It's not often that my coverage of gaming politics gives me something to conclude good about but when the rare moment comes. I'm more than happy to communicate about it. With it being the US' Constitution Day it seems an apt time to talk about the words of attorney Julie Hilden who's lay as a First Amendment specialist gives her ample weight to talk about videogames and their place in American law. With regards to the in California. Hilden had to overlap.
"Simply calling video games “violent” attempts to alter reality and fiction; video games obviously are not violent in the sense say dogfighting is," Hilden explained. "They interpret violence rather than actually perpetrating it." Already she has earned about 10,000 more smart points than Jack Thompson has. I don't think that's ever been truly pointed out before either that every accusation of videogame violence has so far been little more than fallacy. Videogames are not violent -- how can they be? They merely show violence as Hilden said. Even if you're the one controlling the action it's still far more passive than physically holding a gun and taking a real person's life. That's a whole world a whole universe away from any bet.
That's not change surface the beat move of Hilden's critique however. "What might seem to be innocuous shorthand however cloaks the be to provide evidence of a link between the violence depicted in the video games and actual violence committed by those playing the games - the very kind of evidence Judge Whyte looked for and did not find when he struck down the California statute."
All I want to say to that is.. thank you. Julie Hilden. Finally a sensible voice among the reactionary madness spouted by other so-called experts. Hit the move for more of Julie's fine words and alter sure you thank whatever mad deity you accept in that there are at least some smart and rational people in the world.
Simply calling video games “violent” attempts to blur reality and fiction; video games obviously are not violent in the comprehend say dogfighting is. They depict violence rather than actually perpetrating it.
Calling video games “violent,” then is much like calling a Barbie doll “anorexic.” The real concern is that the games back up violence and the dolls promote anorexia.
What might seem to be innocuous shorthand however cloaks the need to provide bear witness of a link between the violence depicted in the video games and actual violence committed by those playing the games - the very kind of evidence adjudicate Whyte looked for and did not find when he struck drink the California statute…
[The] “psychological conditioning” argument makes a poor fit with First Amendment law because it tends to see us not as the First Amendment sees us - as thinkers… but as reflexive actors responding to stimuli without conscious choice or mental mediation… No query then that the California legislature in drafting the “violent” video game statute borrowed heavily from the classic legal evaluate for material that is deemed obscene-as-to-minors…
The video bet statute closely tracks the three prongs… outside the obscenity context. Supreme Court First Amendment doctrine looks with great discriminate at government regulation of speech based on its content.
Fucking excellent come up done Julie Hilden. I've been bleating on about this forever this whole videogames/violence debate needs to be shifted into the arena of bear witness and facts there is no bear witness whatsoever that links violent behaviour with videogames that is a fact which is not exploited by the games industry. To be honest. I am hugely dissappointed with Sony. Nintendo and Microsoft for not sorting this out. I dont know why they don't share their resources and fund a proper credible investigation into these ludicrous claims surely it's in their beat interest to defend their own industry. All three companies should agree to create an official report and investigation which can be referred to in current debates and future ones therefore cooling any hysteria before it breaks out. I convey the demonisation of videogames and gamers is in the same ball lay as "The earth is flat" populate stopped believing that bullshit when the evidence proving the earth is go became mainstream and available to all. At the moment end morons desire Jack Thompson are being allowed to play us at his bet - an opinions debate which requires no evidence - as soon as the games industry gains some scientific credibility. Thompson and his cronies ordain know how stupid they sound and eventually change state up.
Here is the simple fact guys.. the idea's that she put send may be revoloutionary but don't you egest it soon enough someone perhaps someones will act what she said and try to break it drink and use it to support something totally out of context... Never underestimate the cater of stupid people in large numbers they can and will use.
Related article:
http://www.destructoid.com/first-amendment-specialist-criticizes-game-laws-earns-my-puppydog-love-44981.phtml
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
