into account the actual behavior of the child) is in need of a v-chip for bad parenting attached to a cattle prod.

Policing parenting choices in gray areas won't work, in my opinion. If (IF) parents, as a whole, had a concensus on what constitutes good parenting choices, it would be a lot easier for adults to look out for each other and be the eyes that they used to be back when I was coming up (back in the day when any adult in the neighborhood was informally deputized to not only tell a kid he was messing up but sometimes would give them a swat! - :)). At the very least, it was considered the "right thing to do" to rat out the kid to his parents, who would thank the neighbor profusely then promptly deal with junior. Unfortunately, seems like there is no longer a consensus on what it means to be a good parent. The only semi-consensus I see is that many parents have chips on their shoulders and interpret any criticism of junior as a criticism of them. Circle the wagons!

In Oklahoma, playing GTAIV is acceptable

for adults. I doubt that if you surveyed the community that the majority would agree that GTA is appropriate for children. If so, that would be a sad commentary in itself.



The key thing here is sexual. GTA IV is not about sex, although, if you so choose, some very poorly depicted sex acts exist where nothing really is shown (unless you modify the game).


You are dancing a fine line. Even if we don't consider the GTA III mod, which was programmed by the game's developer, where the goal is for the main character to have sex with as many women as possible, GTA IV isn't exactly wholesome, as demonstrated by these scenes:

GTA IV Sex Scenes - You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-mOf4Ljyis)



This isn't a passive experience. If the player wants to make it offensive, it is the player, not the game which makes it offensive.


Hmm. Pretty much looks like the girls in the game are doing all the work in that scene and the main character is PASSIVE!



There are much, much worse scenes depicted every night on prime-time TV.


Worse than stripper threesomes enacting lesbian sex? I guess that I'm really missing something by not watching TV.


Artistic? Definitely. The graphics are stunning.

Sorry but pretty graphics do not make something artistic.

Well, we don't get to the less restrictive alternative test unless it's a compelling governmental goal. And you don't get there without incontravertible proof of harm.


I know I'm asking a lot. It took how many years to convince people that smoking is a contributing factor in lung cancer? People resist science. BTW, I hear the whole global warming thing is bunk. phffft!



You can keep repeating yourself as you have been, but that doesn't change the law.

Nope, people change laws. That's why discussions like these are important. I'm really glad that you started the thread and have been an active discussant. Thanks! :)

You are dancing a fine line. Even if we don't consider the GTA III mod, which was programmed by the game's developer, where the goal is for the main character to have sex with as many women as possible, GTA IV isn't exactly wholesome, as demonstrated by these scenes:


That's a mod, not the game. And have you seen it? Not that racy.Tomb Raider had the same thing a few years back, where you could play it with her fully nude through the whole game. Nobody really raised a stink about that one.


Sorry but pretty graphics does not make something artistic.

Says you. And who in the heck are YOU to tell ME what's art?

I say that the buffalo strewn about downtown are about as artistic as that funky solid ball of molded lint that accumulates in the tip of a really old pair of shoes. But I'm not trying to say they aren't art. People make art out of garbage, why can't they make it out of ones and zeros? I work on computers for a living, and a great many games have artistic merit to me due to the sheer genius it takes to put something like that together. I sure as heck can't do it.

for adults. I doubt that if you surveyed the community that the majority would agree that GTA is appropriate for children. If so, that would be a sad commentary in itself.

The thing is when we test free speech, it's the community at large, not a particular sector of the community, especially not the children. We assume that parents are doing their jobs or that the parents don't care which is also their right.


You are dancing a fine line. Even if we don't consider the GTA III mod, which was programmed by the game's developer, where the goal is for the main character to have sex with as many women as possible, GTA IV isn't exactly wholesome, as demonstrated by these scenes:

GTA IV Sex Scenes - You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-mOf4Ljyis)

I watched the whole clip... I saw nothing I haven't seen on MTV's Spring Break.


Hmm. Pretty much looks like the girls in the game are doing all the work in that scene and the main character is PASSIVE!

Have you played it? I haven't. 5 minutes/21 seconds of passivity is rare in any video game. We tried that with the old 'choose your own adventure' movies -- they all tanked horribly.

The player isn't passive when they choose to play that part of the game though. that's an active decision.


Worse than stripper threesomes enacting lesbian sex? I guess that I'm really missing something by not watching TV.

I only saw two girls, and I saw no sex. Just something I've seen a dozen times on The Real World.


Sorry but pretty graphics does not make something artistic.

Ah well, art is a funny thing. Piss Jesus is art. The virgin Mary drawn from feces is art as well. Movies for entertainment are called art. If those are art, why isn't this?

That's a mod, not the game

A mod made by and distributed with every copy of GTA by the game producer. It was only 'unlocked' by a hacker (AKA Electronic Arts employee #11232).



Says you. And who in the heck are YOU to tell ME what's art? I say that the buffalo strewn about downtown are about as artistic as that funky solid ball of molded lint that accumulates in the tip of a really old pair of shoes. But I'm not trying to say they aren't art. People make art out of garbage, why can't they make it out of ones and zeros? I work on computers for a living, and a great many games have artistic merit to me due to the sheer genius it takes to put something like that together. I sure as heck can't do it.

Yes! Exactly the problem. It's subjective.

The child pornography laws come to mind as "for the children", but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that this is horrible legislation on the grounds that it oversteps our first amendment rights to free speech, would you?

Some people banging the drum about child pornography have an agenda of wanting all forms entertainment and expression with any form of nudity or sexually suggestive content outlawed. Many attempts at legislating morality have been struck down because the laws were too loosely worded and open to subjective interpretation.

From my point of view it would seem pretty simple to pass laws against child pornography. But it isn't so easy a thing regarding sex and violence in video games or that sort of content on TV, radio and in movie theaters.

IMHO, the ratings system is enough. Parents have to open their eyes and look for those ratings and make responsible decisions. Just from my own personal observations, many parents are not willing to do that. They'll buy 10 year old Timmy a copy of GTA4 for his Playstation 3 just so they don't have to hear him throw a giant tantrum. They'll let the kids sit in the living room watching R-rated or TV-MA rated shows because they as parents don't feel like putting off viewing their adult oriented subject matter for another time. So in the end, it's usually the fault of parents for not making good choices for their kids. It isn't the fault of people creating entertainment that's really geared for adults and not children.


Yes. ESRB and I'm glad that it is in place. However, it is not mandatory and there are no legal consequences for parents or children associated with violating the ratings.

Video games aren't similar at all to beer, alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. Video games are a form of entertainment and the access to that entertainment can be strictly controlled by parents.

Any suggestion that parents don't have the time or expertise to properly control access to controversial entertainment is a cop out. They have to figure out how to get the job done. If some worker loses his job when a factory closes he often has to figure out how to do a different job to make a living or he's going to starve. Parents need to learn how to adapt to new challenges in raising children too. That problem is nothing new. Every generation of parents has had to deal with it. If anyone doesn't feel up to that challenge they should think twice before becoming a parent in the first place.

If you don't like the game, don't play it. If you don't want your kids to see it, don't buy it. Pretty simple solution to me.

Just like Oklahoma's stupid p0rn laws. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

I watched the whole clip... I saw nothing I haven't seen on MTV's Spring Break.


I'm sure you wouldn't see that scene on FCC regulated broadcast television.

MTV is an unregulated cable channel that parent have to buy and allow their children to watch. Since when did MTV become wholesome child appropriate viewing material?



The player isn't passive when they choose to play that part of the game though. that's an active decision.


There you went, right off that line you were dancing. I don't buy your argument. It's not like the child is going to avoid the strip club....


If those are art, why isn't this?

Those darn Supreme Court justices. Why didn't they foresee this dilemma?

They DID! They just wanted another way of saying "I know it when I see it". It's still up to the judges to decide what is and what isn't artistic. How many of our sitting judges do you think would agree with you that GTA IV is artistic?

A mod made by and distributed with every copy of GTA by the game producer. It was only 'unlocked' by a hacker (AKA Electronic Arts employee #11232).


And it only worked on the computer version as far as I know. There's not really a way to crack into the disc on a Playstation or Xbox unless you've got a LOT of knowledge, skill, and a desire to cross the RIAA. The vast majority of people that play these games don't play them on their PC's.



Yes! Exactly the problem. It's subjective.

I'm glad we agree...So now you'll stop calling it "not art", right? Because other's view it as such.

I'm sure you wouldn't see that scene on FCC regulated broadcast television.


NYPD Blue says that you're wrong.


****warning...Probably not safe for work, even though it's been on "broadcast TV"****
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8blA_D3tUkg



MTV is an unregulated cable channel that parent have to buy and allow their children to watch.


And the game is free?

If you don't like the game, don't play it. If you don't want your kids to see it, don't buy it. Pretty simple solution to me.

The problem is that other people's kids (and their aggressive behvior) have an effect on our society. The welfare of your children is of great concern to society. Whether you like it or not, society has a right to tell you how to raise your children. For example, society tells you that your kids must go to school. All I'm arguing is that we should add, no kids should be allowed to play violent video games the likes of GTA.

NYPD Blue says that you're wrong.
****warning...Probably not safe for work, even though it's been on "broadcast TV"****

Oh the irony - not safe for work. :)

I don't watch the show. Isn't that late-night and not prime-time viewing when the FCC loosens restrictions?

And it only worked on the computer version as far as I know. There's not really a way to crack into the disc on a Playstation or Xbox unless you've got a LOT of knowledge, skill, and a desire to cross the RIAA. The vast majority of people that play these games don't play them on their PC's.

An so it is alright because only a few children were exposed to media of prurient interests?



I'm glad we agree...So now you'll stop calling it "not art", right? Because other's view it as such.

Sounds like we need to start a poll on that question! :)

I just don't ever see GTA getting played at the Oklahoma City Museum of Art :).

The problem is that other people's kids (and their aggressive behvior) have an effect on our society. The welfare of your children is of great concern to society. Whether you like it or not, society has a right to tell you how to raise your children. For example, society tells you that your kids must go to school. All I'm arguing is that we should add, no kids should be allowed to play violent video games the likes of GTA.

Okay...So what about Halo? It's rated M, but doesn't have any sex or nudity. Just killing aliens...Not even very graphically either.

I'm just asking...Who draws the line? Not the ESRB. Because parents can override their decision. Just like they can override the decisions of the MPAA and take their kid to a rated R movie.

So...You going to have the court system judge every game that comes out?

Okay...So what about Halo? It's rated M, but doesn't have any sex or nudity. Just killing aliens...Not even very graphically either.

I'm just asking...Who draws the line? Not the ESRB. Because parents can override their decision. Just like they can override the decisions of the MPAA and take their kid to a rated R movie.

So...You going to have the court system judge every game that comes out?

I proposed that an independent panel (like ESRB) be given the duty of making those calls. It doesn't have to be a line, it can be made on a case by case basis. That way, if it pleases you, the standard can evolve over time, with community standards.

Parents shouldn't be allowed to override the committee's decision.

MTV is an unregulated cable channel that parent have to buy and allow their children to watch. Since when did MTV become wholesome child appropriate viewing material?

I never suggested that it was, but it seems your [absurd] suggestion is that video games be more regulated than broadcast cable television. Believe me -- states have tried (and failed) to do this.


There you went, right off that line you were dancing. I don't buy your argument. It's not like the child is going to avoid the strip club....

Ah.. so now you are a psychic.


They DID! They just wanted another way of saying "I know it when I see it". It's still up to the judges to decide what is and what isn't artistic. How many of our sitting judges do you think would agree with you that GTA IV is artistic?

Not quite, but nice try. It's not whether the Justices think the game is artistic, it's whether the community as a whole would find it so, and even if it didn't, it has to be obscenity under the other two prongs as well. The state has a high burden on all of these factors.

Look -- if you really think that a court would ever in a million years hold this way, go find me one case, just one, where a video game has ever been held to be not protected speech.

I proposed that an independent panel (like ESRB) be given the duty of making those calls. It doesn't have to be a line, it can be made on a case by case basis. That way, if it pleases you, the standard can evolve over time, with community standards.

Yeah, but parents can still let their kids play it...So nothing has changed except a bunch of useless and expensive legislation as far as I can tell. As for overriding...You going to stop them at the theater too?


And don't get me started on "community standards". I know it's written in there...But I disagree with the idea of it. By "community standards", I'd be required to go to church. And as somebody who doesn't really prescribe to organized religion, I'd find that to be vile and offensive in a free society. By "community standards", I can't buy decent porn in this state even though I can get it with an internet connection and one hand tied behind my back. "Community standards" dictate that I can't buy beer after 2am, even though I work graveyard shift, and 2am-5am is like my 10am-noon.

Software companies do not have to participate with the ESRB. The ESRB is not a government entity. In fact, just a couple of years ago, the State of California tried to enact legislation forcing game shops to put warning stickers and provide literature regarding certain games.

That's compelled speech said the California Supreme Court (or was in the 9th Circus? I forget), but the state can't compel you to speak.

I never suggested that it was, but it seems your [absurd] suggestion is that video games be more regulated than broadcast cable television. Believe me -- states have tried (and failed) to do this.


I certainly never suggested that. Whatever regulation of violence we place on video games should go the same for violence in all media. Ditto for regulations on sex.



Not quite, but nice try. It's not whether the Justices think the game is artistic, it's whether the community as a whole would find it so


You may be right, but where do you get that? Nothing I've read suggests that the court is obliged to follow community standard on judging what is artistic. Can you point me to some legal text/analysis?



Look -- if you really think that a court would ever in a million years hold this way, go find me one case, just one, where a video game has ever been held to be not protected speech.

I never said that I did. Remember, this discussion is about violence and not sex. I only asked you to follow up on your claim that GTA would pass the three prong test for obscenity. I wanted to see how vigorously you would defend something so heinous as GTA. I'll leave it by saying that Alan Isaacman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Isaacman) would be proud of you. Children may now rejoice!

You may be right, but where do you get that? Nothing I've read suggests that the court is obliged to follow community standard on judging what is artistic. Can you point me to some legal text/analysis?

Sure. The Miller test I cited somewhere above.


I never said that I did. Remember, this discussion is about violence and not sex. I only asked you to follow up on your claim that GTA would pass the three prong test for obscenity. I wanted to see how vigorously you would defend something so heinous as GTA. I'll leave it by saying that Alan Isaacman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Isaacman) would be proud of you. Children may now rejoice!

That's not a category of unprotected speech. You'd have to get in under one of the exceptions. The only one which comes to mind is the "fighting words" doctrine. Even there you will fail. The standard there is that only "those [words] that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The fact that the vast majority of us who play violent games do not commit violent acts is far more than enough to defeat this.

There's no way around it. If you're trying to make a legal argument, you've absolutely failed. If you think a Constitutional Amendment needs to be passed, you're welcome to try.

-- and I'm a big fan of Alan Isaacman. He's a great defender of our first amendment rights.

I wanted to see how vigorously you would defend something so heinous as GTA. I'll leave it by saying that Alan Isaacman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Isaacman) would be proud of you. Children may now rejoice!


And rejoicing they are:

Take Two announced it sold more than 6 million copies of Grand Theft Auto (http://www.dvhardware.net/article27064.html#) IV in the first week!

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO), said today that Grand Theft Auto IV has surpassed all-time entertainment records for day one and week one sales by dollar value. Released on Tuesday, April 29th, Grand Theft Auto IV, the critically acclaimed video game, has sold through to consumers approximately 6 million units globally with an estimated retail value of more than $500 million in the first week. Grand Theft Auto IV sold approximately 3.6 million units on its opening day with a retail value of approximately $310 million globally.



Now, I'm waiting for the mass violence to escalate... so far, I haven't noticed a huge difference.

I do admit GTA 4 isn't the best choice for wholesome family fun.. like I've said, we've had countless hours of fun with Halo.

For the record, I really don't think young children should be anywhere near GTA4.

Have you seen Family Guy lately? or Adult Swim? Things have certainly changed since we were young, no doubt about it.

I almost expect a post in this thread something like

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)


Nice strawman.

How about, instead.

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my child's cold, dead hands.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold%2C_dead_hands)

-- and I'm a big fan of Alan Isaacman. He's a great defender of our first amendment rights.

You and Hustler fans everywhere.

You and Hustler fans everywhere.

Ah, so now we're on to personal attacks.

There's an old legal saying:

"If you can't win on the law, pound the facts,
If you can't win on the facts, pound the law,
If you can't win on the law or the facts, pound the table."

Looks like you've moved on to the table.

Tell me what Isaacman says that's so horrible here:

Oyez: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278/argument/)

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell wasn't about pornography, it's about the right of the media to be able to satirize public people.

Ah, so now we're on to personal attacks.


I'm sorry. It wasn't meant as a personal attack. Just a reference to how defending free speech associates you with some of the worst people around (i.e., Larry Flint). While I believe in free speech, it seems there are more and more people collecting at the bottom of the bucket trying to make a buck, staying just on the right sight of the law by hiding behind the rights that you are vigorously defending. Obviously the motivation is that we must protect the worst to protect the rest, but it feels like the "worst" is getting to be a much bigger piece of the pie than the "rest". Again, sorry.

I'm sorry. It wasn't meant as a personal attack. Just a reference to how defending free speech associates you with some of the worst people around (i.e., Larry Flint). While I believe in free speech, it seems there are more and more people collecting at the bottom of the bucket trying to make a buck, staying just on the right sight of the law by hiding behind the rights that you are vigorously defending. Obviously the motivation is that we must protect the worst to protect the rest, but it feels like the "worst" is getting to be a much bigger piece of the pie than the "rest". Again, sorry.

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

-- Pastor Martin Niemöller

I do not say this to slander Jews and suggest that they are the worst -- I quote this poem to remind you that oppression is an incremental thing. We address one "pressing concern to save the children" after another and pretty soon we live in an Orwellian nightmare. So I (and many like me) choose to fight any and all oppression wherever it might be.