Games on Trial

[eLdritch247]

hai.

first post on the escapist

I live in Germany and we had that sort of "censorship" for years... given we have it for movies, books, etc as well but yeah...

basically any game that gets an 18+(your M) rating MUST not be sold to minors... the laws are pretty strict and you get your ID checked in stores when buying such games...

It's not really a problem for the industry though... we have GameStop and WalMart as well and they still sell the games... they just check your ID. I couldn't think of a single store that doesn't sell the full plethora of games, other than the ones that are outright BANNED in GER of course like postal 2.

I do sympathize with the freedom of speech issue... but I also strongly believe in laws to protect kids from stuff that might hurt them in their development...

You might think that germany is super strict and the laws are dumb... then again you can buy alcohol starting at 16 here and 21 as the "alcohol age" weirds me out f.e.

so yeah... booh for censorship! but I don't think it'll stop big stores from selling them... there's too much money in games.

 

[Velocirapture07]

From Article:

Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Um....what kind of f'ed up video games is this guy playing? I seriously doubt these guys actually know what a video game is, let alone what many of them entail. Does anyone know if he's referencing an actual game or just pulling stuff out of his ass?

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Justice Breyer has somewhat of a point. Parents should regulate their children, if a parent doesn't want a kid to watch a Rated R movie, they don't let them go see it, if they don't want them watching a bad TV show, they don't let them. The video games industry has been supplying the tools for parents to do this for years. Just because the parents don't want to use them does not mean that the industry as a whole should be punished. I feel them winning i feel an aging of the fire that drives some, we have been playing the same broken record for years, and they remain ignorant from fear. I see that I'm preaching to a choir here, i give it no chance that any Justice will come to this site and look at comment #120-whatever and change their mind. So i leave it to the choir, to take their actions as needed.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

 

[JDKJ]

Justice Breyer has somewhat of a point. Parents should regulate their children, if a parent doesn't want a kid to watch a Rated R movie, they don't let them go see it, if they don't want them watching a bad TV show, they don't let them. The video games industry has been supplying the tools for parents to do this for years. Just because the parents don't want to use them does not mean that the industry as a whole should be punished. I feel them winning i feel an aging of the fire that drives some, we have been playing the same broken record for years, and they remain ignorant from fear. I see that I'm preaching to a choir here, i give it no chance that any Justice will come to this site and look at comment #120-whatever and change their mind. So i leave it to the choir, to take their actions as needed.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

I don't think he "remembers" it. I think California brought it to the Court's attention and he's decided to latch on to it.

 

[Altorin]

It's always postal 2 they go for.

Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

Anyone can get it off of a torrent. That's bad enough already. They aren't going after Postal 2 only. They also happen to be going after MadWorld, which to me just strikes me as fucking retarded. It seems as though they're only just going after the most violent looking games.

even if the law passes, ANYONE will still be able to get it off a torrent. that isn't even anywhere near the scope of the law being proposed.

But they always go back to the standard "Urinate on a teenage girl and then set her on fire", like that is the norm in gaming. We all know what that game is, and it's such a small blip that it shouldn't be an issue anymore.

And which game was being referenced with the schoolgirl torture bit? If California's argument is based on some obscure (or even semi-obscure) pile of trash that even gamers barely know about, it's kind of hard to argue that little kids will want to get their hands on that game, isn't it? In which case, publishers are being responsible enough to not advertise such material to kids in the first place.

It's a game from the late 90's early 00's, it is very crude and wasn't very popular, this being obvious by the fact that most people involved in the gaming scene don't remeber it, yet thios one judge who wants to do away with it, does.

Most notably, they're talking about Postal 2, a First Person Shooter released in 2003. It would not even be any part of the argument except it was popularized with the release of Uwe Boll's movie Postal.

So, we can put more blame on Uwe Boll.

From Article:

Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Um....what kind of f'ed up video games is this guy playing? I seriously doubt these guys actually know what a video game is, let alone what many of them entail. Does anyone know if he's referencing an actual game or just pulling stuff out of his ass?

Sadly, that game does exist, and it was briefly marketed. It even has a hollywood movie based on it.

 

[Delusibeta]

Since JDKJ has corrected me, I propose a best case scenario if this law passes: it only covers AO ratings and the whole hoo-hah winds up being entirely academic.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

Fine then. It's the sort of argument the British National Party would make... except for the small fact that it's an academic statement in the UK since game (and movie) ratings are legally binding anyway.

 

[Furbyz]

All i still see is the ghettoisation of gaming compared to every other media. This would not have got anywhere near the supreme court if it was about films, a medoum which depicts FAR more disturbing and violent/sexual things than games EVER have. Hopefully somonw might realise this and restore a little sanity becuase the thrust of the argument STILL seems to be "But games are evil!"

This is old hat for movies, sir. Motion Pictures were included under the First Amendment by Joseph Burstyn inc. v. Wilson in 1952. In a way this is video games coming of age ceremony. It's almost certainly about to be recognized as a form of free speech protected by the constitution. Every new medium will go through this phase.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Alito's argument is flawed, though, since the portrayal of violence in movies is equivocal to that in video games, neither of which being something that would not have been imagined at the time of writing the constitution. And Scalia appears to have no read some of Grimm's Fairy Tales, being some of the most violent literature commonly available to children.

Alito should just leave the originalism to Scalia, the biggest proponent of originalism to ever grace the Court. I'm not so sure Alito's got the firmest grip on the concept. But maybe Scalia and Thomas won't let him in the clubhouse unless he brings it up every now and then.

Yeah, I'd be fine with that. Too bad he won't.

 

[JDKJ]

Since JDKJ has corrected me, I propose a best case scenario if this law passes: it only covers AO ratings and the whole hoo-hah winds up being entirely academic.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

Fine then. It's the sort of argument the British National Party would make... except for the small fact that it's an academic statement in the UK since game (and movie) ratings are legally binding anyway.

Does it truly become an argument the BNP would make without gratuitously throwing in something about how the jobs of white, God-fearing Britons are being stolen by black and brown immigrants who pray to pagan gods and smell of curry and other assorted spices?

 

[newdarkcloud]

The thing is, these safeguards are already in place. The law itself is redundant and punishes retailers for no good reason. This case will determine just how "protected" games are as free speech and could set a dangerous president for future laws.

I definitely agree that the law shouldn't be passed. The idea that games should be exempt from First Amendment protection is absurd and the quotes in this article from the some of the justices were ridiculous (Wtf game has "people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them" and how is that representative of a game like Mass Effect?). As I said, I'm not ruling out the possibility that this law could snowball into something much worse. I'm just saying that it's not the end if this particular law passes. I mean, porn is still big business, even though there's similar restrictions on it. Really, I'm just trying to make myself and others feel better about it, so we're not all doom and gloom about the fate of the entire industry.

On this we are agreed. While I do not believe it will be the end, this law would cause the medium as a whole to either slow down or stagnate.

 

[FungiGamer]

From Article:

Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

Um....what kind of f'ed up video games is this guy playing? I seriously doubt these guys actually know what a video game is, let alone what many of them entail. Does anyone know if he's referencing an actual game or just pulling stuff out of his ass?

Honestly, I REALLY wish someone called him out on that, the look on his face would've been priceless.

"Uhh..... uhh..... uhh... s-shovel... shovel schoolgirl burn and urine sim??? y-YA THAT'S IT!"

Shouldn't that be considered falsified evidence/illegal? If it does exist I find it quite disturbing that the entirety of the Escapist- nay- EVERY SINGLE GAMING BOARD I'VE BEEN ON has NEVER come across such a game.

tl;dr:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGVd8MOrWzk&feature=related

Edit:

Sadly, that game does exist, and it was briefly marketed. It even has a hollywood movie based on it.

So then it goes back to the arguement of movie=alright, game=SPAWN OF SATAN

 

[DonTsetsi]

Might be a little off-topic, but why do you guys hate postal 2? It's not such a bad game. And it certainly isn't as bad as some movies, like Saw and it's sequels(and definitely not as boring). It's true that you can make someone suck your .... at gunpoint, pee in his/her mouth (most of them vomit at this point), cut off their head, watch the stream of vomit fly, kick the head and play fetch with it with a dog. But it isn't realistic, it's silly. It may not be in good taste, but it still has some value. And it's not the most important part of Postal 2. Have any of you seen the levels of the game? They are filled with satire and poke fun at a lot of stereotypes. Some examples: protesters chanting "Save a tree, burn a book" then burning down a library, other protesters chanting "Games are bad, they make you mad" before whipping out guns and shovels and going on a rampage (it sounds quite funny when you think of the supporters of this law), the gunfight between Muslim terrorists and catholic priests, the redneck rapists, the police brutality ("Get together in a flammable place").
I think that Postal 2 has some artistic merit after all...

 

[Danpascooch]

Scalia's position is basically a carbon copy of my own, this is something EVERY new technology goes through, why don't people realize that?

 

[Delusibeta]

Since JDKJ has corrected me, I propose a best case scenario if this law passes: it only covers AO ratings and the whole hoo-hah winds up being entirely academic.

There's also Americans on this forum that think that you either have Freedom Of Speech or you're in 1984 territory, no middle ground. It's the sort of argument the Tea Party would make, frankly.

Look, nobody thinks that this would be a big form of censorship. *snip*

What tickles me is how no small amount of those outside of the United States seem all too willing to use the "Tea Party" brush to paint Americans who disagree with them. While, conversely, it would be just as easy to paint them with the "British National Party" brush -- but I don't see anybody doing that.

Fine then. It's the sort of argument the British National Party would make... except for the small fact that it's an academic statement in the UK since game (and movie) ratings are legally binding anyway.

Does it truly become an argument the BNP would make without gratuitously throwing in something about how the jobs of white, God-fearing Britons are being stolen by black and brown immigrants who pray to pagan gods and smell of curry and other assorted spices?

Heh. There is a reason why I said Tea Party rather than the BNP, you know. BNP is far more likely to go on about race, while the Tea Party would be more likely to go about government. But, that's largely beside the point of this thread, so I'll leave it.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Fight the good fight comrades of gaming, we shall not be squashed by ignorance!

[sub][sub]Or if we are, at least we'll have made a last stand. The worst way our medium could die is quietly IMO.[/sub][/sub]

 

[Enigmers]

You know what really annoys me is these people seem to think games like Postal 2 are everywhere, games which, most likely, will receive an AO rating from the ESRB which won't be stocked anyway. That's my biggest issue. There are plenty of M-rated games which are (at least in my opinion) not obscene at all, and it pains me to think that, because of a few less-than-informed people, those games are being thrown together with the "obscene" games in the context of this law.

I know I'm preaching to the choir but I like to think my opinions are informed and reasonable anyway.

 

[Dogstile]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

That would be responsible.

The problem is that this law is writen to "protect" parents that do not review what their children ask for. The parents that walk into Game stop with scribbled christmas lists and ask for games without understanding the ratings system or even looking at the ESRB designations.

As a parent who is an avid fan of the medium, I make it a point to keep my copies of M rated games put away and play them when my child is asleep. When he is around and he wants to play with his dad, I let him play drums on Lego Rock Band or we play some more rated E games. To me, it's common sense. To most of those who were born just 5 years before me, it's a mystery.

We have to accept that it is those people, around age 40 to 60, that are in charge of the country at the moment. Those people, who would never even look at the true experience behind a solid M rated game like Mass Effect or Bioshock, are just more prone to seeing a story about a game like Postal or Rape Lay and make sweeping generalizations because that is what ignorance breeds.

Even if we lose, in 5 to 10 years when a more informed generation comes to power these restrictions can be changed. It's just a matter of having people who actually care in the right place.

The problem of this, of course, is why would you want to spent all that money changing a law to spend money changing it back in 5 years

 

[gee666]

I wonder how many crimes we will see over the coming months being atributed to a game the offender played

the battle for hearts and minds etc etc

 

[Kratenser]

"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them..."

Does a game like that even exist?

Yep, its called postal 2.