Anyone read up on the recent news about the proposed ban of selling violent games to minors in Michigan (America) being shot down because it was deemed unconstitutional? Just to refresh your memory...
"A US District Court judge has ruled that a law in the state of Michigan banning the sale of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional.Federal District Judge George Caram Steeh issued the ruling in Detroit and said in court documents that video games were protected under the US constitution's First and Fourteenth Amendments."
(Source: Australian IT)
By coincidence a similar proposal was made in Western Australia, however, this one was a lot more successful than what they were trying to get passed in Michigan. It is now illegal to sell or rent MA 15+ titles to minors, or even openly display them in stores in Western Australia..
"Retailers in Western Australia will be forced to store violent video games separately under tightened censorship laws.The state Government's Censorship Amendment Bill makes it an offence, carrying a $5,000 fine, to sell or rent games with an MA-15 plus rating to minors.
The Liberals and the Greens combined in the Upper House last night to also make it an offence for shopkeepers to freely display the games.
Opposition's spokesman for children Barbara Scott says it will help prevent children accessing the games.
"At the moment, a child can go in with their carer or babysitter or parent. There's no problem with that person, an adult hiring it or buying it, but this measure will now at least make that adult be aware that the contents are not appropriate for young children," she said."
This is not a good thing. While the part making it illigal to sell MA rated games to minors is up for debate, the part making it an offence to even show them is a big problem. This will undoubtably harm sales, as any MA games bought will no longer be impulse buys. Poeple will have to know whatthey want before they walk into the store.
Lets hope this dosnt pick up in other states aswell, though I have a feeling this will be contested soon enough. So you cant display MA rated games, but MA and R (and even X) rated movies are freely displayable in video rental stores around the country?
A Michigan isnt the only US state to have considered such a law (and had it shot down in court) either. Game Politics for instance has a handy legisation tracker for the issue.
I've been following developments in the states, as i was sure that sooner or latter it would find it's way over here.
Now, i believe we need to fight this before it spreads. we need to kick up a stink now before it becomes accepted as the norm.
A world full of video games where people shoot each other and there is no blood.
I bet game retailers in W.A are in utter disbelief at the moment over not being able to even display MA 15+ games. I guess they'll have a lot more shelf space now!
Bah, like we're not already two decades behind the rest of the first world. Let's hear it for another notch on the fundamentalists' tomahawk! Hooray for Moral Panic!
I hereby express my sympathy to WA gamers and game retailers alike.
Well to be fair, it probably is about time that it was made illegal to sell or hire, to a minor, MA15+ video games.
But not being able to display them in a store? That is just ridiculous. Still as I've said before, it'll only be another 20 years, if that, before people who have actually had exposure to computer games since they were children will get elected to governance and we won't have these ridiculous laws being passed.
I'm beginning to wonder if we need to start pushing a new image for video games in the media though. Even within the realms of academic discussion they are always labelled as 'video games' or 'computer games' ... which considering how serious and mature the medium has become (and it's potential), seems to promote the highly inaccurate viewpoint that games are some kind of frivolous waste of time.
Television is 99(percent) a frivilous waste of time and it gets alot more respect in the media than computer games do!
Well, a couple of things:
- the Censorship ammendment bill that was passed on the 6th April 2006 (the latest available on the WA legislature website) doesn't mention anything to do with store visibility etc - the only changes for games is that they've adopted the country wide classification ratings instead of having their own.
- the fines/penalties mentioned are as per the below, which is in the 1996 Consorship Act (which also already states it is a fine to sell an MA game to a minor):
85. Demonstration of MA (15+) computer games
(1) A person must not demonstrate a computer game classified MA (15+) in a public place.
Penalty: $5 000.
(2) A person must not demonstrate so that it can be seen from a public place ?
(a) an unclassified computer game that would, if classified, be classified MA (15+); or
(b) a computer game classified MA (15+).
Penalty: $2 000.
(3) A person must not demonstrate in a place that is not a public place, in the presence of a minor under 15 years of age ?
(a) an unclassified computer game that would, if classified, be classified MA (15+); or
(b) a computer game classified MA (15+),
unless that person is a parent or guardian of the minor.
Penalty: $2 000.
(4) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (3) for the person charged to prove that the person believed on reasonable grounds that the minor was 15 years of age or older.
[Section 85 amended by No. 30 of 2003 s. 41(2).]
So until somebody can show me otherwise, I call this malarky and that the news reporter has only just read the original Act and made poor assumptions - yes, it means you're not allowed to DEMONSTRATE an MA 15+ game (ie on a TV etc), but that doesn't mean you can't DISPLAY it in its box on a shelf.
Linds
That should be '(which also already states there is a fine to sell an MA game to a minor):'
Linds seems to be correct. There are several "reputable" media sources reporting this story as is presented here, but if malarky it be, then I humbly retract cynical post #4 in relation to this subject.
Heh, everyone's got a persecution complex it seems.. We think we're under siege by game hating religious nuts, they think they're drowning in a sea of moral decay..
That's pretty much correct, pb. IMHO, neither "side" is really any different in that sense, nor do they lack justification; We *are* metaphorically under siege by game-hating religious nuts. They *are* metaphorically drowning in a sea of moral decay.
If you believe in one set of ideals, you accept the former, if you believe in another set of ideals, you accept the latter. It's inherently subjective.
Enough from me, I think; I don't want to spark a debate about Religion & Society.
TheBigJ - the most important thing with subjective arguments like this is to, above all, recognise the logic and the thought processes of both sides. The more dominant side of me suggests that censorship isn't the solution to the 'problem' of 'moral decay'. But the other side of me recognises that some people will lean towards the stop-gap measure of censorship as at least an easily implemented, and measurable, solution to the situation.
"Moral decay." That's funny, every time I hear that or something similar, especially from conservatives, I can't help but think of how corrupt they are themselves. Lack of censorship does not create "moral decay," strict censorship creates "moral decay," as you are choosing to either ignore the problem or to blame something else for society's problems. IMHO.
Except that without the Greens support, this thread wouldn't be here
Censorship is cool. No sex, but you can blow someone's brains out with a sniper riffle, plant explosives or rip someone's larynx with a dull rusty knife, out no worries.
Maitrek - The subjective element I was referring to in #11 was the belief in whether or not 'moral decay' exists at all, and if it does, who/what is behind it. My own subjective opinion seems to align more closely to that of CynicalFan's.
I do recognise and understand the logic presented by the 'side' that opposes my position; I simply disagree with it. I'm sure it all makes plenty of sense if you're open to religious dogma and indoctrination. Which I'm not.
Logic, in this context and IMHO, is only useful in maintaining the consistency of an argument when given a set of premises; it can't be used to evalutate the premises used by that argument if their truth values are unknowable. When we're talking about religion or metaphysics, most of these truth values are inherently unknowable. If you hold one set of premises, logic leads you to one conclusion; if you hold another set of premises, logic leads you to another conclusion. If the truth or falsity of these premises were deducable (by mankind), there wouldn't be so much debate amongst intellectuals.
My reasons for opposing censorship aren't lacking in an understanding of the logic of the other 'side'. These reasons are lacking in respect and sympathy. I oppose censorship because *my logic* tells me that all 'sides' should have a right to hold beliefs that others may/will disagree with. It is this same courtesy that I offer my intellectual opponents that they attempt to take from me. Why? Because *their logic* dictates that I should not be granted this courtesy.
How on Earth am I supposed to sympathise with the logic of a viewpoint, when that logic essentially dictates that I am unable and indeed, forbidden, to recognise or respect any other logic?
The ability to ascertain a solid conclusion is purely about the data set. If you have missing data (knowledge) then there can be no solid conclusion, no matter what logic is followed. Therin lies the issue with morality and ethics. As TheBigJ notes, though, many propogate religious dogma and their 'logic' that drives it as a moral pillar or some form of higher righteous law. It has always been that Christian movements often use their 'moral' stance to try and apply political pressure, and gain further political presence.
This is really no surprise.. and as is being seen in alot of sectors of our society, the christian dogmas are busy influencing many facets like politics, economy, justice, science and so on. Im sure you can all find examples occuring right now under our noses in each of those areas.. so to see something similar happening in entertainment should really not surprise anyone :)
Whoa talk about big ass tangent ;) Censorship and classification are two different things, however there is certainly an element of censorship in play in the classification process (ie no R18+ rating or above).
I wasn't putting words in your mouth or saying that you aren't thinking straight, but obviously you interpreted it that way.
I also wasn't saying you had to believe in *one* set of ideals in order to come to *one* logical conclusion regarding this debate. It's about understanding how you can fit either outcome (pro-censorship or anti-censorship) within your own ideals and accept it, and live with it.
It's not healthy to be forced to 'disagree' with a 'side' and live with a set of rules that you cannot, regarding your own terms, see both the positives and negatives.
I admit I do have an overly "functional" frame of mind.
Sorry bad english in the above comment :( bit tired after work today !
No, no. I wasn't lecturing you, Maitrek. Only the first two paragraphs were directed at you; the rest was just me expanding and extrapolating on what I said eariler. I didn't take offense, nor did I mean any. I'm sorry that it came across this way.
You make a good point here, though. It's the one I was attempting to address in my earlier post. I agree that it's about understanding how the sides can work together to make their opinions compatible. The question I've raised here, is whether this outcome is actually possible. Is it possible for two 'sides' to co-exist with viewpoints that are mutually exclusive? If not, what do you do about it? Do you take a 'side', or do you remain neutral? If you take a 'side', what makes you take one 'side' over the other?
If a given person sees both positives and negatives in each side, then that person will find it easier to retain a more neutral position, eg. recognising the 'moral decay' that results from a lack of censorship, yet also recognising negative political and social implications of censorship. My point is that this neutral position is not necessarily better, or more 'healthy' than one of the 'sides'. The neutral position requires a set of ideals, just as the others do. If you, like me, don't agree with the positive aspects of censorship, such as 'moral decay', then you'll have no reason to adopt a neutral position.
All I'm saying is that it's a very difficult problem because there are no right or wrong answers, and that any attitude along the lines of "this is the 'right' way or the 'healthy' way", whether it's extreme or neutral, has no rational basis. IMHO.
Edit to #20: "If you, like me, don't agree with the positive aspects of censorship, such as [protection from] 'moral decay', then you'll have no reason to adopt a neutral position."
"Censorship is vital. Just watch news reports about the war. What war?"
Curious, I never heard a word of complaint about censorship from anyone in the anti-war movement for 25 years whilst Saddam's government wiped out 10(percent) of the population (and sent another 20(percent) packing). The graphic descriptions in #10 were a reality on a much larger scale for that whole time.
Its only when America does bad things that you seem interested. There are far worse things going on in other parts of the world. What utter hypocracy it is to appeal to people's compassion to further a position that would have left a governement that turned torture into a mass industry in power.
I think it's important to separate what is a 'position' and the 'attitude' that you adopt in relation to that. Especially if it's about something relating to your professional (or semi-professional/amateur/hobbyists) pursuits. In this case, games making. Whilst from a purely consumer point of view, I would lobby for a better, more transparent classification process - and less censorship (ie adopt a anti-censorship position), from a game production semi-professional point of view I have to consider that I must do the best I can given the constraints that censorship/bodge classification impose on the process (ie adopt a neutral attitude).
Given this current argument about pro/anti-censorship, if you don't see any *positives* to censorship, then you simply have to find ways of communicating what you wish, even though you are constrained to some extent There have been plenty of cases where censorship itself has been challenged without resorting to offending the pro-censorship people - even though such tactics are often used, I personally think they are cheap and dumb.
It's just seems, to me, a little too simple to say 'I am anti-censorship'. You argue a good point that it can limit your ability to express yourself if taken to an extreme. But censorship isn't *just* about limiting freedom of expression. Censorship, is one method of dealing with the fears and doubts that a population faces. It has many levels of application, from not showing a child an open casket at a funeral, through to moderate deployment (classification of media), all the way to extreme application when used by a political body that is fearful of it's population, (then it becomes a method of control).
What you actually disagree with, is the use of censorship as a form of control, or any threat to your contact with primary information media, or as a limitation to the view that you may express.
Having said ALL of that, given this particular news item, I honestly don't see how not being able to *legally* demonstrate a MA15+ classified computer game warrants such a high-level debate about censorship. It neither limits your own personal expression, or limits your ability to obtain certain media, nor does it attempt to control your fears.
Glad I don't live in WA, poor pricks!
Haven't had a working internet connection since thursday, so I haven't had a chance to reply.
"What you actually disagree with, is the use of censorship as a form of control, or any threat to your contact with primary information media, or as a limitation to the view that you may express."
Precisely. I didn't explicitly define this to be the scope of my argument; I just thought we'd all assume that this was what we were talking about. Without getting too deep in etymology, the word 'censorship', really just means limiting or preventing sensitive information that would be recieved by a certain audience. There *are* scenarios in which I feel that this is acceptible; the child at the funeral is a good example, and I will add that I'm the first person to criticise commercial news outlets for releasing sensitive information that puts people in danger (eg. leaked classified documentation). However, when I say that "I'm opposed to censorship", especially if I say it on a game development website, in a thread about games censorship, I think it's pretty clear what I'm referring to.
"Having said ALL of that, given this particular news item, I honestly don't see how not being able to *legally* demonstrate a MA15+ classified computer game warrants such a high-level debate about censorship."
It doesn't. If you look back at posts #1 - #8, you'll notice that we were originally going on the premise that in WA, MA15+ games now had to be stocked out of public view and couldn't be advertised in shop windows. It was Linds that cleared up this mistake in the news article. It was my (incorrect) assumption that this news article was accurate that led me to make my comment in #4 which, btw, was not intended to be taken very seriously (furthermore, I later retracted when I deemed it inappropriate). The reason we ended up in a high-level debate about censorship is because this thread was originally about censorship, not classification. As far as I can see, the progression is quite logical.
I mostly agree with what you've said, Maitrek. My main point was simply that I don't believe there's anything inherently 'wrong' with holding an anti-censorship position, nor is there anything inherently 'wrong' with holding a pro-censorship posiiton. I believe I'm open to many ideas and perspectives; I may choose one perspective over another, yet I don't believe this should be interpreted as a dismissal of the intentions, logic or thought processes of the alternative perspective.