Violent Video Games -- Do They Harm Our Youth?

[Midtowner]

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!

[OKCCrime]

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.

[OKCCrime]

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? 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?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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?

[OKCCrime]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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....

[Midtowner]

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.

[Karried]

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.

[OKCCrime]

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.

[OKCCrime]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Midtowner]

[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.
[/QUOTE

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

(but they're both important)

[OKCCrime]

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.

[OKCCrime]

Really? Practing martial arts is pretty healthy I thought?

Violence is the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.

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

[Midtowner]

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

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.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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.

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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!

[OKCCrime]

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

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.

[OKCCrime]

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!

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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.

[Midtowner]

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

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?

[OKCCrime]

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.

[Bobby H]

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.

[bretthexum]

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.