Grand Theft Auto under fire

[House of Mustard]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/23/technology/grandtheft.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

It's the same old 'the game made me do it' argument, but law experts say they might actually win this time.

[Tage]

Here's my argument against that:
Crazy people are going to be crazy, and there's not much you can do about it. Maybe when they go nuts they'll mimic a game, or a movie, or a book, or a war story their grandfather told them. Whatever. Either way, you shouldn't sue creative people for inspiring uncreative people who also happen to have no hold on reality. People are responsible for their own actions.

[Fellfrosch]

Who are these "law experts," and what are their grounds for thinking the suit will win? It seems just as frivolous as all the other suits.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

Heh, thanks for the heads up Tage. Note to self: Do something creative when going crazy/insane.

[House of Mustard]

No idea who the legal experts are, or why they said it.

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

Just a question.

Are you arguing that the information a "creative person" puts out there has no impact or influence on the person who reads/views/plays?

[wolverine_men]

Everyday so many violent movies are unleashed on to the so called innocent public. Don't you feel that people have already been desanitised to all the violence and gore. Do you really believe that pixelated gore is going to make any real difference when there is enough reel life stuff to do that. LOL at the LAW EXPERTS.

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

so you are saying that it doesn't affect people at ALL? in ANY way?

[Prometheus]

I had mixed feelings when I heard about this new 'the computer game made me do it' debacle. My fast-twitch reaction was actually quite positive, as I despise Grand Theft Auto 3 and it's ilk (note to avoid unnecessary arguments: I didn't say it was a bad game.) and would be happy if I never saw another game like it again.

On the other hand, I feel that the basis for the lawsuit is without merit, as much as the one filed recently against the NFL due to the actions of a drunken fan.

I was also disturbed to think of the implications a successful lawsuit might have on th video game industry. Yes, I would rather see a swing away from some of the worst offenders, such as GTA3, but if legal precedent was set for game-makers being responsible for the actions of their viewers, what sort of games would be 'safe' to make for a manufacturer. The kids with the rifle could have named Starcraft or a host of other games as their inspiration just as easily as GTA3.

While I disagree with the assertion that a game company should be held responsible for the acts of those who play it (something out of their control) I don't think they should be left totally unaccountable for what their games inspire, (something they DO have control over) though. Where does the line fall and how do you make it work? Beats me.

[wolverine_men]

Have you seen the movie Ravenous?  If you haven’t do so today. It’s got a million times more violence and disgusting gory scenes than even Postal. No one tried to censor it. That movie can easily inspire anyone to become a Cannibal. At least anyone who claims that he can be negatively inspired by a video game. The solution lies in endorsing a stricter rating policy and making sure that the games don’t fall into wrong hands in the first place. Parents can also contribute a great deal by monitoring their children’s gaming habits.

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

ok, Prometheus' post has convinced me to tell you my thoughts.

I think you'd be absolutely ignorant to claim that ANYTHING you read, watch, listen to, or play has no effect on you. of course it does. If not, than it's not communication. If it's not communication, then there's a VERY good argument that it's not protected by free speech. In which case, any town with a population of 5 yokels and a sheep can pass a law calling it illegal and yes, you'd go to jail for playing it in their town.

HOwever, yes, it IS speech and communication, and therefore protected by the Constitution. For that reason, I hope the suit fails. On the other hand, I agree with prometheus, I don't care about the game play, it's a sick sick game that glorifies really disturbing behavior and convinces you it's fun. I would like to see less of that too. I dont' worry that much about violence, but I like to have at least a cover story that the violence is justified and not just for kicks or money.

yes, I'm sure that "Helter Skelter" agitated Charles Manson, I'm sure that GTA3 agitated some teenagers. I'm sure that lots of movies and songs and games have influenced people into decisions that were anti-social (such as Mein Kampf). Media DOES have that influence. This is WHY communication is protected explicitly in the U.S. Constitution: not because it's harmless and ineffective, but because it influences and alters. Games like GTA3 (and granted, I've not played it, but I've never had anyone even try to argue that it has some other ultimate point) are simply making it look like fun to commit violent crimes. what other influence could such a communication have than to encourage you to do such a thing?

Now, two more things before I get flamed.
1) I still side on the free speech of this issue. Even though a victory for the game will encourage other disgusting games, I think restricting the Constitutional right in this case will cause much more harm than good.
2) Remember the monocausationalism discussion? Just as it is foolish to think that GTA3 had nothing to do with changing the mood or ideas of the kids who play it, it's equally foolish to say that the game is the only thing responsible for such behavior. It clearly isn't. There are hundreds of other factors, and at least dozens that are as equally influential as their electronic entertainment. the media and the "law experts" need to stop trying to find quick and easy solutions for societal ills or they're just going to magnify them.

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

Have you seen the movie Ravenous?  If you haven't do so today.

I don't see how seeing a MORE sickening film has anything to do with the impact a game has on the mind of the player. If the argument is that all people have become more desensitized than the capacity a game has to influence, I think you're very wrong. It may be the case in a few select cases of people you know and people like them, but it's not the case with teh public at large.

[wolverine_men]

I just feel that people who don't like such games should avoid them. But there are people who enjoy playing such games because they find them fun and they know that they won't wake up the next morning and start shooting at people. They play it just beacuse they take it for what it really is-just a videogame. They don't translate their actions from the games into real life. There is a way around this problem and I've already mentioned it. Stricter rules governing the rating system and a sense of responsibility among grownups who presently think that raising their kids is the duty of somebody else. By the way- The game America's Army was released By the US Army-which by the way is a govt organisation. I think it involved just as much killing if not more than GTA3.
So if you don't like something just don't play it, but please don't expect others to change their likes and dislikes to meet your approval.

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

You're missing every single point of my argument, so here's a recap:

a) video games DO affect behavior, however
b) they are not the sole factor in that determination
c) it doesn't have much to do with the level of violence, it's how the violence and it's causes and consequences are portrayed.
d) no one ever said anything about making you change your tastes, I don't know why you even think that's an issue

However, to address the "rating" system, I think that's a vain attempt at trying to nod at something being done. All sorts of teenagers have access to pornography, despite a strong rating system, and not just on the Web, but in videos and magazines. Same with alcohol and drugs.

[wolverine_men]

Well then some other measures should be taken to restrict access to such games. Banning the game companies from making such games is not a real solution either.
I think some people are afraid to take sides on this matter just to avoid the risk of sounding politically incorrect so to speak. On one had ppl say that such games exert bad  influence on the society and on the other they feel that if ppl commit a crime under their influence(if such a thing is possible), then the agents propagating and developing such media should be allowed to go scott-free. I think that perfectly defines hypocrasy. Just make up your mind ppl- which side are u?