Nope, it hasn't. But it does allow the least little bit of context, which in my opinion is not a bad thing. As I edited before -- should we need labels that warn us that bottle caps are choking hazards? No, just stop trying to swallow bottle caps. Are they a simple way to inure a company against certain sorts of charges? In a lot of cases, yes. How can an anti-gaming parent make the argument that a kid can't tell the difference between a game and real life if it's explicitly spelled out? I would think that both sides might be on board with this admittedly cursory gesture.
This isn't really on topic, but that was my mom's line of thinking when I was growing up. Spoiler When we would go to the video store, I could rent all the gory slasher movies I wanted to, but goddam it, there better not be any sex in them! One notable example of a movie I was forbidden to watch was Caveman with Ringo Starr, A "PG" RATED MOVIE. My mom's reason: in the movie, there is a scene of two cave people getting it on under a bearskin. That's it. That was the reason. This seemed a particularly cruel decision to me because I was nuts about dinosaurs as a kid. I never got to watch that movie until after my mom died. But I guess that is exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction you should expect from the daughter of an ordained minister. Anyway, to keep this from being deleted for being off-topic, I applaud the supreme court's decision. Speaking as a parent, I am not concerned with videogames corrupting my son, because my son is not a fucking delinquent with a warped mind (well, I mean not warped enough to go out and try some things he did in a video game. But he does have what "square" people would call a warped sense of humor.). Plus, his favorite game is "Legend of Zelda" and its derivatives (Ocarina of Time, Majoras Mask, etc.). And you know what else? I don't shelter him from movies with boobs in them. I don't let him watch porn or anything like that, but we just saw Bad Teacher this weekend (a mutual decision), and they show Cameron Diaz feeling up a pair of exposed D-cups. Big deal, he saw some boobs. Is he supposed to go his whole life and never see/feel any? For his sake, I certainly hope not.
I don't know how much tort law you've studied, but no, warnings like that are not sufficient to protect companies against liability. All of those "Caution: slippery floor!" signs you see everywhere do not protect business against liability for a slip-and-fall incident; at most they might reduce the amount of money awarded in court. And swimming pools - you could build a fucking iron curtain that would make the Soviets think you were compensating for something around your backyard, but if someone breaks into your house with the intent of robbing you blind, committing lecherous acts against your wife and female children and slips on the blood of your firstborn son into your swimming pool and is pinned to the bottom of your pool by the TV they were trying to steal and can't push the TV off because they were busy clutching the corpse of your newborn they had just committed necrophilia with, you are liable for that person's death. As to your second point; really? I'm not sure you understand the motives of anti-gamer types. This is like arguing that anti-porn advocates would be satisfied if, at the beginning of every porn clip, people were forced to read "The following is an unrealistic portrayal of human sexuality. Do not attempt this at home". Why do passing lanes exist on the highway if nobody is ever driving more than the explicitly posted maximum speed? Why do police have roadblocks to check for drunk drivers when it's already been explicitly spelled out that drinking and driving isn't acceptable? Besides this; if violent video games need disclaimers about lack of realism, then so do disney movies, barbies, GI Joes, dog shows, every sports broadcast ever, every movie worth watching, and forum posts from internet tough-guys. Anyway, for the sake of disclosure; I grew up without video games. I think the most access to video games I had as a kid was an old-school grey and darker grey gameboy, and an arcade game simulator on my computer. To this day I have minimal interest in video games and I think, on the whole, kids would be better off if they were raised more insulated from technology than they are today. Come to think of it, people would be better off if they were more insulated from technology, rather than insulated with it. But that's neither here nor there.
I have some violent video games. Batman: Arkham Asylum. Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare. The kids don't even get to look at the fucking boxes. They get to play Lego Batman, Lego Harry Potter, Lego Star Wars, and Lego Indiana Jones. Oh, and Cars: Mater-national. Why? Because Daddy fucking says so, and Daddy IS the law. When I was a kid, I was allowed to watch things that I probably shouldn't have. Blazing Saddles at 8? Yep! I turned out fine, but you know what? The bar has been raised so goddamn high, you need an elevator to see it. Everything now is either violent, sarcastic or sexual in nature. Don't believe me? Watch an episode of the original Scooby-Doo from the late 60s. Then, watch an episode of Sponge Bob. The wise ass stuff and sarcasm levels are amazing. Google yourself some Intellivision video games or even some old school Super Mario Bros. That's what I got to play when I was a kid. The games now are fantastic, and are far ahead of the stuff I grew up with, but the violent games (head shots with blood vs. stomping on mushrooms) are light years ahead. How about pop music? Try explaining to your 9 year old daughter why some chick on the radio is singing a song about making out with another girl. And why it's on 48 times a day. TL;DR: It is MY job as a father to raise my kids right. I don't want them playing it, I make it inaccessible. Oh, and the PS3 we have is 6 feet off the ground. They can't load a game without asking me to do it. My wife can barely reach it.
While I sort of agree, in theory, that parents should control what games their children play, I can't be the only one who wasn't in any way damaged by their parents' inattention to that medium? I guess my parents were fairly liberal with my entertainment media, and were more concerned by the volume of time I'd spend on the computer rather than the content of whatever I was doing. I was playing Duke Nukem 3d in primary school, and Leisure Suit Larry even before that, courtesy of an older brother. My response to a particularly graphic scene was universally 'Woah, cool'. (And the less said about my embarrassing adolescent fascination with the Duke 3D strippers said the better. Shake it baby.) Now granted this only holds for kids above, say, 9/10, but I have a stack of friends who, like me, played the most violent, bloody shooters we could find. I remember when Soldier of Fortune came out and you could hack the arms off an enemy corpse for the first time. It was fantastic. But none of us grew up to be violent menaces. You know who did? The poor kids from broken homes with jailed relatives, who weren't able to afford a decent TV let alone the newest consoles. Should parents monitor what media their children are consuming? Yeah, sure. Personally though, I truly believe children are more likely to be screwed up by, say, the narratives in romantic comedies (unrealistic expectations of romantic love, fuck yeah!) than they are by games. Note: I am particularly bitter because we don't even HAVE an R rating for games in (Western?) Australia. That's right - if you want to play an adult game here, your only option is to illegally pirate it. Although, maybe this does teach kids a good lesson - the Government makes arbitrary moral rules due to pressure from interest groups, and its up to you to figure out a way to circumvent them. Oh, and the way of life you are steeped in on a daily basis is in large part specific to your environment, and it isn't the only way to live. On a related note: this is 7 kinds of awesome.
This is way off topic, but it is kind of topical and I've always wanted to know the answer. I don't know how it is in other countries, but here on the back of dump trucks they have a sign that says "Stay Back 200 Feet. Not Responsible For Damages". Why the fuck not? I have a pickup truck. Can I put the same sign on the back and load it up with all kinds of shit and fuck you if any of it falls onto your hood? Now back to your usual discussion
I've heard putting up signs like that is putting yourself at risk for being required to compensate for damages for a known problem. I heard this from a family member who is a lawyer. She was talking about people who have dangerous dogs and put up a sign on their yard's fence that says "beware of dog." Apparently this is advertizing the fact that you have a dangerous dog and can put you in even more trouble if the dog bites someone.
I would love to know how much of this is actual fact and how much of this is pandering to people's inherent distrust of the legal system with speculation. Sure, any half-wit lawyer can sue someone for anything. The real question is, can you win in court with that jackassery? Let's say Grandpa McGee trips on a fallen soup can in the supermarket. Sure, he can sue for damages because he broke his hip or whatever. But can you actually win if no one was at fault? Are there actual cases like the example I made up where the jury actually said "Yes, it's the supermarket's fault that Grandpa McGee broke his hip?" Sources that aren't chain e-mails would be appreciated. I guess another reason why this sort of speculation is so rampant is that large companies settle even ludicrous lawsuits because of the legal costs of going to trial. Grandpa McGee would probably get his medical expenses covered and a nice settlement simply because doing that would be less expensive that saying "Fuck you" in court. But that's a completely different animal than suing someone and actually getting "We find for the plantiff." Edit: I'm now imagining Ballsack cross-examining the manager of the store. "Mr. Barnes, you said that the accident occurred in the Campbell's Soup section. But Grandpa McGee tripped over a PROGRESSO CAN! Are you saying that you don't know what's going on in your store?" "No, of course not. It doesn't make any difference what brand of soup he tripped over." "So you don't care about your products? Is that it, Mr. Barnes? Do you refuse to stand behind your products?"
I have a sign that says "Beware of Small Dogs". Watch your ankles motherfuckers! And don't sue me if they lick you to death. And per my question regarding signs on dump trucks, Ghetto sent me this PM:
I have a LARGE dog, we live in the boondocks and have a 40 yard long driveway. If somebody comes down my driveway uninvited and gets their leg bitten off, tough shit, they were probably here to rob the place anyway. The only people who should come down our driveway are people who belong here. Honestly, my dog is such a fucking pansy (he's afraid of the vacuum, the swiffer, the basketball...) that the only time I've seen him protective is if it involves the kids. If he has to step up to the plate, odds are, the person deserved it.
Considering that Chellie's boyfriend got locked up for beating the shit out of a couple rapists, I'm not sure that line of thinking would turn out the way you want in the court of law. It's beyond retarded.
I dunno where Chellie's incident occurred, but there aren't many places where the kind of violence you do with your bare hands while defending someone from a rape attempt will get you jail time. I mean if the subtext of the story was that the guy's lawyer was drunk, or fucking the judge's daughter? Or If the youthful priors involved beating someone into a coma for looking at his girlfriend funny? Or if the guys in question are in persistent vegetative coma's? Or if there was some reason for the judge to doubt that the plaintiffs were doing something that warranted defending against? Then it would all make sense. But the details as they stand don't wash with any first world judiciary I've encountered. Outside of Texas, having your dog seriously bite someone will usually end with the dog being destroyed. Depending on where you are, that may even be the case if the dog was biting your attacker or something. Other than professionally trained working security dogs - it's hard to make the argument that not putting the dog down is an acceptable risk. Poorly trained animals who've discovered that they can win a fight with a human, and humans are delicious, make bad pets and bad neighbours. I train my dogs to defend their people - but I also understand that if Fido does bite a burglar - it's better than not having a guard dog, but we might need a new dog.
From the last few posts, the conclusion I've drawn is that dogs, rapists, and the judicial system are more likely to harm people than video games. This is remarkably accurate.
Fuck, I posted a detailed reply with research to back up various claims about violent video games and kids violence, and it got fucking lost somehow. Anyway, here is some other research I dug up: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525151059.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151059.htm</a>
If this is true, then I can only imagine that my friends, specifically my IT guy friends, who for the most part have been routinely playing very violent video games since very violent video games came to market, would have been too placid and relaxed to actually get out of bed were it not for the aggression increase of video games. My friends who have been playing violent shooters since before the commencement of puberty outnumber that researcher's sample size, and I can't think of even one of them who is plausibly suffering from increased aggression as a result. I know some guys who got into violent shooters in their late teens/college who maybe have some aggression problems. But high stress or a history of aggression problems that pre-dates the gaming is applicable for all of them. Maybe I just know weird gamers... but I'm skeptical.
If I'm remembering right he got locked up because he had some convictions or charges from when he was younger that forced the judge's hand. Still dumb as shit though. All rapists should die screaming. He was doing the world a public service.
The main issue here wasn't even about whether violent video games have a negative effect on people, and the only way it was addressed was to say that the studies presented by the bill were flawed in their methodology. Regardless, that's not the type of thing that SCOTUS rules on. The case was, and had to be, based purely on the constitutionality of the proposed law, and it clearly went against the First Amendment.
Think of it this way... Would anyone make the same argument about censoring a book? Even extremist ones like Mein Kampf, Turner Diaries, Anarchists Cookbook, etc? No of course not, people flip out. The only reason movies and music are censored, at least in the US is not by law, but by the MPAA. If you want to have a theater with movies to show, you have to play by their rules; but again, they're not a legal body. Why should games be any different? The first game my dad bought me for PC was Myst. When that got old quick, he bought me Doom, then the original Duke Nukem, then Half-Life etc. Whoever else mentioned on here that the gamer generation will have a more realistic approach to violent games is correct. My kids are going to spend the majority of their childhood outside anyway, at least before they get sucked into the digital way of life. When they are occasionally allowed to play games, they're not going to start off with Grand Theft Auto (I don't want to have to explain why beating up a hooker earns you some quick cash), but with something more age appropriate and as they grow, so will their exposure to more mature games. If anything, gamer parents will do a better job governing what games their kids play than their parents ever did because they understand it, it won't be "new-fangled" for them. The Jack Thompsons of the world don't get the gaming culture, they never will. It's not about censorship, it's about personally responsibility as all things should be.
I always support a clear distinction between what's right and what's technically permissible under law, and sometimes it can get jumbled up in the court of public opinion. Kids have been sniffing glue for years, but I don't think we should require an art teacher's signature to buy Elmer's. I'm not entirely certain where the line is in this case, but I can't imagine any sort of law that could be applied to video games that wouldn't have a troublesome blurriness with respect to other forms of media. At the same time, video game companies have a greater responsibility than to just shrug and say, "hey, it's legal, the parents should moderate it." Flaccid as my disclaimer suggestion was, I think something should be done if these games are shown to increase violence or have a markedly negative effect on children, I just am not sure that making them inaccessible is a reasonable option.
I don't recall if it was On Combat, or On Killing, in which Grossman discusses kill rates and how training soldiers has changed to raise them, but he did address the issue in a way that made me question my knee jerk gamer reaction of 'video games don't make people more violent'. To paraphrase (poorly),after the world wars the government decided there weren't enough shots with the intention to kill, so guess how they started training their armies? Bulls-eye targets became people shaped targets. Combat simulators started using more and more life like targets and situations. A great deal of research went into the discovery that the more you put people in situations (even sims) where they are shooting at lifelike, accurate representations of people, the easier it was for them to override the 'this is another person, don't kill it' message from the brain. A great many of the sims used to develop that theory were video games. The research seems to indicate rather clearly that, while not CAUSING violence in individuals, the more they are exposed to such things, the easier it was for them to flip the switch to 'I'm going to FUCK YOU UP' when exposed to a violent situation. When I get home tonight I'll grab the books and reference the studies and research he's quoting, please excuse my lack of citation until then. And for the record regarding my fiance; He beat them to the point of hospitalization, WAY beyond what was necessary to defend me. Even I know he took it way too far. Should he have been charged? Yes. Even he admits that. It's the extent to which he was punished that seems disproportionate and sucks.