Video Game Violence Taken to Supreme Court

[Light Buster]

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/tag/985...-on-Trial.html

Apparently, this topic had been taken as far as to the Supreme Court, dubbed "Schwarzenegger vs. The Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association". Never thought of this going into history books.

Let the comments fly. At least until this case is settled...

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

They might as well ban movies then.

Honestly, this is pretty stupid.

[GameGeeks]

It wont pass, it's up to the parents to police what their kids play, watch, eat, etc. What I don't get is he talks about the ultra-violent video games, those are already rated M and kids can't buy them. So I really don't see why you need a law like this.

[Light Buster]

Well, Leland Yee has his reasons. If this pass, everything will change so let keep our hopes high that it doesn't.

[Skylar1]

They're talking about violence, not porn.

An M-rated game is the equivalent to an R-rated movie, which, last time I checked was up to the parents discretion to decide whether or not it's acceptable.

[GameGeeks]

Not all M ratings are due to porn. Case in point, ESIV: Oblivion. It's M and has no nudity. Unless you mod it.

[Skylar1]

Not all M ratings are due to porn. Case in point, ESIV: Oblivion. It's M and has no nudity. Unless you mod it.

o_O;

um, my point was that M-rated games aren't the same as something like porn [AO-rated game]. I think you mis-read my post.

[Videogamer555]

The thing is here the legal arguments are going by "studies" and NOT common sense. Some aspects of the human mind can't be predicted by science. I think the law needs to sometimes be LESS specific and strict and start using some common sense. Yes this means that 2 similar cases (similar as defined by law) might have 2 different outcomes under a ruling based on common sense (which will tell us the 2 cases ARE different), but common sense and intuition will more accurately tell us about what's good or bad for kids than some dumb law in some book of legalese. Less specific laws if based on COMMON SENSE are actually quite possibly BETTER laws. Common sense says this about different levels of violent entertainment media:

Books can be quite violent but it is not the same as seeing it, so has little if any mental damage to children.

Bugs Bunny is unrealistic cartoon and violence depicted there is known even by children to be fantasy.

More violent cartoons like X-Men depict realistically appearing people (though only in 2D) and the result is that depicted violence here is more likely to be unhealthy* for the mind of a child.

Anime that contains violence is usually VERY violent, depicting brutal harm and realistic blood effects (some times SO much blood it actually becomes UNREALISTIC again) in battles. This is not healthy for kids as it makes violence look more acceptable after a while.

Realistic 3D computer rendered animation and live action movies containing violence that can be very realistic in appearance, and is the the worst type of violence in non-interactive entertainment media, ESPECIALLY for kids to see. However, it still pales in comparison to the next level of violent entertainment media.

Then comes modern 3d realistic video/computer games. These games because they are both interactive and realistic in nature they have a peculiar effect on the human mind. When you fire a shot in an FPS you actively make your character fire that shot and see the effect (the other guy dies in a pool of blood) and you see it as if through the eyes of the shooter (specifically in an FPS). This interactive nature of it makes it only ONE STEP AWAY from committing a real murder. You fire the shot, see the person die, and it all looks almost like real life (especially in modern hyper-realistic games like on XBox360). The ONLY thing it's not is actually real. When a person actively kills in a realistic game they are putting themselves in a place they NEVER would want to be in for real, yet it looks so real. Over time the human brain accepts the specific act of pulling the trigger and causing someones death as normal, and not repulsive to do or look at. Over time one may find that if put into a real life situation in which they had a gun in their hand pointed at someone, that they might no longer find it at all hard to pull the trigger, and could do so without the emotion of guilt at all. But if that SAME person were in that situation WITHOUT having played that game, they would NOT have the courage to pull the trigger. This effect is known as desensitization, and is WELL KNOWN by the US military who use violent games to actually train soldiers to fight in real wars.

* Unhealthy here means that a child's brain is in a state of development far more than an adult's brain, and as such is more susceptible to desensitization. Also since this is usually considered a harmful effect, and in our society we try in general to protect children from harm (including mental harm), there is a particular repulsion to the idea that it is a CHILD (not an adult) being desensitized (and therefore mentally harmed) in the situation in question.

[GameGeeks]

o_O;

um, my point was that M-rated games aren't the same as something like porn [AO-rated game]. I think you mis-read my post.

Apparently, I..uh...blame the fireflies.

@Vg: Video games don't make a person violent. If that was the case, I'd be a serial killer since I make houses designed to kill sims in the Sims games. In fact there are no decisive studies on the matter. One study I'll link to does show an effect on the brain but there's no proof that it's permanent. As for the military, they don't use games to train soldiers, they use games to get people to want to actually join the military. There's a big difference.

[-Batman-]

It's okay everyone, the Supreme Court are full of bro's
They pretty much ripped apart Morazzini and every arguement he brought up in court.

[Skylar1]

Then comes modern 3d realistic video/computer games. These games because they are both interactive and realistic in nature they have a peculiar effect on the human mind. When you fire a shot in an FPS you actively make your character fire that shot and see the effect (the other guy dies in a pool of blood) and you see it as if through the eyes of the shooter (specifically in an FPS). This interactive nature of it makes it only ONE STEP AWAY from committing a real murder. You fire the shot, see the person die, and it all looks almost like real life (especially in modern hyper-realistic games like on XBox360). The ONLY thing it's not is actually real. When a person actively kills in a realistic game they are putting themselves in a place they NEVER would want to be in for real, yet it looks so real. Over time the human brain accepts the specific act of pulling the trigger and causing someones death as normal, and not repulsive to do or look at. Over time one may find that if put into a real life situation in which they had a gun in their hand pointed at someone, that they might no longer find it at all hard to pull the trigger, and could do so without the emotion of guilt at all. But if that SAME person were in that situation WITHOUT having played that game, they would NOT have the courage to pull the trigger. This effect is known as desensitization, and is WELL KNOWN by the US military who use violent games to actually train soldiers to fight in real wars.

You do realize that correlation does not imply cause, correct? How excatly is one able to determine that it was video games were the cause of violence when there were -already- underlying serious mental health issues; such as the case with Eric and Dillon in the Columbine shooting?

And also, you're theory doesn't hold much water for me personally, because I play shooters all the time and have all the knowledge of weapons and killing methods in the games , yet at the same time the mere sight of a real gun makes me sick.

[GameGeeks]

^That minus the sick part, I've held a real gun and it didn't make me want to fire it. This post is just here since I forgot to link the study.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/

[Gjallarhorn]

Personally, I hope someone spawns a tank in the middle of the court room, shouts "R1, R2, L1, R2, left, down, right, up, left, down, down, left", goes on a shooting spree, hijacks a helicopter and crashes it into the middle of a busy intersection, but survives the crash only to be taken out by a group of gangsters standing nearby as the player goes to collect the money dropped by the dead civilians.

And then they save the game, and their friends and family testify to them being a responsible, upstanding individual, and that so long as people are well educated and aren't some sort of sociopath, video games aren't that big a deal.

[Light Buster]

The thing is here the legal arguments are going by "studies" and NOT common sense. Some aspects of the human mind can't be predicted by science. I think the law needs to sometimes be LESS specific and strict and start using some common sense. Yes this means that 2 similar cases (similar as defined by law) might have 2 different outcomes under a ruling based on common sense (which will tell us the 2 cases ARE different), but common sense and intuition will more accurately tell us about what's good or bad for kids than some dumb law in some book of legalese. Less specific laws if based on COMMON SENSE are actually quite possibly BETTER laws. Common sense says this about different levels of violent entertainment media:

Books can be quite violent but it is not the same as seeing it, so has little if any mental damage to children.

Bugs Bunny is unrealistic cartoon and violence depicted there is known even by children to be fantasy.

More violent cartoons like X-Men depict realistically appearing people (though only in 2D) and the result is that depicted violence here is more likely to be unhealthy* for the mind of a child.

Anime that contains violence is usually VERY violent, depicting brutal harm and realistic blood effects (some times SO much blood it actually becomes UNREALISTIC again) in battles. This is not healthy for kids as it makes violence look more acceptable after a while.

Realistic 3D computer rendered animation and live action movies containing violence that can be very realistic in appearance, and is the the worst type of violence in non-interactive entertainment media, ESPECIALLY for kids to see. However, it still pales in comparison to the next level of violent entertainment media.

Then comes modern 3d realistic video/computer games. These games because they are both interactive and realistic in nature they have a peculiar effect on the human mind. When you fire a shot in an FPS you actively make your character fire that shot and see the effect (the other guy dies in a pool of blood) and you see it as if through the eyes of the shooter (specifically in an FPS). This interactive nature of it makes it only ONE STEP AWAY from committing a real murder. You fire the shot, see the person die, and it all looks almost like real life (especially in modern hyper-realistic games like on XBox360). The ONLY thing it's not is actually real. When a person actively kills in a realistic game they are putting themselves in a place they NEVER would want to be in for real, yet it looks so real. Over time the human brain accepts the specific act of pulling the trigger and causing someones death as normal, and not repulsive to do or look at. Over time one may find that if put into a real life situation in which they had a gun in their hand pointed at someone, that they might no longer find it at all hard to pull the trigger, and could do so without the emotion of guilt at all. But if that SAME person were in that situation WITHOUT having played that game, they would NOT have the courage to pull the trigger. This effect is known as desensitization, and is WELL KNOWN by the US military who use violent games to actually train soldiers to fight in real wars.

* Unhealthy here means that a child's brain is in a state of development far more than an adult's brain, and as such is more susceptible to desensitization. Also since this is usually considered a harmful effect, and in our society we try in general to protect children from harm (including mental harm), there is a particular repulsion to the idea that it is a CHILD (not an adult) being desensitized (and therefore mentally harmed) in the situation in question.

Where'd you get this from?

[Videogamer555]

You do realize that correlation does not imply cause, correct? How excatly is one able to determine that it was video games were the cause of violence when there were -already- underlying serious mental health issues; such as the case with Eric and Dillon in the Columbine shooting?

And also, you're theory doesn't hold much water for me personally, because I play shooters all the time and have all the knowledge of weapons and killing methods in the games , yet at the same time the mere sight of a real gun makes me sick.

There is not proof that games cause violence. However there IS proof that violent games desensitize people to violence. And of course with COMMON SENSE you know if you are desensitized to something you are more likely to do it and not be afraid of it. One doesn't need scientific studies to prove it. One just needs a dose of COMMON SENSE in their brain! Laws are often based on scientific studies but should ALSO be based on COMMON SENSE (which is sadly lacking in a society where we think science can do ANYTHING, even something as complicated as analyzing human mind, it CAN'T, but COMMON SENSE can tell us about the human mind because our COMMON SENSE is intuition coming FROM THE HUMAN MIND)!!!!

When the judge said "Are games really so much different from movies?", my reply would have been "Darn well yes they are so much different from movies! The interactive nature SIGNIFICANTLY amplifies the desensitization effect from games, and children should NOT be exposed to that, in order to prevent psychological harm."

Where'd you get this from?

It's my own view on the subject.

[Skylar1]

There is not proof that games cause violence. However there IS proof that violent games desensitize people to violence. And of course with COMMON SENSE you know if you are desensitized to something you are more likely to do it and not be afraid of it. One doesn't need scientific studies to prove it. One just needs a dose of COMMON SENSE in their brain! Laws are often based on scientific studies but should ALSO be based on COMMON SENSE (which is sadly lacking in a society where we think science can do ANYTHING, even something as complicated as analyzing human mind, it CAN'T, but COMMON SENSE can tell us about the human mind because our COMMON SENSE is intuition coming FROM THE HUMAN MIND)!!!!

When the judge said "Are games really so much different from movies?", my reply would have been "Darn well yes they are so much different from movies! The interactive nature SIGNIFICANTLY amplifies the desensitization effect from games, and children should NOT be exposed to that, in order to prevent psychological harm."

See, thing is, most laws are written the way they are because not everyone uses "COMMON SENSE" (why are we yelling?) .-.

also, how does one quantify "desensitization"? Where would you draw the distinguishing line between when someone has be desensitized, and when they have not?

[Videogamer555]

See, thing is, most laws are written the way they are because not everyone uses "COMMON SENSE" (why are we yelling?) .-.

also, how does one quantify "desensitization"? Where would you draw the distinguishing line between when someone has be desensitized, and when they have not?

The most dramatic cases are the most obvious. Had the Columbine shooters NOT played doom, it is unlikely they EVER would have gone on to shoot real people. Now NOT all people will be affected this way. You'd have to be mentally ill to start with. But for those who ARE mentally ill, these violent games can be the difference between someone who's not pushed over the edge to become a killer, and someone who DOES become a killer.

What I do NOT agree with is the need for a new law. It is already ILLEGAL for to sell an M-rated game to a person under 17 (and in some states it's 18, from what I've heard). So the question shouldn't be the need for a NEW law, but rather whether or not the OLD law is actually needed, or should be repealed. Personally I think the system is fine the way it is, and just some minor amount of tweaking on the rating criteria is needed.

[Ωmega]

There is not proof that games cause violence. However there IS proof that violent games desensitize people to violence. And of course with COMMON SENSE you know if you are desensitized to something you are more likely to do it and not be afraid of it. One doesn't need scientific studies to prove it. One just needs a dose of COMMON SENSE in their brain! Laws are often based on scientific studies but should ALSO be based on COMMON SENSE (which is sadly lacking in a society where we think science can do ANYTHING, even something as complicated as analyzing human mind, it CAN'T, but COMMON SENSE can tell us about the human mind because our COMMON SENSE is intuition coming FROM THE HUMAN MIND)!!!!

When the judge said "Are games really so much different from movies?", my reply would have been "Darn well yes they are so much different from movies! The interactive nature SIGNIFICANTLY amplifies the desensitization effect from games, and children should NOT be exposed to that, in order to prevent psychological harm."





It's my own view on the subject.

Its not common sense o_O

Sure, we may become desensitized to it, but you'll probably get the same result from years of watching your local news channel. Common sense is knowing is -just- a game. Common sense is knowing its -bad- to do those things in real life. COMMON SENSE IS NOT GIVING A CHILD A GRAPHIC VIDEO GAME MEANT FOR YOUNG ADULTS.

If a parent buys their child a graphic game, and lets say, for arguments sake, that they -do- go on a killing spree, then its the fault of the neglect parent, not the video game.

I could sit here and go on about how pron turns children into sexual predators, but whose fault is it that a child is exposed to it?

Really, all I see are parents with poor parenting skills point at video games and blaming them for "ruining their child's mind". Well, if they had taken a *little* time and paid attention to what they actually buy their kid, or check on their kid from time to time to see what theyre actually doing, then it really wouldnt be an issue.

[Videogamer555]

COMMON SENSE IS NOT GIVING A CHILD A GRAPHIC VIDEO GAME MEANT FOR YOUNG ADULTS.

Even if a parent didn't want their kid to play a given game, and would NEVER buy it for them, the child may go out and try to buy it. Since stores are in the business to MAKE MONEY, they'll make that sale if there is NOT a law preventing it. As the law currently exists, it is ILLEGAL to sell M-rated games to those under 17. This law is NOT a bad law as you are suggesting. You suggest parenting skill is the ONLY thing needed, but that doesn't help if the kid runs out and buy the game. The rating system and rating system enforcement laws as they currently exist are a GOOD thing, preventing kids from playing games that their parents would NOT want them to play.

[Ωmega]

Even if a parent didn't want their kid to play a given game, and would NEVER buy it for them, the child may go out and try to buy it. Since stores are in the business to MAKE MONEY, they'll make that sale if there is NOT a law preventing it. As the law currently exists, it is ILLEGAL to sell M-rated games to those under 17. This law is NOT a bad law as you are suggesting. You suggest parenting skill is the ONLY thing needed, but that doesn't help if the kid runs out and buy the game. The rating system and rating system enforcement laws as they currently exist are a GOOD thing, preventing kids from playing games that their parents would NOT want them to play.

Well, if they had taken a *little* time and paid attention to what they actually buy their kid, or check on their kid from time to time to see what theyre actually doing, then it really wouldnt be an issue.

Again, the same could be said about alcohol, tobacco and porn. Its illegal to sell to minors, but it happens. Is it the fault or the product? Should we ban all three? No. In that case, it should be taken up with the retailer. And again, if parents popped in to check on their kids instead of letting them play whatever games they carry in and browse whatever site they want, then it wouldnt be an issue.

Besides, where the hell would a kid get $40-60 for a game? Sure, maybe birthday money, but you think the parent would be in attendance for the spending of that money. How are these kids getting transportation to game stores? The more likely scenario would be that the parent took their child there, gave them some cash, sent them in on their own to buy the game, and the parent never bothers to look at whats bought. OR, the parent out-right buys it themselves without bothering to look up on what the game is [I go to a lot of game stops, Ive seen it dozens of times. Every so often the cashier will point it out to them, and the parent tells them to pick a different game]

[BoldMushroom]

Movies don't influence people the way games do? Look at the number of actual fight clubs started up in the wake of the movie Fight Club. One guy even tried to send a bunch of pipe bombs mimicking the movie's "smiley face" across the United States.

And yet, think about how many people have seen Fight Club worldwide. Millions? Tens of millions? In that light, the amount of people who actually tried to depict the violence in the movie are a microscopic minority of extremists.

So it is with video games. How many people have played Doom worldwide? I can't tell you for sure, but here's one estimate: the Doom shareware came out in 1993. By 1995, it had been installed on 10 million computers. 10 million people played Doom in the span of two years. In the years since that, who knows?

And, exactly how many violent crimes can be linked to it? Two? Even less, the Secret Service and Department of Education might suggest. As the report puts it:

"Over half of the attackers demonstrated some interest in violence, through movies, video games, books, and other media (59 percent, n=24). However, there was no one common type of interest in violence indicated. Instead, the attackers’ interest in violent themes took various forms.
• Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent movies (27 percent, n=11).
• Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent books (24 percent, n=10).
• One-eighth of the attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games (12 percent, n=5).
• The largest group of attackers exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent, n=15).

Out of all of the forms of "violent" media the attackers took interest in, video games are the least favored.

There's more:

Although most attackers had not received a formal mental health evaluation or diagnosis, most attackers exhibited a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts at some point prior to their attack (78 percent, n=32). More than half of the attackers had a documented history of feeling extremely depressed or desperate (61 percent, n=25).

This shows a greater correlation to violence than the violent media. And yet, there are plenty of people who are depressed and even suicidal who do not commit violence against others, either. And there are violent sociopaths, people who feel no empathy whatsoever - they're certainly not depressed; they're borderline narcissistic. Sometimes without the borderline.

The truth is, a "common sense" approach to human behavior (and, especially, child development) doesn't work, because a lot of the actions we undertake can't necessarily be explained by "common sense." The human brain is an incredibly complex organ, and sometimes it's hard to say, precisely, why people act in the specific ways they do, especially when examining a wide range of reactions to a stimulus such as gore or violence. Why is it that some people enjoy the gore in movies like Hostel, and some people feel physically uncomfortable watching it?

Granted, there are a lot of sociological, psychological, and neurological studies devoted to figuring out these very things. But as it stands, we don't have the answers yet - and they certainly aren't as simple as Doom.


Having said all that, there are some other major reasons why people should have a problem with this law:

According to the bill, a game falls under the law if "a reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find it appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors...it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors...or it causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

How, exactly, do you define something as lacking "artistic" value? How do you articulate what constitutes a "deviant or morbid interest of minors"?

As someone already noted, the Supreme Court is trouncing this law. Everyone - Sotomayor, Scalia, Ginsberg, Roberts, Alito...

[Opinionated]

You know, having never read any Supreme Court arguments before, the oral arguments were interesting to read. It was nice to see that Sotomayor and Kagan actually seemed to know what they were talking about with regards to video games, which is something that we need: For the people who get involved with video game legislation being people who actually play and know something about video games.

Anyway, I think the law has problems beyond the First Amendment issues. The fact that it takes a jury to determine if the game in question falls under the law is troubling in and of itself. So far as I understand the legal system, juries aren't consistent, they're not expected to be consistent, they're not supposed to be consistent. A case-by-case basis is great when you're dealing with criminal and civil matters where the individual particulars of each case can vary widely. But when you're dealing with a product that needs to be made knowing the laws, case-by-case won't cut it. Since each game needs a jury trial, you might start to run into situations where Dynasty Warriors III can't be sold to minors, but a jury decided that Dynasty Warriors IV could. But then another jury decided that Dynasty Warriors V was minor-friendly.

Also, I loved the Vulcan Defense, and how respawning is not accounted for in the law. And how an estimated half of the Supreme Court's clerks have played Mortal Kombat and- shockingly- They seem to have found very respectable employment and haven't gone on a killing spree. I'm as shocked as Louis was when he found that there was gambling going on in Rick's cafe.

Unrelated, but from this case I found out that Schwarzenegger is in Google Chrome's spell check. That tickles me.

[Saxima]

Honestly, I believe that this whole thing is perfectly ridiculous. Rated M games are not available for kids to buy, and before you say "Their parents can buy it for them," don't think I don't know this. It's up to the better judgement of the parent whether they should be buying their kids games like that anyway. If they do, then that means if their kid picks up all the violence from the game, then it's on their neck - they're the only ones to blame.

If they're going to be doing this to video games, they might as well being doing the same to movies, books, and music. Those are all forms of entertainment, and sometimes they involve higher-than-Rated-M content. You can't tell me that there are books that are not as bad as games, and one definitely can't say movie are any less bad.

It's really dumb. [this is a message brought to you by the most-likely-judged-naive-sixteen-year-old-saxima.]

[ParaParaJMo]

Arnold made his name and fortune making violent films. Of all people, who is he to decide what forms of entertainment is violent and not good for our society? And just recently, the city of San Francisco bans Happy Meals!!! California has countless crisis' on their hands and they makes these issues their top priorities?

If violent games is to blame for violence in real life, why not blame video games for the Holacaust, The Rape of Nanking, and 9/11. I'm pretty sure Hitler, Osama, Saddam, the Ayatollah, Kim Jong-Il and Tojo just loved to get on their xbox live accounts and thought killing people for real would be totally cool. How many gamers became slaughtering terrorists and dictators? As far as I know, none.

Granted some criminals have shown interest in playing games, but what if they showed interest in listening to the Jonas Bros. or watching the Disney Channel? Can that be attributed for their behaviors and actions as well? Why does it have to be games?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, a woman killed her baby over a frickin' game of Farmville!!
http://kotaku.com/5675176/woman-kill...mville-session

Farmville the last time I checked, was not M-Rated, and does not contain any violence, and yet, a woman kills her baby because he's interrupting her play time? Who is at fault here? The baby? The mother? The state? The game? Will putting a ban on farmville really prevent any more parents from being negligent? Is their any content in the game that you can blame for her actions? No, it's the fault of an individual who was stupid and had no basic concept of right or wrong to begin with. And how people like that can have children is beyond my understanding.

And in Korea not too long ago, a couple let a baby starve to death because of their addiction to online RPGs. So is (violent) content in the end really to blame? Or the individuals' inability to straighten out their priorities?

And Japan has some of the most twisted games out there, and look at its crime rate compared to America's.

[Videogamer555]

How are these kids getting transportation to game stores?

Their 16yo friend drives them to a store and the parents didn't even know the kid had gone to a store and bought a game with that birthday money.