|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
The Intersection of Gaming and Law
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Read this first:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/lod3.php3
Here's a choice tidbit:
Judge Limbaugh's was the gavel heard 'round the gaming world. On April 19, 2002, his Honor struck a chillingly brutal blow to us - he publicly (and very *unnecessarily*) proclaimed, in a 26 page opinion, that video games *are not* speech. Not that they merely aren't *protected speech*, he ruled that video games, as a matter of *law*, are not "expression" and do not convey a "particularized form of expression". This guy said that any story, speech, expression or idea, conveyed via video game, "is purely inconsequential" and that the story is "totally divorced from [the] purpose of expressing ideas, feelings, or information unrelated to the game itself".
This implies that video games are not a a form of "speech", hence it is not protected, as a medium, by the First Amendment. Hence it can be regulated and controlled in any way the US government sees fit.
I have never seen so much ignorance from a bunch of old guys who have never even played Doom ... lemme know your thoughts...
Posted by: redwench
nothing really wrong with the ordinance itself. it simply says that minors must have parental permission to acquire "mature" rated games.
but i do believe that the decision of whether something is considered speech, much less protected speech, requires a whole set of hearings in and of itself. a judge cannot make (legitimately, that is) that decision in a summary motion.
now, he had a right to decline summary judgement. in fact, it is probably the correct ruling. but he should have held hearings on whether it was a speech issue.
he disturbs me, becuase he obviously has never even sat down and played one decent game. most rpg's, for example, have a good vs. evil storyline. and may have other moral messages. the man is just ignorant.
Posted by: Null Actor
It's amazing the amount of ignorance that can persist, even after the US Surgeon General determined, through massive studies, that video games were not a cause of youth violence in any meaningful amount.
It amazes me how these ****ing relics can sit in such powerful positions. Shouldn't the people that make these kind of desicisions be required to be up to date on modern topics?
How can you rule on something, when you have no idea what you are ****ing talking about?
The game industry needs to send these ****s a message.
Posted by: Darky!
 Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
It's amazing the amount of ignorance that can persist, even after the US Surgeon General determined, through massive studies, that video games were not a cause of youth violence in any meaningful amount.
It amazes me how these ****ing relics can sit in such powerful positions. Shouldn't the people that make these kind of desicisions be required to be up to date on modern topics?
How can you rule on something, when you have no idea what you are ****ing talking about?
The game industry needs to send these ****s a message.
|
Those old bastards will all be dead soon. No one lives forever.
Posted by: Null Actor
True, but some people live far too long.
Posted by: Freak
example #1 Strum What-his-name-SC-Senator. lol he's like 103 years old and still working. lololol.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
The Japanese Senators have fist fights in their congressional hearings..hehe Regularly.
I don't get what the big deal is about all this. Video games are no different than movies. Put all the mature warnings on them you want, just don't regulate them.
Posted by: SKYHN
Add judge Limbaugh to the "Jackass" list with Jack Valenti. Or Maybe there should be a new list just for the judge.
Im now rethinking my original thinking about moving to japan. My Girlfriend and I agreed to on it before, but we just didnt have the money then.
Posted by: TotalRecall
Kill him. No other comment.
Posted by: Asmodai
I think this is a pretty serious attack on computer games and the industry in general. I think people are taking their Freedom of Speech rights for granted.
The freedom of speech is one of our country's founding principles -- and one that is slowly being torn down day by day by morons who want to blame all the worlds woes on everyone and everything else but themselves. Accountability and parental guidance is something that needs to be addressed - not entertainment that provides an escape for millions of people in Amerika. I'm tired of being demonized.
A whole other negative to this is the eminent constriction of imagination. Back in school, most of my art projects had to do with something violent. I wear shirts with skulls and snakes and evil stuff on them, listen to music that sing about revolution, and am pretty much an outcast. If things keep going like they are, by tomorrow's standards, I would've been removed from the general population and punished for my macabre sense of the world. I intend no harm on anyone, but again, how good would my word be? As such, these new laws will force many kids to do only work that is socially accepted- an oxymoron in the world of the arts. Imagine a world where no one dares to speak against the norm. Imagine a world where no one is allowed to think for themselves and if they are, it is considered "thought crimes". That implies that there are "thought police" and that's what terrifies me the most.
Posted by: Shalome
Calm down, Asmodai (and everyone else). Penny Arcade's editorial was every bit as sensationalistic as the judge's statement. Nothing will come of this. All that happened is that one St. Louis judge in ONE district ruled that a county could enforce the "no minors" rule. This puts mature-rated video games on the same level as R-rated movies, and pornographic movies and magazines (which are illegal to sell in the town where I live, btw). Counties and cities have the right to pass and enforce these ordinances and statutes.
The judge's asinine summation is irrelevant. The summation is simply the outdated ramblings of an old, uninformed man. Since software has already been ruled free speech, then an appeals court will have no choice but to overturn this old bastard's ruling. His ruling has no bearing on anything outside his judicial district.
St. Louis is extremely Catholic and pretty conservative. This summation should be looked upon as what it is: an old fart's publicity stunt. It is not law. It is opinion. It does not affect any of us in any tangible way except to piss us off that uninformed idiots sit in judge's seats.
Guess it's a reminder to become active in community politics.. and VOTE. 
*steps off the soapbox*
Posted by: Asmodai
I'm hardly irrational or worked up about this. It's my true and honest opinion up there and one that I've discussed and debated with other people many times. Take it for what you will, but I've hardly broken down and spat out a bunch of half-thought out ideas.
If this is just one localized thing, why are we seeing these same sort of opinions being bandied about all around the country (and even outside in Germany)? That judge has a big mouth and one that the uninformed will believe because he's a leader in our government. It doesn't matter that he's overruled or proven wrong. Everyone keeps responding with "it's only one guy... what damage can he do?". Well, with enough "one guys", it could feasibly happen.
We can do what is said at the end of Shalome's post (something I heartily agree with), however it also doesn't hurt to try and educate the ignorant on the subject at hand. It can't hurt.
Posted by: Shalome
I didn't mean to imply you were irrational at all, sorry if it sounded like it.. I agree with you. The people in power with the loudest mouths are often the ones with the least informed opinions.
There are a hell of a lot more people with informed opinions and good common sense out there than there are of the idiots who spout garbage like that judge. The problem is that most of the people (again, I'm certainly not referring to ANYONE on these boards) with the knowledge and informed opinions don't bother to get off their butts and DO anything about it.
Posted by: Null Actor
The point isn't about the ruling itself... but about the fact that we keep hearing about this kind of crap everywhere.
True, nothing will come of it. But the fact that it happens is enraging. To myself especially, since games are my love, my livelyhood, and my form of expression.
I feel the same way any artist would if they were told their art had no merit whatsoever, and as such, was not a form of art.
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
Originally posted by Nova Z
I feel the same way any artist would if they were told their art had no merit whatsoever, and as such, was not a form of art.
|
Most artists hear this quite a bit, actually.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
All that happened is that one St. Louis judge in ONE district ruled that a county could enforce the "no minors" rule.
The judge's asinine summation is irrelevant. *steps off the soapbox*
|
I will also step in to downplay this somewhat, but I will not ignore the potential. He did more than rule on a disputed city ordinance, much more. He attempted to set legal precedent (whether or not he will succeed remains to be seen), and there is nothing in the realm of law in this country that is more powerful. Absolutely nothing. The only point here that is irrelevant is the one that says "this will get overturned." If it does, then great. But it hasn't happened yet.
What is asinine, is to assume that this is a non-issue and his explanation of the summary ruling will be so easily overturned. This has the potential to be a monumental battle in the realm of popular entertainment medium, which can spill over to all of our civil liberties in a broader sense.
I will step in to the judges credit, for a bit too, from a legal standpoint. The ISDA protested the ordinance on grounds that it violated first amendment rights. Regardless of the type of ruling, the judge is going to explain himself when ruling a case regarding the first amendment. If he's going to say the ordinance doesn't violate the first amendment, he had damn well better say why he thinks that, for two reasons. One: we can understand his point of view, and his reasoning for that judgement. Two: Most important, is that you have a stance to attack in a higher court. He gives his reasoning for the ruling, you then have something to argue against. His explanation is rediculous, and because he made this so abundantly clear, gaming advocates have a case against it.
I simply can't downlplay it this far. This is how battles start. Great civil liberty battles didn't go straight to the supreme court for a broad ruling. They started in a small district court in the county of somewhereville. This is an important ruling, just like any other, and needs to be watched carefully.
It's this kind of blatant attack on civil liberties that constantly reaffirm my decision to go to law school.
Posted by: AK47
Just one thing- alot of the people complaining here are over 18 years of age. This kind of ruling (no matter how wrong, or stupid it is) doesnt affect you (with the possible exception of Nova).
my point- buy your M rated games and be happy you can. And, if you really want to help out, buy some for little kids too.
Posted by: Gunslinger
In the case of being able to buy an M rated game, I'll grant that you are right. But that's actually somewhat trivial.
If something is deemed unprotected by the first amendment, then it immediately becomes susceptible to a plethora of other attacks. This is a lot more far reaching than a stupid city ordinance.
Posted by: TotalRecall
Sigh, you've got the wrong attitude AK. "It's not my problem, who cares..."
I suppose some people think that those 18 years are useless.
Posted by: redwench
i dont think you guys read the article. the judge didnt rule on the ordinance, although i think we all know how he will rule. he merely dismissed the motion for summary judgement. so he didnt have to clarify his opinion.
free speech issues do not affect minors, which the law is directed at. minors cannot see pornographic movies or purchase pornography that is otherwise legal in thier locale. unless theres a rogue state i dont know about. if the law banned the sale of the games entirely, then it would be a free speech issue. but minors are not adults, and thier behavior (including business transactions) can be regulated.
and ak, you should be glad the over 18s care. were the ones that can vote ^^
Posted by: Darky!
I never vote.
Posted by: Darky!
Wait I take that back, I voted once when I was little. I voted for George Washington to be president, and Abraham Lincon to be vice president.
Did anyone else do those fake vote thingys for kids?
Posted by: AK47
Its video games. I can buy the M rated games, so I dont care. Wrong attitude? Nope. Perhaps I think that minors shouldnt play M rated games.
Please dont tell me any of you are still under the assumptiont that "one vote makes a difference"
Posted by: Null Actor
AK47: The point isn't that the games can't be sold to minors... that's no big deal.
The point is that, with games not being protected as free speech, the government would be able to dictate the content.
"No games with guns"
"No games with any mature content"
"No games with story"
Use your imagination, it could get pretty bad.
Posted by: AK47
I knew someone was gonna say that.
I really doubt that it would come to that. Games have become an accepted form of entertainment, just like movies are. Soon enough, Congresmen and Judges will realize this and drop all this bullshit.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by AK47
Please dont tell me any of you are still under the assumptiont that "one vote makes a difference"
|
Why not? Virgin ears?
Sure, if you want to look at it from a technical, numerical standpoint (and a horribly ignorant one IMHO), then one vote does not make a different upon millions.
Why do people intentionally misinterpret the "your vote makes a difference" rhetoric? (yes, off topic, but I feel the need to touch on it lightly). One vote does make a difference if you get enough people to believe it. I'm not entirely familiar with the mean voting turnout in the US, but I do know it's pathetic. How can you call it an assumption when it's obviously a fact? Let's use the President as an example. If the president wins an election, and he has, say, 50% of the popular vote, you think, well, we've got a split here, that's to be expected. Then you consider that say (hypothetically), only 40% of elligible voters cast a ballot. So, our chief executive is officially supported by only 20% of the population.
Stellar. Democratic process at its best. </sarcasm>
One vote, does, in fact make a difference.
Back on topic. I see the big point was reiterated by Nova. Any time a judge wants to make a broad sweeping judgement on the first amendment, it's a big deal. The ordinance is meaningless, in terms of the bigger picture. I don't see how the gaming industry could lose that first amendment battle (as AK said, and I agree), but it is very disconcerting that they may have to fight that battle -- and while that battle is being fought, you have to consider what would happen should that battle be lost.
That's not a good situation to imagine. It would set even more legal precedent, and then everyone would run to join the ACLU (not that the ACLU is a bad thing, but I think you will get the point).
Posted by: AK47
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
One vote does make a difference if you get enough people to believe it.
|
That implies a theory. I wasnt talking about a theory. But lets drop it. I'm in the minority here and we dont need a big discussion about something as silly as this.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and then everyone would run to join the ACLU (not that the ACLU is a bad thing, but I think you will get the point).
|
I think the ACLU is a bad thing. They go out and give kids ideas that you can go to work on drugs as long as you do your job (yes, I was told that by one of their reps). Many more a**hole ideas were expressed by them. They give kids bad ideas and then they tell them how to avoid the law.
Their goal is good, but the way they preach their message is not good.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I don't know enough about their means to judge that. And certainly, ends do not justify means, so if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt that, then, well, that's rediculous.
Posted by: redwench
eh, so ak ran into a weird one.
the aclu probably would like to legalize drugs, but thats a different discussion. the aclu is the poor mans friend against big government. and small government too
thier means are mostly thru lawsuits, which they do pro bono. given that most people couldnt afford to hire a lawyer for those kinds of cases, they are a very good thing.
Posted by: AK47
Yes, the aclu is out to do good. And the things you mentioned are certainly good.
However, I bet that the rep I saw was not much different from anyother that visits schools. The woman wanted the kids to listen to her and respect her. She found this attention by telling kids how to avoid the law. The "going to work stoned" was just one example. I wish I could remeber more, but I was thrown out after making obscene comments toward her.
Everything she said was anit-government and anti-police. She preached about how hispanics, blacks and other minorities are discriminated against in routine traffic stops and other situations. This would all be fine and dandy if she backed it up with facts, but she never once presented a fact that was meaningfull. Her lack of factual information is what led to my impolite outbursts. The majority of kids were digging her speach because it told us how to revolt against cops. I was not impressed.
So, yes the aclu is fighting a good cause, but I feel that they take advantage of the fact that kids are impressionable and often rebellious. That aint good.
A double edged sword I guess.
Posted by: redwench
well, minorities are frequently discriminated against in traffic stops. every study done on the matter shows that trend.
at any rate, the aclu supports "liberties", as one would expect. i doubt anyone agrees with every position they take. there are times when they file on behalf of very conservative issues, which may surprise some people. but i know i want them around if i ever have a problem with the government, because i dont want to spend 50k on a lawsuit i may not win. their mission is essentially to keep the government in all its forms out of peoples lives.
so i dont agree with every stance they take, and neither should anyone else. however, they are a nonprofit organization that exists solely to keep the goverment in check, which is a good thing.
Posted by: DemonBob
Beginning to sould like the book 1984.....
Posted by: Null Actor
Yeah, that's all we need is a Ministry of Thought determining the content and mechanics of games using their gameificator.
Posted by: Rayneeday
Headlines in the local paper this week:
Blacks stopped more often in traffic stops
and right under it:
Study doesnt show racial profiling
 :rolleyes
Its amazing, and they didnt even see the idiocy in that article.
Posted by: laborat
my first thoughts on this issue are to wonder where in a video or computer game is a need for free speech or even regulated speech? After somebody PKs you using a hack? Should you be able to say what is passing through your mind? Does cybersex chatrooms meet the legal or moral definitions of Adultry.
As I understand it, our simalcrums in cyberspace are supposed to be, in an ideal world, a unique means of expression as we persue by extension our real world rights to say and do those things we are permitted to do under our supposedly Freedoms of Speech.
I do wonder for instance whether a Video Game created by the KKK or Nazi's depicting genocide or racism, would have any protections. (or for that matter any support at all) I should hope not. The supreme court did just rule that computer generated pedophilia is legal. (as long as no real children are involved) Maybe if they (the SC) are forced to rule on cyberspace they will find that our avatars are similar to clones and have no free speech protections... now that would be interesting.
After thinking about this for a while, I for one, side with the Judge. I think you miss the point of using law to express sarcasm. I prefer to just pass the buck and leave it for future generations to debate. For much different reasons.. I don't want the Government to regulate my fantasies in any more mediums than they already do. If they officially say there is nothing there to regulate.. I say, right on, and congratulate our luck in having it go down that way. Whether we should insist on regulation just so we think we can say what we want? naw. After all these are the same people (worldwide) that can't come up with a definition of OUTER SPACE let alone cyberspace.
I say to you free speechers, while shouting Fire in a theater is not protected speech, a protected speech like putting a flower in a national guardsman's Gun is no less stupid on the part of the speechee.
CUT TO PARANOID MOMENT:
Right away, this thins down the gene pool cause the ones that consistantly taunt the powers to be (yes, virginia there are powers to be) don't last long. If you want to truely survive in this world, you don't reveal any thoughts, (kinky, seditious, or inflammatory), to anyone but your most trusted friends.
It is a major concern and rightfully so, that the attempts to regulate our access to information on the web will in the long run, cost us more rights than most of us are willing to give up. Until we can figure out a way for 25 million cyber geeks to riot online, there will be no significant gains in surfreedoms as we know it.
THIS JUST IN:
hackers have succeeded in hacking an online stockholder voter meeting in real time for a major corporation. Only a large number of abstentions tipped them off that they had been hacked.
I wonder if that falls under free speech? I wonder what that judge would say about it?
Posted by: AK47
*jumps out the window*
ahh, that feels better
Posted by: Asmodai
Wait, that's from the Onion.... that's not a real paper... are you trying to make some kind of joke??
|
|
|
|
|
