Violent Video Games -- Do They Harm Our Youth?

[OKCCrime]

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?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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?

[OKCCrime]

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.

[OKCCrime]

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?

[OKCCrime]

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 .

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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?

[OKCCrime]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[OKCCrime]

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 would be proud of you. Children may now rejoice!

[Midtowner]

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 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.

[Karried]

I wanted to see how vigorously you would defend something so heinous as GTA. I'll leave it by saying that 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 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.

[Karried]

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.

[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.

Nice strawman.

How about, instead.

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my child's cold, dead hands.

[OKCCrime]

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

You and Hustler fans everywhere.

[Midtowner]

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

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

[OKCCrime]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

How about, instead.

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my child's cold, dead hands.

You're still putting some pretty harsh words in the mouths of others, utterly failing to prove any point at all other than that you'll start flailing your arms and making absurd and over the top statements when you can't get around common sense or point of law.

[Karried]

Originally Posted by OKCCrime
How about, instead.

I'll give you my GTA when you pry it from my child's cold, dead hands.



whoa. That was unexepected.

I'm pretty confident that that won't happen with me .... my supervised child will be in the house playing video games instead of out running the streets dodging gunfire.

[OKCCrime]

making absurd and over the top statements

Hmm.. You mean like these over the top statements?

I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will
automatically make them serial killers.

[/QUOTE]

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!

and ironically the worst over the top statement of all:

What's with the quest to blame a (relatively) new media on societal ills?
Are you Sam Brownback? ZOMG!!!GTA KILLS BABIES!OH NOES!!!!!

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Midtowner]

The funny thing is that our statements taken out of context aren't nearly as silly as the ones you've made (obviously I'm being normative, not descriptive). For what it's worth, at the time, we were discussing the potential absurd results of "for the children" legislation.

My statement there kind of sums up the endgame of your line of thinking -- if you think it's a compelling interest of the state to protect children from maybe seeing something they shouldn't because you don't trust the parents to do it, what exactly makes you stop short of setting up cameras in homes?

Undoubtedly, if our homes allowed the government troopers to see in, the children would be safer. What articulable and predictable limitations do you put on your proposed "for the children" legislation?

-- at least no one accused you of being a fan of hard core porn.

[dismayed]

Huh? I don't see anywhere in the article where the author states anything like "violent crime among those under 18 should double". Please point out where the author or any other respectable scientist makes such a prediction on crime rates attributable to increases in violent video game playing.

Page 12, the text and the graphs about predicted risks. Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that the text is saying that x number of kids are actually getting involved in fights, violent behavior, etc. and that it matches exactly the predicted risk of that occurring and that the predicted risks are greater for someone who is being exposed to violent media, especially for those with a predisposition.

Does anyone know the sample sizes here? Are we talking about 10 kids or 10,000?