I myself do not believe that free speech should be unlimited. I don't believe people should have the right to yell fire in a theater when there is no fire. I don't believe that Grand Theft Auto 3, a violent video game that's blamed for shooting deaths of innocent people (this "game" encourages the player to kill prostitutes & police officers & bystanders), should be protected by the First Amendment nor do I believe that Ethnic Cleansing, a violent game that encourages people to machine gun down African Americans, Jews, and Latinos should be protected either. I don't believe that TV shows like the MTV one that aired I think in '95 that encourages kids to "eat glass" should be aired either. I don't believe that nude people should be aired on TV/movies either. To my knowledge, Dennis Kucinich doesn't support what I've stated -- he's really pro-First Amendment.

My question to debate is, should the First Amendment be amended so that it specifies what speech is acceptable and what speech is not, i.e., some (but limited) censorship? If the First Amendment should be amended, what should it specificly say?

Question 1: NO!

There is a thing called supply and demand and capitalism. As long as there are people out there who want a product it will be supplied. If you don't like it, turn the channel, don't go to the movie, don't let your kid buy the game, write a letter to the company, boycott, make your voice known that you as a concerned parent doesn't condone a product. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocket book. If enough people put a dent in their prophets, they'll pull it. But the government SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED.

FREE SPEACH IS THE CORNERSTONE IN WHICH THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED.

Billy, what are you saying that media products that advocate violence against people and unsafe acts deserve to be protected? Why? The Declaration of Independence states that everyone is entitled to "life". These products undermine that principle. It doesn't look like the Founding Fathers would want them to be protected.

If you don't buy it and you embarrass the company publicly with your complaints, you as a citizen are enacting your freedom of speech. If a product is physically harmful, that is a different subject. But if some idiot on MTV wants to eat glass, which by the way has been shown on Ripley's Believe It or Not, knock him self out! Those stupid shows have disclaimers at the beginning and end anyway. If some stupid kid imitates what he sees them doing, he either is just being a kid, or needs his head checked out!

The first amendment exists not to protect speech you agree with, but to protect that which you don't agree with. If we are to be a responsible, mature nation, capable of governing ourselves, then we have to respect all points of view and educate ourselves and our children to what is right and wrong.
How does that tie in to Grand Theft Auto? If you start outlawing various forms of expression, then the entity or party in power can use that to any political advantage that they see fit. I don't play GTA, but my brand of video game may be next, because it depicts violence. I may not watch MTV, but the shows I do watch may be next. Once you start limiting choices, we become a nanny state, and soon will cease to exist as a free and sovereign nation.

Dontreadonme,
I understand how you feel that soon these nanny chain reactions will happen. But I'm looking at the other end of the spectrum -- if we don't outlaw these products, soon we'll have more and more people getting hurt/killed. I too agree now is not the time to introduce legislation to regulate free speech especially when Bush has set up so called First Amendment zones. But let's say we had a President & Congress who wouldn't take advantage of the system, would it would be ok to introduce censorship/First Amendment laws?

No. Do you want the congress or president to decide what you get to read, watch or say? It's fine as long as you're in the mainstream, or the legislation is in line with your views. But that may not always be the case.
And to de-legitimize things like video games, risque movies or books, etc.. You HAVE to show cause and effect that those things harm people. You can, I'm sure cite SOME studies that will back up your claims, but there are just as many out there that will refute them as well. I have played violent video games, listened to Ozzy Osbourne and have viewed pornography . But I have neither murdered, raped or committed suicide. Should I not be able to do the above so you can feel better?


edited for spelling

What if the games had pictures of people in political office in those games? Should they still be protected free speech? The point I'm trying to make is that GTA3 & EC have graphics that's so realistic they create a virtual hit list/training scenario of who to shoot. That's why I don't believe they should be protected. Let me ask you this, if someone created a "video game" in which the goal was to shoot high school students and the characters in the game looked like real students in a high school, should it be protected by free speech and if so why? I don't think it should.

The onus is on the listener, not the speaker, to agree or disagree with what is presented to him/her. Re-structuring of the scope of the First Amendment would do nothing to prevent senseless killings such as the ones attributed to GTA, or the Matrix with Columbine. The violence would still be there and unfortunately would still be acted upon.

What would result is the leveraging of the First Amendment (modified) to suit both sides of the aisle.




I would modify only one word in the above quote If we are to become a responsible, mature nation. Expecting censorship to replace personal responsibility is not an effective response to the problem.

I'm sorry Fluteplayer, but people who go on shooting rampages have more serious problems then what video games they are playing.

Yes, the game should be allowed.

The producers of the video game have the right to produce what they want, with regard to content. That's their freedom of speech.

Consumers, if they find that content objectionable, have the right to not purchase the product. Further, consumers then have the right to advocate boycotting the product, or any stores that sell the game. Usually, this convinces a company to take a bad product off of their shelves. (profit -vs- bad publicity).

For a perfect example of this, note the CBS pulling of the Reagan movie, a couple of weeks ago. Their profit was threatened by those threatening to boycott the network if the movie was broadcast. The First Amendment was upheld in both cases. The producers made the movie they wanted. Consumers told them what they could do with it. No government censorship required.

I've been playing Grand Theft Auto III and Vice City for quite a while now. It has not made me want to go out and shoot up civilians. I am an extremely peace-minded person. I protest war and abhor violent acts. Yet I love these video games because they are extremely fun.

There has been no correlation made between violent acts and these video games. Some parental groups protest and claim some studies in which children were more quick to select violent words from a list of words, but there has been no direct connection between the games and committing acts of violence. In fact, I pose that the opposite is true--human beings have an animalistic nature, which contains violent outbursts. These video games could be seen as an outlet for our violent streaks that are suppressed by society. "Fight Club," a film that caused much controversy, dealt with this idea rather well.

Our modern society promotes a sense of anti-emotion. Prescribing Ridalin, Prozac, Xanax to children to keep them subdued. They just mask the emotion. And that causes far worse problems. I think it is this suppression that causes most of the problems in America. We need to teach children how to release their emotions in a healthy, productive manner. Bottling them up does no good for anyone.

FargoUT, I ask that you read Dave Grossman's book Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill. He describes how violent video games desensitize people and he also staes how that violent video games are not a healthy way to relieve stress. As I said earlier, to my knowledge Kucinich doesn't share my views regarding the First Amendment being amended to support censorship.

And I could probably find another book that would say otherwise. The point is, studies are manipulated to show the proof they wanted in the beginning. I fully admit to being desensitized. But there isn't a day that goes by when that desensitization helps me live.

When 9/11 occurred, I was laughing through most of the day. Not because of the tragic events, but because the media took it and played it for entertainment. I cried for those who lost their lives later that night, but during the event, I couldn't help but laugh at the media. They gave it little jagged titles "AMERICA UNDER ATTACK" with red and yellow letters. They couldn't just show the events. They had to give it a name, and they had to give it a slogan.

The point is... when people let emotions overwhelm them, they become useless. Desensitized people would be far more useful in the event of hostile actions--why do you think the Army desensitizes the recruits before sending them off to battle? Now, admittedly this can lead to tragic and horrific violence (why is it acceptable for people to kill for their country, but not acceptable to kill for their religion?).

I point the finger at those who are really to blame: parents. When I was growing up, my parents sat me down, they talked to me, they told me what was right, wrong, and why they were right and wrong. They instilled me with knowledge and beliefs. I no longer hold some of those beliefs, but I have a deep respect for other human beings' right to live. I could probably do a study that shows children who commit violent acts have volatile homes with parents who don't care or even abuse their children.

Video games are harmless--I've been playing them since I was 10 on my old TRS-80. Real world events are far more harmful to childrens' psyches than what they see in a video game.

Boyd

P.S. Kucinich for President!!!!

I have to disagree. I think that some video games, movies, and TV shows are worse than real world violence kids see on TV. Often in the media, violence is portrayed as being funny. This conditions children to accept violence as funny and so they have no problem with it. Real world violence that is shown on TV often is not portrayed as being funny. Thus children aren't conditioned by real world violence to believe that violence is funny and so they aren't desensitized by it. Also, desensitized people IMHO are less likely to be fit to serve -- they get trigger happy and are likely to shoot their own friends because sooner or later they can't rationally distinguish between friend or foe nor can they have the will to stop shooting. I remember watching the Discovery Channel and a U.S. Navy Seal had stated that "a person who didn't want to fight would be someone he'd be glad to serve with".

Censoring video games is a terrible idea. Fiction is fiction, that's the bottom line. My parents never cared about ratings, never blocked off certain channels, I could always watch and play whatever I wanted. i have always watched many violent movies, played violent video games. I am yet to kill anyone. This is probably due to the fact that they actually took the time to raise me. They talked to me, taught me right from wrong, fact from fiction. And I also must say that violent games are GREAT stress relief, at least for me. I agree, that humans are predators by nature, and our instincts and emotions need an outlet. Of course, the easiest thing to do is blame the media. But there is no conclusive link. I am somewhat familiar with psychology, and most studies show either no effect, or that a person that is already 99% likely to kill might become 99.5% likely to kill. A normal person will not become a killer because of a game, movie, book or music. It just doesn't happen that way. People should be allowed to express themselves in works of fiction however they want. I see nothing wrong with vicious, violent murder of FICTIONAL characters. Free speech is not worth the paper the First Amendment is printed on if we censor things we don't like.

Ok, I'm going to have to call you on this. It's absurd to think that people that play a lot of video games become trigger happy in real life, and can't distinguish between their own troops and the bad guys. Or that, once they pull the trigger, they won't be able to stop. Professional training far outweighs anything else in these circumstances.

Care to cite any sources on this at all? Or are we just shooting from the hip here?

If a person is desensitized, he/she can't make good sense of what's going on around him/her so he/she can't rationally think correctly. Thus he/she can get trigger happy. This is talked about in Grossman's book.

NOOOOOOOOOOO. The first amendment should not be changed. This country was built around freedom of speech, that's that. People can make decisions for themselves what they should and shouldn't say, the gov't doesn't need to do it for them.

CP

What about the right to life and safety? Why should the right to encourage someone else to murder someone else be more important the right to be live a safe life?

What do you mean by this? What do murder and freedom speach have in common?

CP

Like violent games that desensitize people to kill why should they be protected by the First Amendment as freedom of speech and thus influence someone to kill someone else thus violating that person's right to live?

I think it would really help your argument if you presented us with undisputable proof that video games turn otherwise normal people into violent killers. Of course, such proof does not exist. Which brings us back to my point, real is real, fiction is fiction. Killers are killers, gamers are gamers. There is no need to lump the two together, becuase I assure you, I am not a killer, but am most definately a gamer, and one who likes to play violent games.

Yet all members of our Armed Forces are subjected to desensitization in the process of recruit training / officer training. One of the purposes of this is to facilitate the ability of a service member to follow lawful orders without having rely on personal perspective and individual opinion. These training activities took place long before the advent of computer games, movies, television or radio.

The US Army is actually using a video game America's Army to inform the public as to the Special Force's role in the global community:






I would like to know what basis this opinion is built upon.



This sounds like a fair and accurate statement, attributed to a member of an elite force that realize that a weapon is no more than one tool of many to accomplish a mission, and a group who understand that stealth is their greatest ally. It does nothing to support an argument concerning video games, violence and the effects on members of our armed forces.

I was reading a website and it stated that violent video game images are stored in a person's brain in the same place where violent war images are that military personnel go through. The U.S. Army has required soldiers to go through counseling. Looms, I ask that you read Grossman's book. It's got all the evidence you need.

So according to you everyone that comes back from combat with "images stored in their brain" goes on to kill random people? Unless that is what you are saying, this is completely irrelevant. And as for Grossman's book I can show you studies that prove this wrong. Or is Grossman infallible? And how does Grossman explain the fact that I haven't killed anyone yet? That most people who play these games do not kill anyone? Again, I said UNDISPUTABLE PROOF.

Not to mention that just because a killer played GTA 3, it doesn't mean that GTA 3 made him a killer. What if he ate a Twinkie the day before? Does that mean that the Twinkie made him a killer?

Should the First Amendment be amended so that it specifies what speech is acceptable and what speech is not, i.e., some (but limited) censorship? If the First Amendment should be amended, what should it specifically say?

No way. For starters, it would likely never happen. Three-fifths of the states would not vote in favor of government censorship . This is purely a hypothetical topic in my eyes.

Next, even if three-fifths of the states agreed to vote for government censorship, the amendment clearly spells out the terms:



"Congress shall make no law..." That is the key part. The First Amendment is an irrevocable, unchangeable cornerstone of the constitution.

The Constitution clearly dictates who may make laws (Article I, § 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..."). This amendment clearly states that those who make the laws "shall make no law" that affects the First Amendment.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me-- we're locked in. The First Amendment is a done deal. No matter the reason, it cannot be changed.

...unless the Constitution doesn't qualify as a source...

Mike

It has been proven in studies that video games often aid children with mechanical and problem solving skills. A child reared around video games would actually be less likely to shoot up friends because he can discern friends from foes. Also, with the example of Grand Theft Auto, where it is the goal to be as violent as possible, most everyone I know has played this video game, and not one of them has become more violent.

Take, for instance, the movie "Fargo" which commits gruesome acts of violence but also adds a very funny subtext which makes it a dark comedy. And with "Pulp Fiction", when Vincent Vega shoots a guy in the back of his car. Very funny. But the horror of the violence is still there.

The simple matter is that the media knows what sells: sex and violence. They are therefore producing material to feed to a culture which desires it. If anything, the media is not responsible--the consumers are. Video games would not be produced containing excess violence if there were no demand for it. Our entire history is filled with graphic violent acts, but you'd think from some of the arguments here that we were all holding hands and singing songs just a few decades ago. There was just as much violence and murder in the past as there is now--we merely record them more accurately. It's unusual that violence and rape has increased in numbers--it hasn't. It just wasn't reported as it is now.

I think Cher from "Clueless" said it best (and I can not believe I'm quoting that movie for this topic), "Until mankind is peaceful enough not to have violence on the news, there's no point in taking it out of shows that need it for entertainment value!"

The media's glamourization of murderers and serial killers has, in my opinion, a far more disturbing effect on the mindset of youngsters. There is a reason why more movies have been made about Jack the Ripper than Jesus Christ. Video games, movies, TV, books... none of it has an effect on the child whose parents raise them properly and promote non-violent attitudes. Whenever something bad occurs with children, the parents are often given remarkable leeway and sympathy. And then the media must find a scapegoat to blame. Put the blame where it must lie: with the parents. Obviously there are parents who have done all they can and still produce violent children. But I guarantee parental discussions have a larger factor in determining violent actions in their children.

Closed. The stuff in the big red box with the dark blue text isn't a simple suggestion.