We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
‘Free speech’ means that people will say things you do not want to hear … and that includes making music, creating pictures, writing verse, shooting films and producing computer games that annoy the crap out of other people.
An attempt by the usual ‘guardians of morality’ to regulate the nature of computer games in a way that would never be tolerated for the written word has been defeated in a US court.
“If the First Amendment is versatile enough to “shield the paintings of Jackson Pollock, music of Arthur Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll”, we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to a similar protection. The mere fact that they appear in a novel medium is of no legal consequence.”
Score one for the good guys!  Now let me fire up my copy of Grand Theft Auto… I feel like running over a few hapless pedestrians.
The full ruling can be found here [pdf file].
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Judge Stephen Limbaugh (the first judge) has obviously never sat down and experienced some of the nuances and plot twists to be found in some of the better console and PC action games around today.
Regardless, if laws like the one in Washington State (or Greece, for that matter) begin to spread across to other jurisdictions, I can see it having an eventual effect on what gets produced. If retailers, fearing legal repercussions from what their employers do, start to limit or eliminate their purchases of “M” rated games, it could become much harder to sell these games in substantial quantities, which could mean that developers and publishers make a business decision to shift their focus as some projects could become unviable.
In the meantime, maybe action games do have some other benefits.
I wonder how impeachment of judges is done in Missouri….
Honestly the original ruling is an amazingly bad piece of law. How can you possibly argue that books, movies, and music are protected, but something that takes aspects of all of them and then lets people interact with it is any different?
Its pretty easy why video games are picked on, you see some of the holier than thou “artistic” types think nerds are a bunch of spoiled brats who are part of the globilisation American hegomonic machine. As a computer game journalist I have heard some of the most idiotic views from lefties about the genre. We also must remember that games are mostly played by males, so we are fair game. Glad to see this kind of idiotic legislation shot down. I am soon off to play another game that probably pissed this lot off: Max Payne. Its time for me to redocorate the seedier side of NYC with nasties entrails ;P
How ’bout that! The courts get it right for a change.
Courts get it right pretty often when left to their own devices (now we’re safe from Lord Denning, at least). Its just that they have to apply barking legislation much of the time.
I’m surprised simple prohibition on sales to minors is being challenged in the courts.
The product can still be bought, it’s just that young uns only have acess through their parents. Like with booze laws.
It’s different than booze though. If I as a parent *provide* booze for my thirteen year old and his three friends, that’s not kosher, and if someone finds out and reports me, I could be arrested for provision.
If I bring my thirteen year old and his three friends to an ‘R’-rated movie, there’s no foul.
Presumably, I can also rent or buy an ‘M’-rated game for my thirteen year old and his friends. In other words, there’s no law against provision of violent/sexually explict games.
But what if that were the next step? Games are FAR more demonized by the media than are movies, maybe it’s not out of the question. Rulings like the one posted here and challenges such as the one upcoming in WA help ensure that question gets pushed well back.
I have a problem with that though, Kevin. When I was 13 and living in Italy, I regularly drank a little wine with meals and my folks were quite rightly unconcerned. When I was 15 and living in the USA, I was astounded by how people reacted to me wanting wine! I suspect I would have caused less shock if I had asked for a loaded gun or a mustard covered porcupine.
Why should the state be involved with that sort of decision? The fabric of Italian society does not seem to have come unraveled and even from a utilitarian view point it is clear to me that Norway, Britain and the USA, which regulate who can drink and when far more than places like Italy or much of western Europe for that matter, have far greater public drunkenness and disorder problems that in the places it is far less regulated (if at all).
Oh, I think we’re on the same page though. When I said it’s not “kosher” to provide alcohol, I was just reflecting on how things have gone around here lately, not the way I think it ought to be.
There was a case recently in the DFW area where I live where a mother decided to provide a place for students to “crash” after one of the senior dances. Yes, there was drinking–but this woman made sure that these kids weren’t out *driving* and that they all had sober rides home if needed. Didn’t matter, someone found out and called the cops and she was hauled off in cuffs.
I especially agree that if your own folks provide you wine at dinnertime in moderation, for instance, there ought not be any problem. Certainly I had my own glass of wine at special dinners from 15 on, and it served to demystify alcohol for me to some extent.
Nevertheless, “provision” is highly frowned-upon, and I was just venturing a speculation that provision of violent or other “inappropriate” games could eventually be put in the same category by all the well-meaning folks who insist you let them help you raise your own kids–particularly as games get more realistic, as the envelope is pushed further back, and as more states adopt penalties for selling to underage players.
But that kind of thing becomes much less likely when successful challenges are brought against the existing laws.
Not OK