As per usual, my reply is "yeah, some are gross, some are dirty, some are violent, but this isn't for the government to limit--its for parents to limit."
Remember, California also said made laws that if a movie has a "rating" (G, PG, R, etc) by definition it is not p00rnography, and shouldn't be limited as such. By similarity any game that volentarily gets rated should not be limited for purchase.
Therefore anything that is "M:mature, AD:Adult" rated should not be limited for purchase.
(Oh, and I think the existing movie law is stupid anyway)
I can't read the article here, but given Joe's quote I think that overall this is a bad decision. I think it goes under the category of right decision/wrong reason. What makes games free speech? What part of cutting up a Lord of Hell with a chainsaw (that would be a pretty tough task in "Doom") is considered speech?
I also think that the rating system makes some sense. I don't think that limiting sales to minors makes much sense, though limiting the viewing R movies to minors does make sense. Parents have much stricter control over what their children play, while kids have been known to sneak into a restricted movie when their parents aren't around.
Quote: "What makes games free speech? What part of cutting up a Lord of Hell with a chainsaw (that would be a pretty tough task in "Doom") is considered speech?"
Good question. Since this obviously is not worthy of First Amendment protection, neither is the whole medium. And since they made a movie out of Doom, which essentially just depicts the things you do in the game, obviously movies are not protected speech. And since there have been novelizations of the Doom games, again just depicting the types of "non-speech" portrayed in the games, books also do not qualify as protected speech. Therefore, it is constitutional for the government to ban Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and the Bible. < /sarcasm >
OK, I have to say, it's a pretty stupid argument to say that since Doom doesn't qualify as protected speech, no video game does. Y'know what? I don't think romance novels (chick porn) are necessarily protected speech, so neither are any other books.
Am I the only one here who thinks that argument is absurd? Just because one example of a medium does not qualify as speech somehow means that neither does anything else in that medium?
Joe, you misunderstand Mr. Pickles' point. He merely cites one example of a medium he believes is not protected by the first amendment, and I happen to agree. The first amendment was intended to protect political viewpoints from suppression. The courts have reliably upheld that there are some things not protected, like the favorite example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is none), or things that are patently obscene. I really don't have a problem with society deciding to legislatively restrict certain forms of entertainment that it finds highly offensive, when those who are normally responsible for the restriction (parents) are not fulfilling their duty to their own children AND SOCEITY. Obviously, there will be some debate about where the lines should be drawn, plus the danger of the "slippery slope" always looms, but I think games are definitely on this side of the line.
No, I understand Mr. Pickles point alright. He's saying that since he can't come up with any examples of games that deserve the status of protected speech, the medium should not fall under that category. The two flaws with that argument are 1) just because you haven't played them doesn't mean they don't exist, and 2) even if they don't exist doesn't mean they can't exist.
Dave, you state that "The first amendment was intended to protect political viewpoints from suppression." While this is very true, the vasy majority of films, books, crafted artwork (paintings, sculptures, etc.), and music do not fall under this category, yet they are protected by the first ammendment.
I think I was reading the Penny-Arcade news section, when they quoted Roger Ebert saying that, even though he doesn't play them, video games can never be considered art along with movies and literature. Gabe and Tycho didn't try to dispute this, but instead just made fun of Ebert for idiotically talking outside his area of expertise. Anyways, somewhere in the discussion, one of them made the following argument: if I paint a beautiful picture, that is art. If I paint a series of pictures, they are still art. If I add a story, such that the sequence of pictures has a plot and progression, that is also art. If I add music (which is in itself art) to all this (essentially creating a rudimentary movie), I still have art. But now if I add some interactivity to it and allow the viewer to choose the order, or which paintings and musical cues to listen to, why is it no longer considered able to be art?
I would apply this same argument to free speech. If music, visual images, and story (the three things from which movies and games are made) are protected speech, why is it that the combination of the three is still protected, but adding interactivity suddenly removes any claim to first amendment protection?
Granted, very few games actually fall into this category. There is nothing in Doom, the game, that warrants FA protection. But that means that neither is there in Doom, the book or Doom, the movie.
On the flipside, take Full Metal Jacket, the movie. While I disagree with the political point of the movie (War = Evil), it still should be considered protected speech (you have FA protection to say idiotic things). Likewise, any game made from the movie Full Metal Jacket, should also retain that protection, so long as the political point (War = Evil) comes through intact.
Oh, and if you want specific examples of games that I believe warrant first amendment protection, here are some: Jennifer Government - Nation States JFK Reloaded (A game designed to debunk the conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination; highly controversial.)
As per usual, my reply is "yeah, some are gross, some are dirty, some are violent, but this isn't for the government to limit--its for parents to limit."
ReplyDeleteRemember, California also said made laws that if a movie has a "rating" (G, PG, R, etc) by definition it is not p00rnography, and shouldn't be limited as such. By similarity any game that volentarily gets rated should not be limited for purchase.
Therefore anything that is "M:mature, AD:Adult" rated should not be limited for purchase.
(Oh, and I think the existing movie law is stupid anyway)
-The Blue Fox
Did anyone notice Hal Halpin mentioned? I find that ironic, if not hilarious for obvious reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhat? A judge with commen sense?? In California?!?!
ReplyDeleteThe Murloc thingk she has just died of a heart attack from that shock! O_O
~RlrlrlRLRLLRLGRLGRLGlglglglgl-*shifty eyes*...~
I can't read the article here, but given Joe's quote I think that overall this is a bad decision. I think it goes under the category of right decision/wrong reason. What makes games free speech? What part of cutting up a Lord of Hell with a chainsaw (that would be a pretty tough task in "Doom") is considered speech?
ReplyDeleteI also think that the rating system makes some sense. I don't think that limiting sales to minors makes much sense, though limiting the viewing R movies to minors does make sense. Parents have much stricter control over what their children play, while kids have been known to sneak into a restricted movie when their parents aren't around.
Quote: "What makes games free speech? What part of cutting up a Lord of Hell with a chainsaw (that would be a pretty tough task in "Doom") is considered speech?"
ReplyDeleteGood question. Since this obviously is not worthy of First Amendment protection, neither is the whole medium. And since they made a movie out of Doom, which essentially just depicts the things you do in the game, obviously movies are not protected speech. And since there have been novelizations of the Doom games, again just depicting the types of "non-speech" portrayed in the games, books also do not qualify as protected speech. Therefore, it is constitutional for the government to ban Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and the Bible. < /sarcasm >
OK, I have to say, it's a pretty stupid argument to say that since Doom doesn't qualify as protected speech, no video game does. Y'know what? I don't think romance novels (chick porn) are necessarily protected speech, so neither are any other books.
Am I the only one here who thinks that argument is absurd? Just because one example of a medium does not qualify as speech somehow means that neither does anything else in that medium?
Joe, you misunderstand Mr. Pickles' point. He merely cites one example of a medium he believes is not protected by the first amendment, and I happen to agree. The first amendment was intended to protect political viewpoints from suppression. The courts have reliably upheld that there are some things not protected, like the favorite example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is none), or things that are patently obscene. I really don't have a problem with society deciding to legislatively restrict certain forms of entertainment that it finds highly offensive, when those who are normally responsible for the restriction (parents) are not fulfilling their duty to their own children AND SOCEITY. Obviously, there will be some debate about where the lines should be drawn, plus the danger of the "slippery slope" always looms, but I think games are definitely on this side of the line.
ReplyDeleteNo, I understand Mr. Pickles point alright. He's saying that since he can't come up with any examples of games that deserve the status of protected speech, the medium should not fall under that category. The two flaws with that argument are 1) just because you haven't played them doesn't mean they don't exist, and 2) even if they don't exist doesn't mean they can't exist.
ReplyDeleteDave, you state that "The first amendment was intended to protect political viewpoints from suppression." While this is very true, the vasy majority of films, books, crafted artwork (paintings, sculptures, etc.), and music do not fall under this category, yet they are protected by the first ammendment.
I think I was reading the Penny-Arcade news section, when they quoted Roger Ebert saying that, even though he doesn't play them, video games can never be considered art along with movies and literature. Gabe and Tycho didn't try to dispute this, but instead just made fun of Ebert for idiotically talking outside his area of expertise. Anyways, somewhere in the discussion, one of them made the following argument: if I paint a beautiful picture, that is art. If I paint a series of pictures, they are still art. If I add a story, such that the sequence of pictures has a plot and progression, that is also art. If I add music (which is in itself art) to all this (essentially creating a rudimentary movie), I still have art. But now if I add some interactivity to it and allow the viewer to choose the order, or which paintings and musical cues to listen to, why is it no longer considered able to be art?
I would apply this same argument to free speech. If music, visual images, and story (the three things from which movies and games are made) are protected speech, why is it that the combination of the three is still protected, but adding interactivity suddenly removes any claim to first amendment protection?
Granted, very few games actually fall into this category. There is nothing in Doom, the game, that warrants FA protection. But that means that neither is there in Doom, the book or Doom, the movie.
On the flipside, take Full Metal Jacket, the movie. While I disagree with the political point of the movie (War = Evil), it still should be considered protected speech (you have FA protection to say idiotic things). Likewise, any game made from the movie Full Metal Jacket, should also retain that protection, so long as the political point (War = Evil) comes through intact.
Oh, and if you want specific examples of games that I believe warrant first amendment protection, here are some:
Jennifer Government - Nation States
JFK Reloaded
(A game designed to debunk the conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination; highly controversial.)