Violent video game bill passes Utah House

[Skar]

Excellent question.  I know there are biblical scholars who can demonstrate that the sins of Soddam and Gomorrah were not just sexual in nature but that a big part of it was violence.  In the Book of Mormon there are many examples that show that violence in and of itself is not sinful but doing it for the wrong reasons or "glorifying in it" is.

I can't answer the question and am looking forward to seeing other people's thoughts on it.  But the justification I use for watching violent movies but avoiding pornographic ones is that violence is faked and porn isn't.  That doesn't address, at all, the question of whether fake violence affects me any differently than the real stuff would... but that's what I tell myself.

Sitting here thinking about it I find it interesting that the media, generally, encourages people to actually go out and have promiscuous sex but we have laws against minors viewing pornagraphy.  While, at the same time, the media generally deplores people actually going out and blowing other people's heads off but we don't have many laws in place against minors viewing violence.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

One reason might be that violence has a longer history in our society than Pornography does. Actual porn, Graphic images and such only became feasible to distribute after the advent of the camera or printing press (though cottage industries in france and england did a brisque trade in naughty ankle pictures prior to the camera.)

Violence has been celebrated in society and accesible all the way back to prehistory. You dont need a camera to see violence, though it is less common in society these days. After all when did you see a cockfight last, or a real fist fight. All you need is to go to the Hockey Rink or Football field. Keep in mind certain types of violence are still considered "manly" take Boxing for instance, or football.

Now to play devils advocate and take Ents argument a step further, what is Pornography? Is David by Michaelangelo considered porn due to its focus on the nude human form? If it isn't then why is Playboy (which has no graphic sex) considered porn?

[Fellfrosch]

To answer Mustard's question in part, the US restricts porn more heavily than violence simply because it is far more taboo in our culture than violence is. In Europe they put on billboards what the US will hide behind the counter of seedy drug stores.

On a similar note, I remember reading an article about a movie that got slapped with an NC-17 rating because it ended with a sex scene; the director took it back, reshot a new ending in which the couple were instead savagely murdered with a chainsaw, and the ratings board gave it an R (for those outside the US, R is far more lenient than NC-17).

As to why we're so much more prudish about sex than violence, I couldn't tell you. I can say agree with you, however, that I'd prefer us to be more prudish about violence rather than less prudish about sex.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I have to vote with Fell here. and I love the irony that Skar brings up.

I don't know that porn doesn't have such an ancient history. There's plenty of erotic art from the 18th century and further back. No, they didn't have pictures, but they drew it a lot. and we're not just talking ankle pictures. Go ahead and poke fun at our predecessors a century or two ago for being prudish, but they weren't, even in the Victorian era (famous for being prudish). Prostitution was a much more acceptable trade and employing a prostitute hasn't always had quite the negative connotation it does now.

Anyway, which is a worse sin? Murder or rape? I don't know that I can actually call that one, murder cuts off your chance to do anything else in your life but rape has some savage consequences. I know people who are way screwed up and can't think of much else besides how they were molested previously. I don't know any murder victims, but I imagine on the other side they have their psychological issues too.

In the long run, I'm for the regulation, just not badly formed regulation.

[42]

There's actually a long history of porn, particularly among the ancient Romans before they were crushed by barbarians. And many art historians do consider a lot of ancient greek and roman art to be porn. Many also consider some artists from the renaissance and 18th century to be purveyor of porn. It's one of those topics that art historians argue a lot about. To be fair, anyone has a right to take any work of art and say it is porn.

watched predator, Terminator 1& 2 and a number of other violent movies before I was 12. Ditto with playing Doom.  

I've yet to kill anyone, to the best of my knowledge.

That's a faulty argument. You are just one person and are not a representative sample of how others might react. People have different libidos and different levels of aggression.

So one person views porn and doesn't commit any crimes. Another person views the same porn and then rapes women and molests children. On a societal level, is the rape and abuse of the victims an acceptable price for the freedom to view porn?

What we do know, nearly all sex offenders have habitually viewed porn at some point before commiting their crimes. We know the thoughts people have correspond with their behavior. We know that the thought people have can change their body chemistry and structure of their brain.

On an individual level, it not logically correct to say that every person who views porn will become sex offenders. But some will. There are many variables involved, such as any personality disorders they might have, social situation, mental illness, physical problems, and opportunity. It's a multifaceted problem. Yet, if you can reduce any variable, such as the availibility of porn, then the problem will be reduced.

[Entsuropi]

In Europe they put on billboards what the US will hide behind the counter of seedy drug stores.

*nods happily*

[Archon]

the problem with saying, "Yeah there should be enforcement, but not by the government" is that you are in the same sentence saying there *should* be enforcement, but we aren't going to provide any, anywhere. The fact is, there are bad parents. But game industry supporters sitting around saying "it's not my fault! It's bad parents!" is just as hypocritical as parents not doing anything about it.

I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think you could call that hypocrisy in this case. You are saying that it is hypocrisy for someone to say that someone should clean up the streets, and then not pick up the garbage that they see. Though they don't have a responsibility to start, they gain one by saying that someone should. However, this situation is different. Not only is it not the government's responsibility, it is not their right. By passing this law, it is like taking everyone you see and forcing them to pick up garbage, whether they littered or not. Obviously, most of these people will not appreciate being forced into this, and although you will have cleaned up the litter, you will have done so at the expense of their freedom to choose their own actions. In certain cases, this is deemed a necessary evil in order to protect citizens from theft or bodily harm. However, to keep people from the media is a different story. This is not like killing, or stealing, as I hope everyone agrees. Therefore, the government has no excuse to interfere with the way people live their lives. Do I think kids should be given porn? No. Do I think that they should be allowed to watch movies, or play games with excessive violence in them? Not until they are ready. But like Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Like I already pointed out, if a child can not rely on their parents to guide them in decisions as basic as this, then they will most likely have to make their own decisions about drugs, gangs, and such. Trying to limit their access to certain video games seems pretty superfluous at that point. You may get them out of the pot, but if they survive the fire, they would have survived the pot anyway.

Fell:

That's what laws do--they stop you from doing something and by doing so improve the quality of life for you and everyone else.

I would like to note that that is what they are supposed to do, but that usually isn't what they do, especially in this day and age.

but this is a case where I really think that society (ie, parents) are just not doing their job. If we are willing to make laws that keep violence and sex away from children when they come in movie and magazine form, I think we should be willing to do the same when they come in video games.

I agree that many parents aren't doing their jobs. And that is unfortunate. And I feel bad for the children who grow up with bad parenting. Be that as it may, the children still decide for themselves who they want to be. And if they grow up to be violent criminals, that is even worse. But that is more prominent in families with bad parenting, with or without video games or magazines. And think about this, if the parents are irresponsible enough to allow their children material that is not appropriate, isn't it likely that they will be irresponsible enough to provide an accessible source for exposure to sex and violence? A horror movie left in the VCR. A stack of Playboys under the bed. I would think it pretty likely. Sad, but these kids have to make choices that lead them to become the adults they want to become. They are going to have to grow up quickly. I am sure that many of them grow up to become regular people who are nice enough. That is wonderful for them, and it is their responsibility that they got there. If they make choices that make them into a murderer or a rapist, that is their responsibility too.
42:

That's a faulty argument. You are just one person and are not a representative sample of how others might react. People have different libidos and different levels of aggression.

So one person views porn and doesn't commit any crimes. Another person views the same porn and then rapes women and molests children. On a societal level, is the rape and abuse of the victims an acceptable price for the freedom to view porn?

42, two things. A) If a person is fragile enough to be set off by something like that, then they are going to be set off. It is only a matter of when. There is no way that you can shield a person from being exposed to this sort of thing forever, especially if they aren't being protected by their parents. B) Many people are being killed every day by people who believe that they are killing for their religion. If we decided, as a society, to outlaw the sale of Bibles and Korans there would be far fewer killings. Is it our responsibility to outlaw Bibles and Korans?

[42]

It boils down to the fact that we are all fallible. If we all did what was best all the time, if we were all perfect, than we wouldn't have to have all the laws that we have. But we can't seem to govern ourselves.

You would think people would be intelligent and have enough social awareness to not do things like bring guns into schools, murder children, or rape women. Obviously not, so we have laws against those things.

Anyways, you can find some crime stats aaaaat: nationmaster

The U.S. and the U.K. are violent places to live.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think you could call that hypocrisy in this case. You are saying that it is hypocrisy for someone to say that someone should clean up the streets, and then not pick up the garbage that they see. Though they don't have a responsibility to start, they gain one by saying that someone should. However, this situation is different. Not only is it not the government's responsibility, it is not their right. By passing this law, it is like taking everyone you see and forcing them to pick up garbage, whether they littered or not.

The problem with this analogy is that you are saying that since you don't wnat to force people to do it, you should have an institutionalized system to do it (we do in fact have that.

I agree. Since people aren't taking care of things on there own, we have no where else to turn but to the government.

Your essential argument (I know that the above isn't what you meant, so let's not go down that path) is that the government shouldn't try to stop everything from going to hell. And since people can choose to make society go to hell on their own, we shouldn't try to stop them. And they're going to do it anyway, so we shouldn't try.

That sounds incredibly pessimistic and blase about societal ills. If that's not how you feel (because it *is* what you're arguing) what do you suggest we do about these problems if we don't have any sort of restriction on it?

42, two things. A) If a person is fragile enough to be set off by something like that, then they are going to be set off. It is only a matter of when. There is no way that you can shield a person from being exposed to this sort of thing forever, especially if they aren't being protected by their parents.

Wrong. It's not a question of fragility. Nor is anyone destined to do something just because they have a predisposition to do it. We are helping to remove influences that would push them to a predisposition, thus enabling them to avoid it in the first place.

B) Many people are being killed every day by people who believe that they are killing for their religion. If we decided, as a society, to outlaw the sale of Bibles and Korans there would be far fewer killings. Is it our responsibility to outlaw Bibles and Korans?

That's extremely unlikely. There were more deaths due to religious strife before religious books were commonly available. In fact, the more educated the population gets about the source of their religion, the less likely they are to go along with violent enforcement of that religion. Thus mandatory enforcement of things like LDS seminary or Catholic Catechism would actually reduce violence. I'm not saying it would eliminate. There are still those crackpots who think they should bomb abortion clinics. But on the whole, most religious violence comes from groups where only a few are well educated in their theology and seek to control an uneducated population.

So no, removing religious texts wouldn't help. But restricting violent and pornographic material would.

[Fellfrosch]

I see where you're going, Archon, and I agree with a lot of it, but in the end I think your arguments really do boil down to fatalism--we can't protect kids from harmful influences, so we shouldn't try. I simply don't believe that. If I have misinterpreted you, please set me straight.

[Skar]

What I take from Archon's arguments is that VideoGames are not the root of the problem.  Parents who don't do their jobs are.  So rather than treating a symptom we should be trying to cure the disease.  That's a sticky wicket though because, in this case, curing the disease would involve mucking about with parent's freedoms, namely, the freedom to be irresponsible with their children and/or deciding for them what is and is not irresponsible.  What is needed is a societal shift toward honor and duty rather than convenience and indulgence.  How do you promote that shift?  I have no idea.

I think what Archon is saying is that making it illegal to distribute violent video games to minors is like mopping the floor of the bathroom without turning off the faucet on the overflowing sink.  Sure you're cleaning up the water;  you're getting lots into the bucket, but...it's kind of pointless.

I don't agree one-hundred percent because I think violent video games are damaging to young children in the same way that porn and cigarettes are (long term addictive/desensitizing effect) but who says I'm so right that it's worth using the government to enforce it?  As far as I'm aware there aren't any convincing studies that demonstrate the detrimental effects, like there are with porn and cigarettes.

[JenaRey]

There are a good number of studies in process on the nature of violence, particulariliy as it relates to video games, but nothing solid has been returned.

Both violence and sexuality are slippery paths because they are both of dual natures as has been discussed here.  IE:  When is violence defensive vs offensive and when is the nude figure art vs porn?  I think there is a good amount of responsibility that has to be placed on the shoulders of the parents to regulate what is brought into the  home and how their children are trained to respond to such issues.  However, in my opinion, putting appropriate ratings in place and legislating sales according to those ratins is appropriate and a step in the right direction.  I still don't think it should be upto the government to define the values of our young people, but it doesn't have to be made any easier to accquire inappropriate materials either.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I tacitly agree with that, but what happens when the punishment is totally above and beyond the nature of the crime. I mean honestly is selling a video game the same as possesion of cocaine? Or aggrevated assualt?  The punisment has to be reasonable too. I mean I used to work in a convience store, accidentally selling beer to a minor (which can happen even when you check an ID) is only a 500 dollar fine and a misdemeanor on first offense. Im cool with that, as the penalty gos up with repeated violations. If the penalty were $1000 to $5000 dollars, a felony conviction and possible jail time on a first offense then Id fight that tooth and claw. Essentially as I read it that is the sentencing guideline, and its patently ridiculous. In addition the owner of the store won't be accepting any responsibility for selling said games, because he's going to hold a 3 minute meeting for his staff and just say dont do it. What will happen is that some clerk will hurry, not check an ID and get busted by an undercover cop in a sting. It happens all the time in the convienence store world for alcohol. I havent met a clerk yet who would willingly sell beer or wine to a minor, but accidents happen. I also know that the clerk usually gets fired when that happens (because a store isnt willing to chance its liquor liscense). But since it isnt a felony the clerk can usually get another job. Getting a job with a felony conviction on your record is almost impossible. You cant join the military, or work for the federal government. Most people see felony and immediately shut their ears to the cause. they think that said person is a liability. If you leave out your conviction and it comes up in a background check,... fired. So its a choice of working low paying crap jobs with other hoods, or spending thousands of dollars you dont have to get it rescinded. And even then you may not be able to do it.

Felony charges are outrageous, and given the broadness of the definition of violence everyone in utah should be outraged. Frankly its a crappy law and apparently written by idiots.

I Mean the CSI computer game falls under those guidelines or super mario brothers, or pac man (after all he eats all those ghost people).

Im not saying the game industry shouldnt be regulated, but its hardly a hop from forbidding the sale of Video games to minors, to forbidding selling D&D novels to kids, or Roleplaying games and miniature games. Or Comics, because lets face it most male boys play spiderman or superman and have seen a comic at one point. Why just focus on video games and not TV shows. Children are far more likely to emulate violence seen on TV. I dont know how many kids hurt themselves pretending to be ninja turtles but there sure were a lot more painful playtimes in my neighborhood when the cartoon was released. Frankly I think a law this focused on one industry is not only short sighted but deluded and misinformed. Certain types of media are apparently appropriate for violence, while others arent. I dont think I can say it enough to focus on one industry in the face of violence in dozens of others is just wrong.

[JenaRey]

I also think for the small stores in the industry this kind of legislation would be a kiss of doom, since it would mean running the risk of getting snagged on a huge violation if somehow IDs weren't checked, or just deciding not to carry the games at all.  The later is possible, but so many of the top selling games have at least a T rating that these shops would have to be able to suck up the financial loss of not having the games on the shelf.  It's not a pretty choice for game sellers, since the game publishers aren't being fined for creating the content, just the resellers that distribute it.  Also, how do you regulate internet sales?  Does a parent get hit with the punishment if their child purchases a violent game from a website that is outside of the state?  Or is that just a loophole around the issue, further taking business from local gamestores and causing more problems?

[Archon]

I have a lot of homework to do, so I can't really provide the thorough answer that I would like to right now, but I would like to touch on a couple things.

To SE: In regard to the question of religion, I tend to disagree. Yes, there was a lot of religious warfare, the Crusades being a prime example. But, I think that more people have been killed after the popularization of the printing press. I am hesitant to use the Holocaust as an example, because in that case the Jews were more of an ethnic group, but in the Middle East right now, in Ireland there is the Protestants and the Catholics, etc. And I think there is a difference today. The prime reason I said that there would be less killings is that conversions to those religions would be severely hampered. If people do not have access to the religious texts of these religions, it is far less likely for them to join those religions, thereby adding another body, and possibly countless more in later generations, that might later take part in these conflicts.

The problem with this analogy is that you are saying that since you don't wnat to force people to do it, you should have an institutionalized system to do it (we do in fact have that.

No, we don't. We have an institution that forces other people to do it. And that is not better, in fact it is worse, because whereas people can fight against someone like me trying to tell them to do something, you can't fight against our government.

We are helping to remove influences that would push them to a predisposition, thus enabling them to avoid it in the first place.

But SE, you are missing the point I am trying to make. Some people are not seriously affected by these things. Some are. Therefore, I should think that it would follow that these people would have a predisposition to be affected. Something in their person reacts to what they are seeing. And that is going to happen sooner or later anyway. The only way to stop them from being affected would be to take away the thing in their person which would be affected, which would be difficult. In effect, the only person who could achieve that through humane means would be the person themselves.

As a sidenote, I freely admit to being blase. I don't have a whole lot of faith in humanity, and I think that our society is very close to toeing its way over some very dangerous lines.
To Jena:

Both violence and sexuality are slippery paths because they are both of dual natures as has been discussed here.  IE:  When is violence defensive vs offensive and when is the nude figure art vs porn?

So who should decide? Would you really trust our government to decide that for you?

To Fell: I don't think the government can. I do think that the parents, and, if not the parents, then other people close to the child can. This means grandparents, teachers, and especially friends. Among others, but you get the idea.
To anyone I missed, sorry. If you really want me to answer a question or respond to something, refer me back to it.