I failed to say anything when Hillary Clinton began campaigning against violent video games because I assumed that proposals to regulate them would be dismissed not only as grandstanding but as unconstitutional.
Matthew Yglesias's facetious condemnation of Clinton, however, reinforces my need to re-state what may be obvious: Violent video games are free speech that generally ought not be regulated in a free society.
I would write more about this, but Judge Posner's opinion in AAMA v. Kendrick really says so better than I can:
"The House of the Dead" is not distinguished literature. Neither, perhaps, is "The Night of the Living Dead," George A. Romero's famous zombie movie that was doubtless the inspiration for "The House of the Dead." Some games, such as "Dungeons and Dragons," have achieved cult status; although it seems unlikely, some of these games, perhaps including some that are as violent as those in the record, will become cultural icons. We are in the world of kids' popular culture. But it is not lightly to be suppressed.
I hope this is obvious enough that this post is unnecessary.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/2895797
Links to weblogs that reference In defense of Grand Theft Auto:
1. Posted by Larry on July 27, 2005 @ 17:17 | Permalink
isn't it the sex and not the violence that is causing the stir over the game? i think it is a bit disconcerting that a company would market a game as rated M when they know full well that they added "hidden" content which makes the game NC-17. it's even more disconcerting that the company initially denied that they had added the content. but i don't think this is the sort of thing the feds should be worrying about.
2. Posted by Will Baude on July 27, 2005 @ 17:23 | Permalink
Senator Clinton is complaining about the violence too. To be fair, the sex angle may make my citation to Posner a bit inauspicious.
3. Posted by Aaron Wright on July 27, 2005 @ 19:46 | Permalink
Couldn't agree more.
4. Posted by Amber on July 27, 2005 @ 20:23 | Permalink
The relevant game rating is AO, not NC-17. It takes quite a bit more than some up and down motion and "spicy" language (which is what I understand is in the Hot Coffee mini-game) to make a film NC-17; it usually takes both realistic simulated sexual congress and frontal male nudity. The teens playing this game can get more graphic sexual content at their local Blockbuster or from their parents' HBO subscription.
5. Posted by BTD Venkat on July 31, 2005 @ 11:52 | Permalink
How about parental consent/notification provision? I guess it would be difficult to enforce, but do parents have some sort of (First Amendment (?)) interest in educating their children the way they see fit? As between the state and the kids I think you're right on, but I think most people ignore the parental interest at stake.
Of the various violent video game laws, I don't recall any of them looking to the parental consent issue.
6. Posted by save_the_rustbelt on August 9, 2005 @ 14:04 | Permalink
How about:
selling pornography to minors
fraud, that is intentionally selling a product under false pretenses
I think we have lost the war, selling filth to 12 year-olds is for all intents legal, and we will pay a price for that.
- johncliff on Debt Collect
- Randy on "You’re goin
- NonVoxPop on MyGallons.co
- NonVoxPop on MyGallons.co
- nathan on Which langua
- Jake on The Resurrec
- Jake on "You’re goin
- Jake on MyGallons.co
- Gordon Smith on Godzilla Mee
- Tristan on Which langua
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
