Open Advanced Search. DeepDyve requires Javascript to function. Please enable Javascript on your browser to continue. Violence in video games Violence in video games Ellen Wolock Reviews the longstanding and controversial topic of the effects of video game violence on children.
Violence in video games Ellen Wolock. Read Article. Download PDF. Share Full Text for Free. Web of Science. Let us know here. System error. Defendants on the other hand, urge the Court to apply a lower degree of scrutiny. Both parties agree that generally content-based regulations of expression must survive strict scrutiny unless the expression fits within one of the narrowly limited classes of speech that lack full First Amendment protection.
The County attempts to argue that video games fall within this limited category because they are obscene as to minors. The Eighth Circuit has directly addressed this issue, and has specifically rejected the County's position. See Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Webster, F. The Eighth Circuit noted that expression which is not obscene for adults may be obscene for children if the expression bears certain indicia of obscenity when examined from a minor's point of view.
The Eighth Circuit went on to hold that obscenity encompasses only expression that depicts or describes sexual conduct, and materials that contain violence but not depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct cannot be obscene.
The Court finds that, assuming the video games are a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, the regulations in the Ordinance are content-based. Video games that show graphic violence are treated differently than other video games, and therefore the regulations are based on the content of the games.
In Video Software, the Eighth Circuit reviewed a Missouri statute which prohibited the rental or sale of violent movie videos to minors, and held that the government needed to justify its content-based restriction by showing the statute was narrowly drawn to advance a compelling governmental interest. The Court finds that the standard used in Video Software would be the same in the instant cause of action.
Therefore, the Court finds that strict scrutiny would apply if the Ordinance did in fact regulate speech. The government would have to show a compelling interest in regulating these types of games and show that the regulations are narrowly tailored to advance that interest. The Ordinance survives strict scrutiny if the regulations on video games serve a compelling governmental interest, and if those restrictions are carefully tailored to achieve the stated interests.
Video Software, F. The County has two stated interests: 1 to protect the physical and emotional health of the children in St. Louis County, and 2 to assist parents to be the guardians of their children's well-being. The well-being of its children is a subject within the County's constitutional power to regulate. Ginsberg v. State of N. It is essential that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, and parents who have this "primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility.
Government also has an independent interest in the well-being of its youth. The knowledge that parental control cannot always be provided and "society's transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of children justify reasonable regulation of the sale of material to them.
Accordingly, the County's stated interests are legitimate in the abstract. The remaining issue is whether the County can conclude, as it has, that exposure to these video games are harmful to the children's well-being. The County relied on testimony from Dr. Anderson and Dr. Anderson testified regarding a study in which he and Dr. Brad Bushman had just completed concerning the playing of violent video games. He told the Council that they found that playing violent video games for as short of a time as 10 to 15 minutes does in fact lead to aggressive behavior in the immediate situation.
He discussed these effects and how aggressive behavior occurs. He also found that pro-social behavior decreases after exposure to violent video games. He also indicated that children have more aggressive thoughts and frequently more aggressive behavior after playing violent video games. Anderson testified that there are a number of studies on the effect of watching violent movies and violent TV shows. The conclusions of these studies are that there is a causal connection between viewing violent movies and TV programs and violent acts.
Anderson indicated that there is a distinction between the passive viewing of violent movies and TV programs and these interactive video games.
He explained that with video games players are acting out acts of violence and depending on the skill of the player the acts of violence per minute increases.
Players are told to identify with the aggressor and the player controls the action of the character. In addition, unlike TV or movies, video games are addictive in nature. Anderson found in his study that violent video games provide a complete learning environment for aggression, with simultaneous exposure to modeling, reinforcement, and rehearsal of behaviors. At the hearing, Dr. Anderson referred to a Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman [5] who has written books on the subject of violent video games and his publications suggest that these violent video games are killing simulators.
According to Grossman, the United States Army and Marines use the same techniques that violent video games depend on to train recruits to kill. The Army actually uses a video game "Doom" [6] to train soldiers. Anderson indicated that with movies and TV children may learn violence as a response but with video games they learn how to carry out these acts.
Plaintiffs claim that the above evidence is not enough for the County to meet its burden of showing that violent video games are physically and psychologically harmful to minors. Defendants claim that a scientific demonstration of psychological harm is not required in order to establish the constitutionality of measures protecting minors from indecent speech.
Defendants go on to state that the County Council is entitled to believe that graphically violent video games lead to the psychological harm of minors. Plaintiffs respond by arguing that defendants' position is only relevant in the context of a rational-basis standard such as those cases dealing with obscene speech.
The Court finds that the County Council can rely on society's accepted view that violence is harmful to children, especially when plaintiffs have admitted that intense violence may not be suitable for those younger than seventeen years of age. Society in general believes that continued exposure to violence can be harmful to children. The motion picture industry accepts this theory which is why extremely violent movies are rated-R.
Even more important, are plaintiffs' own admissions in the rating system in which they employ. The industry suggests that videos rated "M" are "suitable for persons ages 17 and older" because they "may include more intense violence or language.
There is a reason why a game may be suitable for persons age seventeen and older, but might not be suitable for those under seventeen years of age.
Video games rated "AO" may include "graphic depictions of violence. Therefore, the Court finds that the County has compelling interests in regulating the distribution of violent video games to minors. The Court also finds that the statute is narrowly drawn to regulate only that expression which is necessary to address the government's compelling interests. In coming to this conclusion, the Court has looked at the right of the video game "creators" to speak, the right of minors to receive that speech, the right of parents to decide what is suitable for their children, and the right of the County to protect the welfare of its children.
The Ordinance does not prohibit video game "creators" from making any video games, however, the Ordinance does limit the number of people video game makers can reach with their video game makers can reach with their video games. Non-violent video games can be purchased and played by everyone. According to plaintiffs, that is the majority of the games. Violent video games can be purchased and played by all those over seventeen, which according to plaintiffs are the majority of the purchasers.
Violent video games can also be purchased and played by those under the age of seventeen if the parents have given their consent. The Ordinance makes it as easy as possible for parents to give their consent. The parents can physically be present to give their permission. They can also give pre-approval of the purchase or rental if the vendor has established an electronic or manual system for pre-approval.
At the arcades, parents can appear with the minor and give permission for the minor to be stamped or otherwise marked to signify that the minor has permission on that date, or the parent can give pre-approval of the minor's presence in Restricted areas if the arcade has established an electronic or manual system for pre-approval.
The Court finds that the regulations in the Ordinance are narrowly drawn to only serve those stated governmental interests. Plaintiffs argue as a second, and independent basis for granting their motion for summary judgment, that the Ordinance's terms are impermissibly vague, and therefore, are likely to restrict a far broader range of video games than even the County would claim it is seeking to regulate.
A stringent vagueness test applies to a law that interferes with the right of free speech. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that lack of precision is not itself offensive to the requirements of due process. The Constitution does not require impossible standards, all that is required is that the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.
Miller v. California, U. The Supreme Court has recognized the impossibility of defining the precise line between permissible uncertainty in statutes and unconstitutional vagueness.
See Winters, U. However, the Court held that the entire text of the statute or the subjects dealt with may furnish an adequate standard. Video game companies generally spend more on their presentations for E3 than any other convention. Unlike Gamescom and other video game trade fairs that allow the public to attend, E3 was transformed into invitation-only in and A separate conference called the Entertainment for All Expo was held those years to accommodate the public demand for a major, annual video game event.
However, it did not replicate E3's success and was abandoned when its normal registration procedure returned. Prior to E3, most game publishers went to other trade shows to display new products, including the Consumer Electronics Show and the European Computer Trade Show. It coincided with the start of a new generation of consoles, with the release of the Sega Saturn , and the announcements of upcoming releases of the PlayStation , Virtual Boy and Neo-Geo CD.
Specifications for the Nintendo Ultra 64 later renamed Nintendo 64 were released, but there was no hardware shown. IDSA originally asked CES for a private meeting space for game developers, but was told that they could not limit access to only invited registrants. Needing to ensure the full backing of the industry, Ferrell then negotiated a partnership between IDG and the IDSA, who then co-produced the show for a number of years.
Keynote speakers included Sega of America, Inc. The first show was one of the largest trade show launches in history, with over 1. The main halls contain the large majority of booth space and exhibitions.
The booths in these halls are generally designed to attract passersby with attention-grabbing designs, and often contain kiosks with playable demos, " booth babes ", celebrities, and swag.
In , traffic was rebalanced between the two halls by requiring the first-party console manufacturers to exhibit in the West Hall, while major third-party game publishers were required to exhibit in the South Hall.
Of note, this required Microsoft to move from its longstanding central location in the South Hall to a corner location in the West Hall, while Capcom was forced to move from its front location in the West Hall to a rear location in the South Hall.
Additionally, located adjacent to the West Hall is the Petree Hall, a smaller exhibition area that historically hosted only a single large booth. More recently, after its longtime resident Atari Infogrames effectively shut down its retail operations and a subsequent closure of Midway Games , the Petree Hall has only been used for auxiliary purposes.
Aside from the exhibition booths, E3 also hosts meeting rooms and other office-like spaces. In comparison to the main booths, the meeting areas are small, quiet, and austere, and might only be used for conducting official business or press. These meeting areas are generally reserved for appointments and closed-door exhibits. Walk-in visits are typically discouraged or not allowed.
In the LACC, the meeting rooms are concentrated in the Kentia Hall and Concourse Hall, but side rooms can also be found in hallways throughout the complex. Smaller exhibitors including, for example, licensing companies with no capacity for actual game production will often have a meeting room and no exhibition booth at all, while others may have both a small exhibition booth and a meeting area.
Large exhibitors typically build meeting rooms into their main booths, but usually opt to have an additional meeting room away from the noisy exhibition hall. The court found that St. Louis had failed to prove that the psychological health of children who play violent videogames suffers. In order to show the ordinance was constitutional , St. Louis should have offered "empirical support for its belief that 'violent' video game cause psychological harm to minors.
Main Page All Pages Community. Random page. Community portal forum.
0コメント