Violence Warnings on Video Games May Harm Free Speech

I'm not against this, as long as they aren't messing with the content. a simple sticker or print on a cardboard sleeve (so it won't further ruin the game case aesthetics) would suffice I would think.

The only reason I agree with this bill is because my wife's cousin apparently bought GTA IV for her son, who was much younger than either of my sons at the time, and neither of them were even allowed to play the game.

When my wife asked her cousin about the decision, my cousin replied, "Yeah, I didn't know that game would be so violent. They should put labels on the box or something." ... My wife then pointed out the label on the front which clearly said there was violence (among other things) in the game, then she pointed out the area on the back where it described the type of violence in greater detail. Although both sections were clearly labeled, and looked completely different than the rest of the box-art, somehow her cousin clearly overlooked it.

Now, I don't think she is as stupid as she lets on. I just think she either didn't care to look at the game while buying it, or she really doesn't care what games her kid plays. A large label on retail packages would at-least nullify her current excuse, and show her that she's actually a parent who doesn't really care about that sort of thing. So now the blame could be rightfully placed on her, and not the game.
 
I really don't care what they do with boxes... I havent' bought a boxed game in ages... as long as they don't require in-game warnings like "The following sequence contains interactive graphic violence. Press X to continue or Y to quit." That's where I draw the line
 
The science that purportedly supports the idea behind the warning label is simply insufficient by any reasonable standard. I have my doubts that it will pass for this reason. However, I can't put anything past this Congress and whatever the politicians think may be a nice talking point for them to excite their base in an election year.

Before they put warning labels on tobacco products they had mountains of peer-reviewed studies detailing the inescapable correlation between use of nicotine and various cancers that were much less common among non-tobacco users, and an even stronger correlation between long-term smoking and heart disease and a variety of lung diseases when compared to the general population. And even with all that evidence, the big tobacco companies lobbied Congress hard to kill the warning label, tried to get it thrown out in the courts, and failing that, tried for years to water the warning down so as not to lose customers who may be deterred by heath concerns.

And unlike with entertainment products, the warnings on tobacco products had no practical impact on free speech. What impact is there on speech, I have seen some posters question? It is a textbook case of the "chilling effect."

The warning label, by itself, can't stop people from buying and playing the game. But it could have a number of consequences that could end up being a barrier to acquiring the game in the first place. For example, retail stores selling video games can come under pressure from various groups to not stock games with such a label, just as they have for games with the AO label. Some states or local governments may decide to enact laws that target those titles the feds put the violent warning label on. Since the proposed language of the warning states that the title may cause a deleterious change in behavior in those playing it -- specifically "aggressive" behavior which by its nature can violently impact real people in the real world -- it is easy to come up with a justification for a "public heath policy" that bans games with this label. (Remember, senior citizens always vote, and much of the older generations do not understand a lot about video games, and can therefore be more easily swayed by demagogic politicians on this issue.)

This is just like the MPAA using the NC-17 rating on a film: the rating can't stop you from watching the film, IF you can find a theater that doesn't have a blanket policy against showing NC-17 rated movies (good luck). You can always wait for it to come out on disc, but this will certainly cause the film to do much less business than had it been rated R and shown in wide release. This, in turn, can give a studio a powerful incentive not to green-light another film that might get an NC-17 "kiss-of-death" rating. That is the "chilling effect": self-censorship to avoid the hassle and expense of potential official censorship. The more likely the self-appointed morality cops who rate entertainment products will put up a stink (certain subject matters, certain artistic choices that may not conform to "mainstream values," etc.) the more likely the calculation will be made by the publisher not to risk it. This is how free speech (political opinion, social commentary, artistic expression, et al) can be impacted by laws such as this. It encourages "safer" titles that appeal to a more mainstream audience, so as to avoid being branded by the warning label.

One salient difference between the MPAA ratings and this proposed new law: the MPAA ratings are "voluntary" and the film industry polices itself. There is no Federal law that requires film ratings or warning labels on movies, no matter how violent they are. For this reason, if the bill does pass both Houses, and if it is signed by the President, I am confident it will still be struck down as unconstitutional in the courts.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
kinjo said:
2. This label must also be placed on everything else people buy that has been linked to aggressive behavior I.E Sports cars, Motor cycles, Alcohol, Rap/Rock/Heavy Metal Music, action movies, PPV wrestling and UFC fights, and all equipment for contact sports football boxing hockey etc..... and well you get the idea as the list could literally go on for ever.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the real problem here. We shouldn't treat videogames differently than every other form of media/entertainment, just because the old farts in charge of legislating this stuff don't understand videogames and view them as "dangerous".

This happens with every new form of media though. Even novels were considered a corrupting influence that would make young people too lazy/anti-social. Videogames are very mainstream nowadays, but the legislators are always lagging way behind public opinion. The average senator right now is 62 years old, so it's not really that surprising that they don't understand videogames or the internet.

It's also really hypocritical that we have military recruiters in our high schools, yet those same students are "in danger" from video games? That's about as absurd a juxtaposition as I can imagine.
 
COD games don't need that. They need a big red sign that says "DO NOT BUY THIS FOR YOUR NINE YEAR OLD, IT'S M-RATED YOU DUMB FUCK"
 
I don't see a big deal with this. Not like this is forcing a person to show their age or anything like that -- all those failed miserably did they not?
 
They might as well just affix a sticker that says "Only buy games with this sticker" on it.
 
Don't games with "this contains lots of forbidden bad stuff" make people want them 10x more? Has telling "children" they can't have something ever prevented them from having it or wanting it?
 
Am I the only one who noticed that all games rated E or above would require this sticker. So, apparently, titles such as:
* Just Dance 3
* uDraw: Disney Princesses
* Wheel of Fortune
* Rapala Tournament Fishing
will have to carry this label

Apparently, the wording on the bill is so terrible that a fishing game will have to be labeled as being linked to aggressive behavior. It's one thing to try to keep a 6 year old kid from playing GTA, it's another to attempt to paint almost every computer and console game ever made with the same brush, especially since the evidence linking video games and violence is as debatable as it is currently.
 
Velox said:
Apparently, the wording on the bill is so terrible that a fishing game will have to be labeled as being linked to aggressive behavior.
Click to expand...

Well... you are physically harming/abusing/killing animals...for fun. Which has been linked to serial killers. :p
 
a company should not be forced to label their product that might harm sales, based on inconclusive data.

it cannot be said as a matter of fact that games cause increased violent tendencies, versus any other form of entertainment.

this is pure nanny state, censorship.

the label systems dont work, music ratings did what? cigarette labels? we have been labeling games for years, yet it wont die. its the parents job to use the current label system to determine if their kids should play it, and still the parent allow them to play it. its up to the parent to raise a good person, not the government nor our tax dollars.

people are just looking for something to blame for their own failures when it comes to raising a child.

the asshats in the government just feel the need to pass more and more laws whether useful or not, to seem like they accomplish anything at all.. and here we sit floundering in economic failure.
 
FurbySlayer said:
a company should not be forced to label their product that might harm sales

the label systems dont work, music ratings did what? cigarette labels?QUOTE]
just to be clear, major retailers' profits *increased* with music ratings. Walmart and Target, among others, were supporters of labeling and their core shoppers wanted it, too.

Cigarrette labeling has resulted in decreased teenage smoking and overall deaths linked to cancer. Smoking is currently trending downward in this country and it's in no small part to limiting the manner and amount of advertising about it.
Click to expand...
 
Forget free speech, that is just a blatant lie!

Games are millions of times less likely to cause violence or aggressive behavior than eating or speaking. Writing that smoking can cause lung cancer on cigarettes is perfectly accurate, but you can't just make shit up.
 
We should ban roads to, i have to cross a few every day on foot and i mite get hit by a car and die, it even has a much higher chance of happening than someone playing a game and then deciding to shoot me because he was inspired by it
 
Also there's the "chances of being murdered" vs "chances of dying in a traffic accident" statistics. Yet there are no warnings on films/games with dangerous driving on them, much more likely to kill you.

Or on army recriutment ads: "joining the armed forces involves a high likelyhood of other people trying to kill you/mutilate you with deadly weapons". :p
 
Good, violent video games inspire violence.

After playing Super Mario as a kid, I started emulating them and jumping on my friends heads causing various spinal injuries and concussions.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children, PLEASE!
 
I want to see more boobies in games.
Closest thing to that was the gogo dancer in AvP and the 2 chicks giving duke a bj in the demo lol
 
Dreaz said:
how does that harm free speech?
Click to expand...

Because it's unfair and dangerous for the government to single out a particular medium like this.

I'm not a constitution worshiping libertard, but I do believe that when it comes to free speech it's all or nothing. You wouldn't want the government to be able to label books, music, websites, or TV shows like this. They don't even have scientific evidence to back their claims in this case.
 
All this in an effort to curb behaviours that should have been addressed by HELLO the clueless PARENTS.

Fricking wankers. I weep for this country of lowest common denominators and one size fits all mentality.
 
Stayfr0sty said:
I want to see more boobies in games.
Closest thing to that was the gogo dancer in AvP and the 2 chicks giving duke a bj in the demo lol
Click to expand...

You're playing the wrong 2 games! Seriously, there are loads and loads of games with bare mammaries. Skyrim/fallout 3/NV/Oblivion have them with almost any HD skin texture/model update (the skyrim nexus has a whole "adult" section). Most games have some kind of "nude" patch/skins that come up a gazzilion times when looking for mods (usually you see a game and it's got one mod...which is a nude something! :p). Or even just porn games have been around since forever.

A few "mainstream" games have them in too, older games like messiah and giants: citizen kabuto. Even console games like Dantes inferno have completely naked peoples (not just the giant mutated vajayjay people, theres normal people too, it's in a demo), so does God of war. :p
 
I am getting laid off in a month...Twins on the way... stressed to the nine's trying to find another job to support my family, but hey, lets put a big honking label on Video Games because they feature violence. That's the kind of thing I want to hear my government spending money and time on when my ass is getting outsourced.....to India...
 
I guess the "Rated M" for mature isn't enough. Should we also do this for movies?

This movie may contain violence, nudity, and bad language.
 
I'm waiting for a game designer to come out with a game where the cover art is just a skull and crossbones and the text says "don't play this, it will kill you"

They'll probably get at least $40 out of me.
 
Project_Nightmare said:
Actually it has been proven that video games do not cause violent behavior.
Click to expand...

This is in no way a scientific study, but I find that playing violent video games helps reduce my stress level, which in turn reduces the possibility of me going postal. I'm surrounded by morons on a daily basis. Punching them all in the face, as much as they deserve it, would still be a crime :(

+1 to this:
...how come I wanna fuck a girl after watching pr0n ?
Click to expand...
and
...do you wanna fuck a girl after masturbating?
Click to expand...
The second time is so much better anyway ;)
 
Nside said:
I'm not against this, as long as they aren't messing with the content. a simple sticker or print on a cardboard sleeve (so it won't further ruin the game case aesthetics) would suffice I would think.

The only reason I agree with this bill is because my wife's cousin apparently bought GTA IV for her son, who was much younger than either of my sons at the time, and neither of them were even allowed to play the game.

When my wife asked her cousin about the decision, my cousin replied, "Yeah, I didn't know that game would be so violent. They should put labels on the box or something." ... My wife then pointed out the label on the front which clearly said there was violence (among other things) in the game, then she pointed out the area on the back where it described the type of violence in greater detail. Although both sections were clearly labeled, and looked completely different than the rest of the box-art, somehow her cousin clearly overlooked it.

Now, I don't think she is as stupid as she lets on. I just think she either didn't care to look at the game while buying it, or she really doesn't care what games her kid plays. A large label on retail packages would at-least nullify her current excuse, and show her that she's actually a parent who doesn't really care about that sort of thing. So now the blame could be rightfully placed on her, and not the game.
Click to expand...

If the cousin heard about the game GTA, he'd have known it was a violent game. Nobody hears about GTA and think it's about flowers and butterflies and kitty cats. Her cousin was trying to play the role of the "cool uncle" and it backfired on him.
 
Youn said:
I really don't care what they do with boxes... I havent' bought a boxed game in ages... as long as they don't require in-game warnings like "The following sequence contains interactive graphic violence. Press X to continue or Y to quit." That's where I draw the line
Click to expand...

Actually Steam warns you that a game is for mature audience before you buy it or even load the game's description on its GUI. They ask you for your birth date before you proceed.
 
mope54 said:
Cigarrette labeling has resulted in decreased teenage smoking and overall deaths linked to cancer. Smoking is currently trending downward in this country and it's in no small part to limiting the manner and amount of advertising about it.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good if true (and assuming there's a genuine correlation there), but is what we feel is best for society necessarily the right thing to do? Are freedoms more important or less important than protecting people from themselves and forcing restrictions upon organizations where none were before? The freedom for an industry to self-regulate is an incredibly important thing, in my mind.
 
DeathPrincess said:
You're playing the wrong 2 games! Seriously, there are loads and loads of games with bare mammaries. Skyrim/fallout 3/NV/Oblivion have them with almost any HD skin texture/model update (the skyrim nexus has a whole "adult" section). Most games have some kind of "nude" patch/skins that come up a gazzilion times when looking for mods (usually you see a game and it's got one mod...which is a nude something! :p). Or even just porn games have been around since forever.

A few "mainstream" games have them in too, older games like messiah and giants: citizen kabuto. Even console games like Dantes inferno have completely naked peoples (not just the giant mutated vajayjay people, theres normal people too, it's in a demo), so does God of war. :p
Click to expand...

Not too crazy about RPGs. Im an FPSer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top