Monday, May 05, 2008
Buy GTA IV For Your Kid - Go To Jail
At least in New Zealand, if you buy Grand Theft Auto IV for your kid because you personally don't feel it's any worse than what they are exposed to at school or on TV, you could potentially face three months in jail.
New Zealand: Illegal for Parents to Buy GTA IV for Kids
At least here in the U.S., no similar law has come close to passing Constitutional muster. And even in New Zealand, the law under which the Office of Film and Literature Classification has couched its opinion has never been enforced.
Ah, unenforced / unenforceable laws.
I find that, over the last couple of years, I've grown to realize that this kind of political backlash is inevitable against anything that becomes mainstream in the younger generation and threatens cultural change. What control the older generation has, it uses to lash out to preserve the status quo. Yes, even the same "baby boomer" generation that was so anti-establishment and revolutionary in the 60's and early 70's. My generation is starting to do the same, and the kids after us will probably have the same knee-jerk reactions against whatever comes next that changes THEIR children's and grand-children's world.
Well, gamers and game makers: Keep fighting the good fight. Time is on our side... the longer we can hold out and keep games free in the face of mounting opposition and stupid regulation determined to marginalize games as nothing but children's entertainment, the closer we get to victory.
Labels: Politics
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 6:27 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Preach on Jay! Just like Rock and Roll, Comics, and whatever else was demonized before video games will eventually become mainstream and society will find new windmills to tilt at.
Although comics are probably an example of what happens if you don't stand up against that kind of regulation. Granted, the popularity of comics may have been more fad-like than anything else, so it may not have been government regulation that clobbered the medium and left it more of a niche industry.
While I don't agree with federal regulation outright banning videogames, and I certainly don't agree with putting parents in jail for buying Grand Theft Auto IV, I think it is maybe too simplistic to use the archetypical "rock n' roll" example. I'm only 27, and I personally find the Grand Theft Auto games, while innovative technically, to be repugnant morally.
I don't like the grandstanding about these games either, but for a different reason: it divides us into two extremist camps: the "we should just make whatever we want, no matter how grotesque, it's just art man" and the "let's ban everything and anything that has even the slightest hint of objectionable material." I strongly disagree with both of these approaches.
I think there is a reasonable middle ground to be had that gets lost.
I don't like the grandstanding about these games either, but for a different reason: it divides us into two extremist camps: the "we should just make whatever we want, no matter how grotesque, it's just art man" and the "let's ban everything and anything that has even the slightest hint of objectionable material." I strongly disagree with both of these approaches.
I think there is a reasonable middle ground to be had that gets lost.
I agree with Rob in not liking the games but where exactly is the "middle ground"?
Who has the *right* to define & enforce it?
Who has the *right* to define & enforce it?
# posted by 
: May 05, 2008 9:01 PM
: May 05, 2008 9:01 PM
I'm in the same boat, really. I'm not getting GTA IV or planning to get it.
But - to have a society where you are free to express important messages (or messages unpopular with the current regime), you have to accept a society where any old fool is free to pass off their crap as art.
But - to have a society where you are free to express important messages (or messages unpopular with the current regime), you have to accept a society where any old fool is free to pass off their crap as art.
Sorry, but I don't think you do, no.
It's easy to say that we must accept any old fool without actually getting into what 'any old fool' really implies.
If the game was called Grand Pedophile 4, would you be writing the same post then? Think about it for a second.
Not to say I agree with this New Zealand law thing - I don't - I'm just curious where the line is drawn. Since with posts like this, there doesn't really appear to be a line, anywhere.
Heh, how about Grand Software Pirate IV, then? Since we talk about that one pretty often here at Tales.
If someone made a game that taught kids in detail how to get around copy protection, how to go on Torrentz.com and Emule and find any game for free, and had you simulate doing so and gave you points and drama stars for every free game you downloaded. Interesting!
To be clear, my personal "line" is drawn way before GTAIV, and before either of these two games as well. They can be banned and locked out of existence for all I'd care. So where is your line drawn?
It's easy to say that we must accept any old fool without actually getting into what 'any old fool' really implies.
If the game was called Grand Pedophile 4, would you be writing the same post then? Think about it for a second.
Not to say I agree with this New Zealand law thing - I don't - I'm just curious where the line is drawn. Since with posts like this, there doesn't really appear to be a line, anywhere.
Heh, how about Grand Software Pirate IV, then? Since we talk about that one pretty often here at Tales.
If someone made a game that taught kids in detail how to get around copy protection, how to go on Torrentz.com and Emule and find any game for free, and had you simulate doing so and gave you points and drama stars for every free game you downloaded. Interesting!
To be clear, my personal "line" is drawn way before GTAIV, and before either of these two games as well. They can be banned and locked out of existence for all I'd care. So where is your line drawn?
# posted by : May 06, 2008 7:07 AM
: May 06, 2008 7:07 AM
Regarding Harry's comment...
Just because a game exists doesn't mean you have to play it.
Grand Paedophile? Bring it on. It would only make it easier to track down people with such an inclination.
I like to think sane, healthy adults would voluntarily abstain from playing such a game. If they willingly played it, then they're not as sane or mentally healthy as I thought.
Here's the kicker: banning the paedophile game would NOT affect the existence of potential gamers. They'd STILL be people out there who, if such a game were released, would play it.
All that banning does is sweep such things under the rug and pretend they doesn't exist.
If you believe your point of view is self-evidently right (it seems both of us believe paedophilia is Wrong), there should be nothing to fear about exposure to or discussion of alternate viewpoints, as long as the 'right' one is also well-represented.
Just because a game exists doesn't mean you have to play it.
Grand Paedophile? Bring it on. It would only make it easier to track down people with such an inclination.
I like to think sane, healthy adults would voluntarily abstain from playing such a game. If they willingly played it, then they're not as sane or mentally healthy as I thought.
Here's the kicker: banning the paedophile game would NOT affect the existence of potential gamers. They'd STILL be people out there who, if such a game were released, would play it.
All that banning does is sweep such things under the rug and pretend they doesn't exist.
If you believe your point of view is self-evidently right (it seems both of us believe paedophilia is Wrong), there should be nothing to fear about exposure to or discussion of alternate viewpoints, as long as the 'right' one is also well-represented.
The Supreme Court has wrestled with this issue for other media - and I'd be happy to have that line drawn at the same point as other media (so far) in this country. It's definite slippery-slope territory.
What we have here is a Fallacy of the Beard problem. To sum up, people have trouble defining at what point a man has a beard. If he's clean-shaven, does he have a beard? If he has a growth that reaches his belly-button, does he have a beard? What about in-between? It's also called the Continuum Fallacy or Paradox of the Heap (often illustrated talking about adding grains of rice; at what point is it a "heap" of rice?).
Following this kind of line of logic would lead us to ridiculous conclusions like "heaps don't exist" or "beards don't exist" simply because we cannot define the exact point at which stubble becomes a beard, or when grains of rice become a heap.
The human mind deals well with indefinites. The law, on the other hand, must be absolute. I'd be in favor of modifications to the law that impose a variety of creative sanctions in a continuum to match that of the offense. This might allow more flexibility than our current system of incarceration, parole, and fines.
But we do not live in those times yet, and the law has few options with which to penalize our citizens. If we ask for the law to define an absolute standard in art, we're crafting the shackles of bondage that will be worn by our children.
Post a Comment
Following this kind of line of logic would lead us to ridiculous conclusions like "heaps don't exist" or "beards don't exist" simply because we cannot define the exact point at which stubble becomes a beard, or when grains of rice become a heap.
The human mind deals well with indefinites. The law, on the other hand, must be absolute. I'd be in favor of modifications to the law that impose a variety of creative sanctions in a continuum to match that of the offense. This might allow more flexibility than our current system of incarceration, parole, and fines.
But we do not live in those times yet, and the law has few options with which to penalize our citizens. If we ask for the law to define an absolute standard in art, we're crafting the shackles of bondage that will be worn by our children.
Links to this post:
<< Home
