Freedom of Speech FTW!

Good. Keep that responsibility in parents hands where it belongs.

Good. While I do think that there’s probably some merit in game ratings just like there is in movies, making it literally against the law is just stupid. It is the responsibility of the parents to know what their children are doing/playing/watching.

The political theatre surrounding this topic is sad — governors introducing legislation for populist purposes that they know will be struck down in court. But the real tragedy is the way gamers, almost to a man, responds by trivializing the subject further. Knee-jerk polarization of real issues that need real thought is gearing up to be our generation’s unfortunate legacy.

My kid is eight years old now, and an avid gamer. I’ve had many years now to watch how he responds to movies and games. To me it’s simply preposterous to suggest that what he spends long hours doing — with his ultra-malleable brain hungry to learn how the world is put together — does not fundamentally impact the evolution of his interests, his world view, and his sense of empathy. He immerses himself in games to a degree that we’re not capable of when we’re older.

These are my first-hand impressions and, having spent enough time in academia to see how little common sense goes into studies such as these, I trust my observations over just about any studies meant to show “neurological harm”.

Which means, incidentally, Matt, that I must reject your “Just because you believe it doesn’t make it so, folks.” A bit out of character for you to suggest that people should surrender their own judgement and place their trust in the vague gooey force of developmental psychology.

So. No, I don’t believe 16-year-olds should be protected against GTA. I don’t think the day you are allowed to enlist in the actual “look ma I have an assault rifle” armed forces should be the same day you’re allowed to play a first-person shooter. And most of all, I share your mistrust of government and I’m not eager to see the bill of rights get further smeared.

But I am equally unimpressed with the violent counter-reaction I see on this subject. Of course what children do with their time matters. Of course tgey are affected by slamming rounds of ammunition into realistic-looking human heads in a sniper scope, over and over and over for hours and hours.

Why can’t we have a subtle discussion about this?

I think we’re understimating kids ability to differenciate reality from imaginary games.

I actually played with my “real” friends games about cowboys and indians and shooting everybody heads… (Oh my, how un-PC… I know…) And that was during hours and hours as well. And failed to remove my current dislike for weapons, blood and things that go boom. Nor did it any real harm, apart from teaching me that I enjoy roleplaying games and theatre.

I agree with coppertopper and Matt, what games kid plays should be the responsibility of the parents. The government should not pass laws just to prevent you from been harmed.

One example will be cigarettes/pot. Whether people choose to be addicted is non of government’s business. I was strongly addicted to games before, I know the harm of it but it is not my right to restrict the freedom of others just because my addiction.

Tossing my own 2c out there. I’m with others on it is the responsibility of the parent to know how their child interacts with the world around them. I have a son who is 7 yo and is high-functioning autistic. I have to make sure to remind him constantly during playtime and to sit with him while he plays video games that what he is doing is not real, because if I don’t he’ll think it is real.

Most of his games are the edu-tainment boring ones anyways, but he loves the Lego series so I let him play that. As for realistic games and FPS and the like, no freakin’ way is he ready to deal with that. I make that choice as a parent and knowing his capabilities.

My friends’ daughter is 4 and on the normal scale, she’s a gorefest baby. Recently, we all did a move fest, she was loving up Repo! The Genetic Opera where my son was turned off. She’ll tell you that’s red corn syrup for the blood. My son had to be reminded it was fake, and she was more than willing to tell you it was fake. Again, it’s a parent’s responsibility to know what their kids are capable of understanding.

If we, as parents, require laws to get us to teach right/wrong to our kids, then what the heck are we parents for? Laws should exist to protect from true harm, like pedophiles, abusive parents, and such arses.

I do believe kids probably need to be outside a hellva lot more though.

No offense there, Matt.

Raph Koster suggests (probably most accessibly in his book “A Theory of Fun”) that the “immoral” things we see players do in, say, GTA (stealing cars, killing civilians, etc.) do not actually have as much moral impact on them because they see past the fiction of the game (”I am stealing a car from another human”) to the essence of the system (”With this tool, I can get from A to B faster”).

That said, although I enjoy occasionally playing GTA, there are much better games for minors to be playing. But it’s the parents’ call. Do you really want the government telling you what you can or can’t give your children?

I must be missing something because to me it seems the law would actually make it easier for me to control what games my kids play since they would have to come to me if they wanted whatever games are affected. Now, if the law said kids couldn’t even play these games, then that I have a problem with that.

@Scourge Xanvor actually you are right, depend on the content of the law. If you look at some of the liquor laws, if you as a parent decided that it is OK to let your kid drink you could be locked away.

On the other hand the unconstitutional stuff are used way too often than intended, banning violent video games to minors is the same as 18 year old limit for voting, it is standard local decision and nothing unconstitutional about it. It should be a voter issue instead of a constitution issue.

“On the other hand the unconstitutional stuff are used way too often than intended, banning violent video games to minors is the same as 18 year old limit for voting, it is standard local decision and nothing unconstitutional about it.”

Let me get this straight just to be clear. So what you’re saying that unlike movies, books, newspapers and art the First Amendment (ie. freedom of speech) should not apply to video games?

Hmmm….I’m thinking perhaps the Second Amendment (ie. the right to keep and bear arms) would also be much better handled as a standard local decision.

@gene why not? video game control, gun control, drinking age, birth control, drag legalization etc should all be local decisions. They have nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Yes you have the second amendment, but you can’t bring guns to schools right? It is the school’s decision to ban guns, nothing constitutional about it.

Video games have everything to do with free speech, just like movies and books do. That has been made crystal clear over and over again by the courts. Any and all content is expression and free expression is covered by the 1st Amendment.

@Gene, @Matt Hmm… but in my younger days I was carded for going to R-rated movies and even for buying certain CDs. I’m guessing if had bought one of those magazines behind the brown paper at the bookstore that I would have been carded too. Are you both trying say that is unconstitutional or am I missing the point you are trying to make?

Scourge: In the case of R-rated movies and CDs, those are company policies, not laws. There are no laws that prohibit people under 18 from seeing R-rated movies or from buying certain CDs. I’ve got no problem with private parties deciding they want to restrict content by age.

In the case of porn in the US, it’s deemed to have a less protected status in many cases because there is no real expression of ideas involved. It’s purely prurient. I don’t agree with anti-porn laws in general but I can see the Supreme Court’s point of view (though again, I disagree with it). In order to be protected by the 1st Amendment, porn in the US has to pass what’s called the Miller test (referencing the 1973 case Miller v. California.) You can read up on it in Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

My take is that porn is contains expression just as valid as any other kind of content but that Americans are REALLY uptight about sex and can’t think about it rationally.

–matt

Scourge: There are no laws prohibiting minors for purchasing R-rated movies or violent book. There is the Electronic Standards Rating Board for video game which fills the same purpose as the movie rating systems:

http://www.esrb.com/

This quote best explains the constitutional issues involved:

from http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02/it-has-been-a-long.ars

“The studies used as evidence that games were dangerous above and beyond other forms of media were found to be unconvincing by the court. Without any causal links, and with no such laws prohibiting minors from purchasing R-rated movies or even reading violent books, singling out video games creates Constitutional problems no lawyer has been able to argue through.”

“gene why not? video game control, gun control, drinking age, birth control, drag legalization etc should all be local decisions.”

I was trying to be tongue in cheek but there’s no hypocrisy in your position because you’re being very consistent. A District of Columbia handgun control law in June 2008 was struck down as being unconstitutional because of the Second Ammendment. I’m guessing you would disagree with the judges decision in both cases.

Did not realize there wasn’t an actual law. Sounds like the court mad the correct ruling then.

@gene my general feeling is the federal courts should not mess with state issues.

An good example will be, suppose your neighbor started selling pot in his yard, you want to sue him to stop because various different reasons (property value/safety/law). He argued the law/homeowner asso rule is against free speech in the supreme court. If he win, that will affect the entire states instead of just his home town.

Some laws are stupid (the ban on games, or even most of the laws on traffic violations), but it is better to just let such laws rot in one state than have an unchallengeable authority to tell us what to do.

What does selling pot have to do with freedom of speech? (Nothing.)

Federal laws aren’t an unchallengeable authority either. We have an entire court system to challenge the constitutionality of them in.

Further, the whole point of the Constitution is to ensure that some rights cannot be taken away by backwards, repressive states; that those rights are guaranteed to ALL Americans.

@matt “What does selling pot have to do with freedom of speech?” I can argue that by selling pots I made a statement that banning pots taken away the freedom of choice, and there by my action is a statement.

In a democratic system, if a state became repressive, the people in the state can vote it out.

And right now the us supreme court is a unchallengeable authority. Any law made by congress can be declared unconstitutional by the court, any law you made can be overturned by 5 people.

Well, you CAN argue that, Wowpanda, but nobody is going to take you seriously.

As for the Supreme Court being an unchallengeable authority - yes. That’s the entire point of separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

You seem to really dislike the Constitution I have to say.

what I meant is absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is my view that right now instead of the 3 branches share power, it is now a 9 man/women panel that can overrule anything people make, even with my not so serious argument, as long as 5 of them sided my way.

What should happen is, each state operate independently, and they decide what they do, for it be to raise/lower taxes, pots, drinks, abortions, gay marriages. Even better that might be done on the city/county level. People rarely agree on everything, so instead of let a top panel decide for everyone, they should be allowed to decide on themselves, so instead of fighter over tiny things they don’t agree on, they can worry about bigger things (i.e you want an abortion, and your town didn’t allow it, you can go to the next town).

That is, with all due respect, an absolutely horrible idea.

The single most important function of the courts are to protect people’s rights from the tyranny of the majority. A bunch of racist hicks should not be allowed to vote slavery back into existence, for instance, and some Muslim extremists should not be permitted to vote that in their backwards little corner of America it’s acceptable to stone women to death for having premarital sex.

Further, remember that the the Supreme Court ultimately interprets the Constitution, and the Constitution can be amended (and has, many times). Both the States and the national legislative bodies (House and Senate) have the ability to propose amendments to the Constitution, and then 3/4 of the states must vote to approve the Amendment.

I guess if you want to consider you all belong to the same country is good that you have a legal framework that is common to everybody and gives the guidelines (rights, duties) for anybody considering themselves a citizen. So a global broad constitution does that, and maybe you can have the specifics on how to apply it to the more local governments. Since it’s broad and doesn’t go into specifics there’s no 9 people overruling whatever people says, but in any case deciding about a common framework.

For example, you might have a “right to have a decent place to live” in your constitutions, leave local governments to decide if it’s going to be via subsidized housing, controlled housing prices, helps to the rent, etc…

Also the problem is that if something is forbidden by law in your city/county going somewhere else to get it done can be illegal as well. For example, in the UK there’s the case of a terminally ill woman (degenerative disease) that cannot go abroad to die in a clinic because then her husband might be accused of helping with a homicide (don’t know the exact details, so he might be accused of something else).

You are right on that one. However I do believe the court is over extending itself on issues that should be left to the state to decide.

The ban of sales of video games to child has little to do with freedom of speech (no adult is restricted, and if the adult so desires he can still buy them for their kid), it simply give the parent greater control over their kids.

The constitution can be “interpreted”. And whenever that happens, there could be different ways to do that and people can extend that to creative extends. Under that condition, I think it is best to defer it (like what Marshal did that give the power to judges).

the case of eminent domain show that, even when it is clear that what the state did is, let people who has money use the power of state to force a hand on others property, the court can “interpret” it to let it happen. If that can happen, it can also happen to “pot art” or bring a gun to school to make a free speech statement.

@wowpanda: The sale of video games has as much to do with free speech as the sale of books or newspapers does. Multiple courts have ruled on this over and over. If you disagree, perhaps you should read the various rulings and tell us why you feel video games are so inherently inferior a form of expression from books that they shouldn’t be treated like all other non-prurient expression is?

The constitution, like every single written document in the history of mankind, is interpreted every time anybody reads it. It can’t speak for itself, being a piece of paper with writing on it. Thus, it must be interpreted by someone, always.

Yes, judges COULD do something as silly as deciding that bringing a gun to school is free speech, just like the executive branch COULD decide to order the military to shoot all white people, just like Congress COULD vote to rename America, “The United States of Pie.”

The check against any of those idiotic things happening are the other branches of government.

multiple court could be wrong on those things, depend on who has the most money to hire the best lawyers. Do I agree with the court’s rulings? Yes. But I don’t like the way the courts can just rule it down instead of let the voters vote him out.

Yes people could do silly things, that is why it is best to distribute power locally, so one group’s mistake don’t affect others, rather than let a tiny group of people decide for all of us. The high offices are often populated with man of political skills rather than man of virtual, and no matter how smart they are they may or may not have the correct answer. It is best to leave the freedom of choice to us (as long as we don’t hurt others) instead of let an higher authority to tell us what to do.

Wowpanda wrote:

It is best to leave the freedom of choice to us (as long as we don’t hurt others) instead of let an higher authority to tell us what to do.

This is exactly how our system in America works already. Local governments and state governments can pass any law they wish to pass. If someone feels he/she is hurt by that law, he/she takes it to the courts to decide.

–matt

quote: “If someone feels he/she is hurt by that law, he/she takes it to the courts to decide.”

Yes, but the supreme court decisions are decided by just 5 people, so if 1 man over a million feels he/she got hurt by what ever tiny reasons, they could possibly force the entire nation on it.

If you get rid of the supreme court, the decision will only affect 1 state.

It is dreadful that 5 man majority (and they are hard to replace, almost like royalty) could interpret the constitution in very flexible manners and tell the entire country what can and can not be done.

Once again, the reason that the Constitution exists (that document you seem to hate so much, that is the foundation of America) is to ensure that certain basic, inalienable rights are bestowed upon all Americans. Without the Supreme Court, individual states could chose to, for instance, enslave all African-Americans. This is not a theoretical example. African-Americans were legally oppressed well into the 1960s until the Supreme Court came to their rescue and forced the backwards, redneck states to behave like civilized human beings. Your example that people should “just move” if they don’t like the laws in one place betrays an astounding level of ignorance about the real world.

And of course the Supreme Court is hard to replace. It’s that way so they cannot be as easily politicized and removed for unpopular decisions. They are there to interpret the Constitution, not do what the public wants, because the public shows far too much thirst for oppressing minorities and minority viewpoints.

I’m about done arguing with you WowPanda, as you don’t seem to have any understanding of the underpinnings of the American political system, nor much capacity for reasoned thought about it. Your arguments are so poor and riddled with holes that they amount to spamming my blog. Quit it.

–matt

I’m 13 and I’ve played multiple M games and they’ve affected me in more of a good way than bad. The only murderous-I’m going to rule the whole world-MWAhahahah thoughts I have are while playing Dagorhir or owning some noobs in Halo 3. If kids under 18 couldn’t play violent games there is no balance and very possibly more kids would yearn for violence.

Another note on the Supreme Court for Wowpanda. The Supreme Court isn’t a randomly selected group of oligarchs.

Nominees for the court are vetted and selected by the President, who was democratically elected by the people of the United States. Those nominees are then confirmed by members of Congress who were also democratically elected by the citizenry and are there to represent the local interests of the consituents who elected them.

Supreme Court Judges thus represent the choices of those people the citizens of the US elected to represent them. Judges are NOT above the democratic ideals that underpin the US political system.

Прошу прощения, этот вариант мне не подходит. Кто еще, что может подсказать?