Jordan: I'd like to thank you all for joining in on another Roundtable discussion.

Jordan: The topic today is going to be the issue of censorship in video games.

Jordan: It's been a hot issue lately, and much discussion is going on about whether it is protected as free speech.

Jordan: With that in mind, we'll first look at the issue of freedom of speech, and whether the government or families need to be involved and how.

Philip: Well, I seem to remember a book I got at the bookstore that was, somewhat, relevant to this topic.

Jordan: What was it about?

Janelle: Actually, so did I, but I'll wait for Dracos to finish his story.

Philip: Ye might not think so, it being nasty smut type stuff... but ... the fact that no one complains about it in other industries existing to appeal to the older market places a rather large discontinuity in the whole issue of censorship as regards to gaming.

Philip: The issue, I'd say isn't 'free speech' or 'government/family involvement' so much as a blind disregard for what we generally consider acceptable free speech and government/family involvement.

Jordan: So what do you consider 'acceptable?'

Ryan: Not to stab at a dead horse, here, but I'll bring up game ratings and mirror them to movie ratings. There are limits to what can be shown in R-rated movies before they are classified at the adult level. The same is true of the games industry. For what reason(s) should it vary in any way?

Ryan: Parents are left with the responsibility of choosing which movies their children are or are not allowed to watch, and they should take the same measures to ensure the same of their children with games.

Philip: Personally? I tend to think we give a pretty good range as it stands. We don't tell artists "You can't paint a scene of a man killing another with a gun" but we try and tell that with games. In general, barring the classical and obvious definitions of obscenity for the sake of obscenity, it should all be contained as acceptable.

Ryan: There is no definition to any word, as the audience will always change a definition. One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's acceptable is another man's smut.

Janelle: Here's where the book I picked up comes in--Sex and Violence in Literature.

Philip: The idea should always be with artistic mediums to allow folks to choose what they expose themselves to.

Stephanie: I don't think other people should decide for us what we think belongs in games.

Jordan: As it stands right now, in most states it is legal for a child to go to a store and buy an M-rated game.

Janelle: It's a book about the difference between excessive objectionable material, and the careful use of said material to create literary or philosophical merit.

Stephanie: Around here you have to be seventeen.

Jordan: That is what free speech entails.

Theo: But that same kid cannot enter an R-rated movie.

Philip: Mmm

Jordan: This is true

Jordan: but there is no law governing that either

Philip: That's more enforced at the distributor level.

Philip: There's a good reason why not.

Ryan: There is no legitimate way for government to classify what is and is not "acceptable" except for extremes. Restricted or not, families will still influence their children in what manner they deem "acceptable"

Philip: It would be a frivolous law.

Janelle: As the game media expands, more and more people compare it with other forms of media. That's where censorship becomes a comparative case.

Philip: It would be a waste of resources to track down such.

Philip: Additionally it would demean other such rules.

Justin: Freedom of Speech isn't there to protect what you like, it's there to protect what you don't. Video Games are an artform, from the modeling used to the scripts written for the story.

Jordan: Data seems to show that approximately 2% of M-rated games are bought by children.

Philip: I mean, do you place smoking on the same type of scale as M rated games?

Matt: I think a problem is, though, that censorship might be taken too far, just because the public perception is that the video game market is a really young one

Philip: When you ask about a law for them.

Jordan: But the issue of legislating it is what is known as 'The Chilling Effect.'

Theo: How much of that by children WITH parental permission?

Philip: Vigi: How much of it matters whether it is or not?

Philip: Really, would anyone here want police wasting their time sitting in stores checking if a kid goes and buys a game like that?

Philip: Is it really on the same scale as other 18+ actual legally restricted material?

Stephanie: I wouldn't.

Theo: Well, we say that the parent has a degree of responsibility in deciding what content the child takes in.

Ryan: Wonderslime makes a good point: "public perception is that the video game market is a really young one"

Matt: No, but police don't regulate theaters either

Janelle: Does anyone else think that comparing game media to other media is a bad thing?

Philip: Wonderslime: Last I recalled, there wasn't actual legal backing there.

Philip: I may be wrong.

Philip: I was under the perception that it is industry enforced primarily there.

Justin: I don't think that comparing the gaming media to other media is a bad thing. They are both ways of conveying a message and they should have the same restrictions. If they censor games to exclude certain things then movies and TV should get them too. They should be judged on the same standards.

Janelle: But there's a difference between censoring and legislating.

Theo: What other standards to we have? We need to start somewhere. By all standards (except one), a violent/explicit video game is the same as a violent/explicit movie.

Theo: Aside from the interaction, of course.

Theo: Which is probably the kicker.

Stephanie: But to some people the interaction makes it a different world.

Stephanie: Because you're actually the one causing the violence in some cases.

Philip: And to some people rock n' roll is the devil.

Stephanie: Haha.

Ryan: There might be the problem in its entirety, Dracos.

Philip: We should, theoretically, deal with the intelligible arguments first before addressing irrational ones.

Justin: Exactly, once a new media comes out video games will be forgotten. They did it with literature in the past and they did it with television and music and movies too.

Philip: hush now, that's no fun for the readers if we're all sensible and admit that it is a standard age gap media crisis.

Jordan: Possibly, but we have the issue of copycat violence popping up in our courts

Philip: the likes we see every 20 years or so.

Philip: Sensei: The same thing has existed for other mediums.

Philip: We've seen tv and movie replication as well

Philip: in fact, on grander scales too.

Stephanie: Some violent crimes emulate shows like Law & Order.

Ryan: New media, through history, has always been a controversial matter, each successively managing to soften the general audience to its preceding form of media.

Justin: You get the same thing from certain genres of music as well, people saying that they were influenced by the lyrics.

Matt: True, but when will this cease to be "New Media"? Video game violence has been around for almost 20 years

Jordan: But it's only gaining widespread attention now

Ryan: And literature has been around for hundreds of years. A new form of media has failed to step into the picture as of yet.

Theo: Violence is becoming more realistic, for one.

Jordan: So one of the main questions is this: Are videogames protected speech?

Janelle: But does the medium really influence crime to the degree that other factors might?

Philip: more specifically...

Philip: 20 years is nothing.

Jordan: Early games were NOT found to be protected under that law

Philip: When you can't even give a full generation of such, it's unsurprising that the age gap still occurs.

Jordan: Pinball was not protected, and games like Pac-Man were found to be digital versions of pinball

Philip: Hum? I recall a few rulings on this.

Philip: in both directions.

Jordan: It was only when games became more complex that the law started to treat them as speech.

Philip: Which are you referring to?

Ryan: How can video games not fall under protected speech? It is asinine to presume that I could say something in a news report and then follow up with a game that expresses the same ideal and it is labeled as wrong simply because it is a game.

Jordan: Basically, they weren't shown as being speech at all.

Philip: It's mentioning pinball.

Philip: The question is how OLD is that ruling

Philip: and how many counterrulings have taken place since it.

Jordan: Several.

Jordan: This was only in the beginning of the industry

Philip: Because no ruling made in the past 15 years mentioned pac-man or pinball.

Jordan: Before games were considered as being a form of speech.

Philip: In which case...why are we really discussing it? It's not really relevant to modern censorship on the issue.

Theo: A recent court ruling by the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech.

Jordan: Well it shows that at one point, games were NOT protected

Jordan: and there are those that want to revert back to that standard

Theo: It had been originally decided that video games did not convey ideas, and thus, were not speech, but the Court of Appeals struck that down.

Philip: At one point writing wasn't protected.

Janelle: But regressing back to gaming that does not convey ideas is impossible at best, in this stage of the game.

Janelle: No pun intended.

Theo: Heh. I think most people agree that video games have evolved into a communication media worthy of protection.

Jordan: But it is currently being brought up by lawyers and legislators. The other issue is that they are claiming that games are obscene.

Stephanie: I don't see how games *can't* fall under free speech anymore.

Stephanie: So are some movies.

Jordan: Granted, we are all biased in favor of videogames, but do we think any of these games could possibly BE obscene?

Matt: Games are obscene: SOME games are obscene, but some movies are too

Stephanie: Some books can be very obscene as well.

Jordan: So would it be a problem to label them AS obscene?

Philip: They're trying to use the legal definition of Obscene.

Janelle: That's the problem with censorship: nothing is totally blanket.

Philip: which isn't protected under free speech

Justin: Loli H Games = Obscene.

Philip: and is different from the casual definition of it.

Jordan: something obscene can only be purchased by an adult.

Ryan: There are reasons in both directions why it should or should not be protected. An economics standpoint would look at a protected game as a monopoly. Pharmaceutical patents are a form of monopoly. There is no discussion, here, as without protection, there is no motivation to further develop. An argument that games do not convey ideas is the virtual equivalent of an argument that speech does not convey ideas.

Philip: Not at all, schubaal.

Philip: That's a poor reduction

Ryan: Poor reduction, but ask the creators of a storyline within a game.

Philip: games definitely can convey ideas, but reducing it to plain speech is poor.

Janelle: But again, whether the games contain merit is something that can't be legally settled.

Philip: Tiptail: But of course it can.

Janelle: By the people with the best lawyers.

Stephanie: Ha.

Janelle: Right?

Stephanie: Yeah.

Jordan: So would anyone be opposed to legislation making it illegal to sell these games to children?

Philip: Pretty much

Stephanie: Parents should decide what their kids can buy, not the government.

Ryan: I'm in Pennsylvania and already fall under such legislation, and as such, I'm not opposed to such legislation.

Justin: I agree with Angel on that. And yeah, I believe we already answered it. I can't buy games anyway so it doesn't matter to me though.

Stephanie: Me either, lack of funding ^_~

Janelle: Ooh, I just had an interesting thought, but I'll save it for the next topic.

Jordan: Well, if we produce such legislation and prevent children from buying these games, wouldn't that give people more freedom to make games for adults?

Philip: No.

Ryan: My honest opinion is that the legislation for it is a waste of resources. If a child can't purchase a game, they will do the same as any minor who wishes to buy cigarettes: go to someone who can.

Philip: It would not.

Jordan: Why not?

Janelle: I'm not even sure that it's either the companies nor the parents or government who are entirely at fault with regards to children and purchasing games.

Stephanie: Someone would find a problem with having adult based games in the same household as children.

Philip: It'd provide an extra layer of required overhead in the LEGAL sector to distinguish.

Janelle: When I take a look on TV nowadays.

Philip: This is expensive.

Philip: It would add to overall cost of all game developments.

Ryan: As if that's not high enough, any more.

Philip: Retailers, in general, would be pushed to towards not bothering.

Philip: Because they don't want to deal with legal issues more than they have to.

Stephanie: Agreed.

Janelle: The Xbox was created to be a system marketed towards adults. It's original and continued purpose was to provide games that gamers 21 and up would enjoy.

Jordan: It's really hard to legislate what happens in the household. I don't know of any laws requiring material that is already seen as obscene to be hidden in houses that contain minors.

Matt: But it's not perceived that way, necessarily

Janelle: So why do I see furniture stores with commercials that go something like this?:

Philip: Jordan: There aren't any, outside of some basic ones.

Janelle: Kid: "Dad, we have to go buy a sofa at [store]!" Dad: "Well, we do need a sofa, but why [store]?" Kid: "We can get a free Xbox, dad!"

Ryan: What good is legislation that enforces that materials must be hidden from minors? Are they going to ensure that every household does so?

Philip: Frivolous legislation is, in many ways, a greater danger than censorship.

Ryan: Clearly.

Jordan: Right. So does legislation barring the sale of M-rated games give game makers more freedom from being sued for 'selling obscene games to children?'

Philip: Anything that involves setting up a whole legal side of things to analyze games and set them as adult or child games is frivolous legislation in context of a system that already provides that.

Janelle: I think that the go-between media, the marketing rather than the game itself, is at fault for children being attracted to games that may not be the best for them.

Philip: Jordan: How would it?

Stephanie: Either way kids are going to get their hands on the games.

Philip: If anything, it'd give a formal law to prosecute under.

Stephanie: All they need is a friend that is old enough to buy it.

Stephanie: If the parents don't do it themselves.

Philip: with an explicit blame that: "The publishing company obviously marketed it to kids"

Philip: and "the distributor was in on it too"

Ryan: Draco: Formal law to prosecute under, but not against the game developer.

Theo: ESRB issues aside, the games are already segmented into "age categories." The retailers are doing an increasingly good job keeping the right games in the right hands, considering the legal pressure.

Janelle: I'd prefer to see ads for mature games legislated by the government.

Philip: Schubaal: You know as well as I, if Walmart got sued for 'x' millions on a game some developer made, either the developer would somehow get sued too or Walmart would end up blacklisting them.

Philip: just to save themselves effort.

Stephanie: Yeah, some of the M-rated games they have commercials for are kind of bad.

Philip: Tiptail: they already are.

Janelle: I'm not talking so much about the content of the ads as much as where they're being displayed.

Theo: A child purchasing an M-rated game is really not the issue--although it's the first thing legislators will attack.

Theo: The issue is the games itself.

Theo: It will fall into children's hands, laws or not, so what do we do to keep the content in line?

Jordan: In fact, there is a case where this is happening right now

Jordan: In Canada, a store was found to have sold an M-rated game to a minor

Jordan: No fines were given, but the manager stepped down due to the incident.

Philip: Is someone in canada actually going after that?

Philip: Well, yes, there's public embarrassment.

Janelle: Vigi: You don't. That's what the rating is for, unfortunately. There's a market for the more mature games.

Philip: unfortunately?

Philip: I like my GTAs.

Janelle: And they're not going to be toned down for the possibility that a minor is going to purchase them.

Stephanie: I've never played the GTAs.

Theo: Nor have I.

Janelle: Ditto.

Theo: But gosh-darnit, I want the freedom to do so!

Philip: They're like quake, only you die by ridiculously fragile vehicle =P at least in the early iterations.

Ryan: So the question, then, is: Should such broad-ended retailers like Wal*Mart be selling M-rated games (and higher), and, if not, what about R-rated movies?

Jordan: It seems like we're slowly starting to move toward the industry.

Philip: We didn't start there?

Jordan: So let's look at this from an industry standpoint.

Theo: By and large, at least in Canada, retailers are for legislation banning sales to minors.

Philip: Schubaal: Why not?