Minnesota Game Restrictions Deemed Unconstitutional

[bean19]

U.S. chief district judge, James M. Rosenbaum struct down a law yesterday that would fine minors for purchasing games rated Mature or Adult Only and would also required game retailers to display large signs informing customers of the law in stores.

The state argued that the law would protect "the psychological well-being of minors" and foster "children's moral and ethical development." However, the judge's decision stated that the state failed to provide "empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video games cause psychological harm to minors."Source: Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154958.html)

That most blessed Bill of Rights and it's protection of our inalienable rights just keeps foiling fascist martinets. The law was scheduled to go into effect today, so I wonder how much money was wasted on signs.

[Ernst_Jager]

I hate the growing trend of other people telling me what is right and what is wrong. Fuckers...

[askheaves]

I'm more wondering why every damned law in Minnesota requires posting a sign on the door of your business. That could get out of hand quickly.

[F3nyx]

Last week, GameSpot interviewed the law's co-author, Minnesota state Senator and member of the Democratic Farmer Labor party Sandra Pappas. When asked why she believes this measure is constitutional when so many others have not been, Pappas said, "Legislators don't worry too much about what's constitutional. We just try to do what's right, and we let the courts figure that out."I hate when legislatures pass laws that they expect to get struck down. A waste of time for all involved.

I hate the growing trend of other people telling me what is right and what is wrong. Fuckers...Besides defense from outside threats, telling you what's right and wrong has always been the prime activity of government. The trend may ebb and flow, but it hasn't done much growing since Hammurabi. The United States of today is about as liberal as it's ever been.

[EvilBob46]

That most blessed Bill of Rights and it's protection of our inalienable rights just keeps foiling fascist martinets.

Yes, people who support videogame bills are fascist swine. Burn them I say!

[vivafletcher]

Every time a ruling occurs that people like, they wax poetic about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and freedom of speech. Everyone becomes a budget rebel, attacking "the man" who (they think) wants to take something away from them. Everyone becomes a part-time Libertarian whose primary goal is thwarting an oppressive government.

But the elephant in the room is the fact that video games are changing. Some are geared toward and involve content for adults. In our society, we have deemed that pornography, alcohol and cigarettes (for example) are to be consumed by minors only. You have to be a certain age to see something rated X. That's the law and people don't really complain about it (unless they're a minor).

So why is it wrong to acknowledge that some videogames should only be purchased by adults? Nobody is taking away an adult's opportunity to view or play it. Nobody is preventing a parent from buying it and giving it to their kid to play, if that's what they choose.

And I don't see anything wrong with punishing the market itself. We punish people who try to buy alcohol when they're under 21, we punish those who buy drugs (not just the dealer) and we punish johns who solicit prostitutes.

I'm not an anti-gamer, or else I wouldn't be here. I simply understand that there are some things that children shouldn't be exposed to without consent of the parents. In this case, "consent" can be shown by buying the game yourself and giving it to your kid. If parents can't be bothered to become that involved in their childrens' lives, they probably can't be bothered to whine and complain about a new law. Just my .02.

Bottom line: The law was presented on shaky grounds and you can expect another bite at the apple in the near future. Children have no inalienable right to pornography, for example. Video games with adult themes aren't far behind.

Thank you for reading. I'm ready. Flame on.

[Goronmon]

Bottom line: The law was presented on shaky grounds and you can expect another bite at the apple in the near future. Children have no inalienable right to pornography, for example. Video games with adult themes aren't far behind.The problem with the law is that it claims certain games need to be kept out of children's hands because the the violence is detrimental to minors without actually providing any proof.

[askheaves]

Cigarettes aren't speech, pornography is defined as 'not-art.'

[vivafletcher]

The problem with the law is that it claims certain games need to be kept out of children's hands because the the violence is detrimental to minors without actually providing any proof.

That's what I meant by shaky grounds. The next bite will do a better job of likening some video games with pronography or material found in unrated or rated X designations (The original Day of the Dead didn't meet standards for an "R" rating so it was banned in some countries and minors were not allowed to see it even though it had no nudity). They wouldn't have to prove cause and effect, simply that it meets the same (vague) standard the other content meets.

Perhaps I'm being selfish. I'm an adult so I'm not worried about it. Nobody is taking anything away from me. If I was a minor I might feel differently. I wanted to rent adult videos and drink legally back then, too.

[Goronmon]

I wanted to rent adult vidoes and drink legally back then, too.Actually, a better comparison would be wanting to buy an R-rated movie at Wal-Mart.

[vivafletcher]

Actually, a better comparison would be wanting to buy an R-rated movie at Wal-Mart.

I don't think anyone pays attention to R ratings. It seems to be a no-man's-land, don't-ask-don't-tell kind of thing. Legislators are looking at video games as something mroe serious. But I see what you're saying.

[Goronmon]

I don't think anyone pays attention to R ratings. It seems to be a no-man's-land, don't-ask-don't-tell kind of thing. Legislators are looking at video games as something mroe serious. But I see what you're saying.The problem is that is no evidence that games are more serious. That's my main caveat with this type of legislation.

[cppcrusader]

That's what I meant by shaky grounds. The next bite will do a better job of likening some video games with pronography or material found in unrated or rated X designations (The original Day of the Dead didn't meet standards for an "R" rating so it was banned in some countries and minors were not allowed to see it even though it had no nudity). They wouldn't have to prove cause and effect, simply that it meets the same (vague) standard the other content meets.

One of the bills in bills in Louisiana (SB 340) does just this. It basically duplicates the obscentity statutes in LA applies them to videogames. The ESRB and ESA stand behind it because its fair and they know that no games violate it anyway. The other one (HB 1381) is the bill that was penned by Jack Thompson, its expected to pass and ultimately thrown out in court.


Perhaps I'm being selfish. I'm an adult so I'm not worried about it. Nobody is taking anything away from me. If I was a minor I might feel differently. I wanted to rent adult videos and drink legally back then, too.

You should be worried, because a lot of the industry's detractors don't want to stop there.

[PacoTaco]

"I wanted to rent adult videos and drink legally back then, too."

All of your comparisons to video games are of things thats politicians like to compare video games to - porn, alcohol, other drugs. I'd like to think that most gamers compare games to other forms of artistic expression, like movies, books, television, theater, etc. There are movies out there with incredibly sexual or violent themes, but last time I checked a theater couldn't fine a minor for trying to sneak into an R rated movie, and it wasn't defined as pornography.

On a side note, I think most people appreciate the Bill of Rights regardless of whether a ruling was just made in their sides favor or not.

[Johan]

Everything you said

I'm with you 100%...when this first came up, these were my similar thoughts (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=302045#post302045)

Well said, vivafletcher!!!

[bean19]

Yes, people who support videogame bills are fascist swine. Burn them I say!

Calling someone a fascist or a martinet for behaving ike one doesn't mean you are oppressing them. Some Fox News fascists actually call themselves moralists. . . I don't think it is because they don't understand the true meaning of the word, but because they know their audience doesn't.

Should there be a word for this act: redefining the English language through misusing a word with an audience that is ignorant of it's proper meaning?

[vivafletcher]

I'm with you 100%...when this first came up, these were my similar thoughts (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?p=302045#post302045)

Well said, vivafletcher!!!

You hit the nail on the head when you wrote this:

"Those who are concerned about censorship are actually supporting my contention that the ESRB isn't interested in preventing kids from buying mature titles, because the only reason that such a law would lead to any kind of censorship is if developers suddenly lose money due to kids no longer being able to purchase such titles, which would mean developers would need to change the content to change the ratings of games to allow the kids to get the games."

[bean19]

So why is it wrong to acknowledge that some videogames should only be purchased by adults? Nobody is taking away an adult's opportunity to view or play it. Nobody is preventing a parent from buying it and giving it to their kid to play, if that's what they choose.

There are already restrictions on the videogame industry that are much greater than those for movies or music. The videogame industry self-regulates very well.

Any parent who is so out of touch that they can't supervise their child's videogame collection has a lot bigger problems than the games that their child is exposed to.

If my mother had a problem with videogames that we played growing up we wouldn't have played them. We wouldn't have EVER risked spending our money on them as they'd surely be taken away and we would be grounded.

Well, until I got older. I played a couple really dark, violent games in junior high and high school, but we actually had a discussion over it. My mom was fine with me playing a scary zombie game (Resident Evil) but I'm sure she wouldn't have been okay with my playing Postal! or Grand Theft Auto (because they allow graphic violence directed at people - not zombies). GTA just wasn't out then (well, in it's current super-popular 3D form).

Plus there isn't any scientific information that links watching violent media to criminal behavior. There are just as many psycopaths now (per capita) as there were before Pac-Man. . . And if you really want to stop criminal behavior then we need to look more closely at stopping bullying, fighting, and other "manly" one-upmanship that psychiatrists can directly link as causes of violent behavior. Abusive, emotionally unavailable, aggressive, or absent fathers have a very strong correlation to violent criminals. . . video games do not.

Of course, the highest corollary to violent crime is poverty, but since we aren't going to give money away, we should probably look at fighting the causes poverty too.

Anyway, the point is that the whole violence in videogames argument is stupid.

[Johan]

You hit the nail on the head when you wrote this:

"Those who are concerned about censorship are actually supporting my contention that the ESRB isn't interested in preventing kids from buying mature titles, because the only reason that such a law would lead to any kind of censorship is if developers suddenly lose money due to kids no longer being able to purchase such titles, which would mean developers would need to change the content to change the ratings of games to allow the kids to get the games."

I'm with you on this one...In effect, the above would mean that developers/publishers were targeting kids for sales all along...which would show the ESRB and developers/publishers as hypocrites (at best) or liars (at worst).

[Johan]

Plus there isn't any scientific information that links watching violent media to criminal behavior.

Might want to check this link (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html) (look for parenthetical citations to numerous scientific studies)

Or this one (http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20040114/Feature1.asp) (scroll down to the brain imagery and other info).

There's plenty more; you're wrong, in my personal opinion.

[The_Darr]

well, having turned 18/21 LONG before this or even the MOVIES were enforcing this nonsense...I don't care what law they pass--I still get MY games...

[pseudopseudo]

Might want to check this link (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html) (look for parenthetical citations to numerous scientific studies)

Or this one (http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20040114/Feature1.asp) (scroll down to the brain imagery and other info).

There's plenty more; you're wrong.
Because I'm not going to put the time into doing the research again (I had to argue both sides of this very topic in an Argumentation and Debate class last semester), I'll say this:

There are JUST as many sources that say the opposite of what you're trying to "prove" with this post full of links. And then to tell someone they're flat-out wrong?

You just come off sounding like an arrogant ass who hasn't bothered to look into both sides of the story. Kind of like people on both extreme sides of the political spectrum.

But let's not get into that.

[Johan]

Because I'm not going to put the time into doing the research again (I had to argue both sides of this very topic in an Argumentation and Debate class last semester), I'll say this:

There are JUST as many sources that say the opposite of what you're trying to "prove" with this post full of links. And then to tell someone they're flat-out wrong?

You just come off sounding like an arrogant ass who hasn't bothered to look into both sides of the story. Kind of like people on both extreme sides of the political spectrum.

But let's not get into that.

I'm not trying to be arrogant...videogames do affect the brains and behaviors of children, and research reveals that.

And two links is not a "post full of links" as you stated. I'm not trying to overwhelm the opposition here, just reveal two links that show what I believe is true, scientifically. There's no reason to get hostile...I'm certainly not :)

[pseudopseudo]

I'm not trying to be arrogant...videogames do affect the brains and behaviors of children, and research reveals that.

And two links is not a post full of links. There's no reason to get hostile...I'm certainly not :)
I'm not hostile. Far from it. ;)

All I'm saying is that there are just as many studies that say that videogames DON'T affect the brains and behaviors of children. For you to just say, "Here's my proof, you're wrong." make it seem like you're just choosing to ignore the vast amount of evidence to the contrary, ya'know?

[Johan]

I'm not hostile. Far from it. ;)

All I'm saying is that there are just as many studies that say that videogames DON'T affect the brains and behaviors of children. For you to just say, "Here's my proof, you're wrong." make it seem like you're just choosing to ignore the vast amount of evidence to the contrary, ya'know?

Gotcha...I'll go back and edit that portion; you have a point!

[pseudopseudo]

*LOL* The words "in my personal opinion" have always been a beautiful thing. ;)

[Johan]

*LOL* The words "in my personal opinion" have always been a beautiful thing. ;)

Honestly, I just couldn't think of what else to do with the freaking post besides delete it ;)

I still like the links, though...but, as you say, anyone could find a link or two proving anything under the sun, so...good point, again :)

[Zurik]

Might want to check this link (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html) (look for parenthetical citations to numerous scientific studies)

Or this one (http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20040114/Feature1.asp) (scroll down to the brain imagery and other info).

There's plenty more; you're wrong, in my personal opinion.

Those studies are interesting, but its hard for me to believe. I've been playing video games for almost all my life and I've barely had a serious fight with anyone. I also have a very social job and rarely act angry in most upsetting situations. l just find this whole study very hard to swallow.

[askheaves]

Apparently I need to play more video games. I'm sheepish in conflict and hate confrontation. I think I'd get further in life with correctly-metered amounts of virtual killing.

[Rook34]

I just wanted to say thanks to Vivafletcher for putting it so well. It's what I was trying to say the last time a thread like this was around.. Anyway, it's tough to gauge and prove that violent games have effects on the minds of youths. From my personal experience with children, and I am no psychologist mind you, they seem to display much more...shall we say 'hyper' behavior after playing violent games. Of course, every child is different and some may be more affected than others, but I have yet to see any kid play (a violent game) and then just want to curl up and go to sleep. :)
In some ways, adult games should be treated like adult media. Minors can't buy pornos, and yet there is no proof about it turning kids to bad apples that I know of, it's more of a moral thing to most people. So the question becomes how far is too far in a videogame and what are you gonna do about it?
I learned from last time I'll keep my opinions to myself about how to answer that question, I'm just outlining the problems this time.

[bean19]

Johan - When you are looking at scientific information, be sure to look at the source article. First, find out if the author is actually an expert. You'd be surpirsed how often right-wing groups put together phoney "science" and don't even bother to hire a real doctor for it. Then, check to see if the article is peer-reviewed - meaning that 3 other experts in that field reviewed the work before it was published. If it passes those tests, then you are probably looking at something real and not a lie.

Now, be sure to read all of the conclusions completely. Scientists are generally very clear about when they get inconclusive information, even in the "soft" science of psychology (it really isn't a soft science when peopel do their jobs right, but I digress).

What you will find in all of these studies (I read about ten of them for a paper last semester) is that violent video games cause two things:

1. Short-term arousal (excitement) - This is the expected result. It is no where near as severe as the excitement and adrenaline that people get when experiencing real violence like a car accident, and in adult subjects it is very much the same thing you get when watching a movie.

2. Children model behavior in their play, however, good children never do so in a way that could hurt another child. For instance (and this isn't an actual study because it's cruel - but these are what the results of that study would show in this example), you might let two 8 year olds play Devil May Cry for an hour. Afterwards, we put them in a room with a bunch of plastic guns, nerf bats, and heavy metal (but dull) swords. While the children might show an interest in the metal swords and even swing them at "stuff", only children with larger problems would swing the large metal swords at one another, all of the other children would model the behavior but in ways that do not hurt each other.

With pyschological studies, we go into a lot of corrolation of different factors and studying different groups with different stimuli, etc. etc. - but what it all comes down to - that summary - it's kind of a no-brainer because it was true when we were kids and it remains true. ALL children are affected by violent media in that they get excited and scared by it (like adults do) and in that they then model that behavior in their play, however only kids who have other problems would ever exhibit violent behavior in their play no matter how violent the source material.

My friends and I used to watch Friday the 13th movies and then play Freddy Kruger. . . no one EVER got hurt. That's anecdotal, I know. . . but I'm bringing home the point that wasn't an anecdote.

There is a bunch of crap out there on videogames and it sucks becuase they are a scapegoat. What children need are really good role models. . . parents are ALWAYS a chief role model. Honestly, most people who have problems with relationships, drinking, and/or legal problems have them because their parents had them and provided a terrible model for behavior.

Dante - a wise-cracking, womanizing monster hunter - would actually be a MUCH better role model than many kids are exposed to.

[bean19]

By the way, Dr. Walsh is a quack hired by a right-wing "family" group. . . I really hate how "family" should read "Nazi" during this period in our nation's history.

[Johan]

bean19...not to cop out, but it's too much for me to reply to :( You make some good points and some I don't agree with; overall, caution is good on both sides of this issue. Good post, good points. Sorry I've got nothing else; I'm pooped!

[Rook34]

I agree with you on that, Johan123, Bean bought up some very good points. It's funny, I used to play the Freddy Kruger game, too. Funny that. Anyway, yes, it is normally best to err on the side of caution - even good families that aren't dysfunctional in any way might have a child that is more susceptible to..umm..wanting to hurt others after being exposed to certain media. Maybe it's genetics? For instance, ADD children have radically different brains scans than normal children. I personally plan to err on the side of caution until I feel my kids are ready for it and can handle the message that the particular media is trying to give. But hey, that's what good parenting is all about though, doing what is in the best interest for your children and everyone parents differently depending on their kids.