Topic: What a Shock

[tarascon]

It's hard to demonstrate conclusively that violence in video games results in crime any more than bondage videos causes disrespect for women. 

Concerning game play.
The consequence of all of this "play" is that the men, women, and children involved in ultra-violent games are being desensitized, that empathy is eroded or never developed, and the effect of a violent action in-game is hardly ever--if at all--traced back to the cause. Not that most games present a causal chain--but I trust what I'm trying to say makes sense. As a gamer I feel that there should be an age restriction placed on certain games. For example, I'm thinking of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I have played and actually enjoyed the game--the car chases were a blast--but then, I was 40 something when it came out and possessed an ethical code and was cognizant that I was playing a stupid game and that I wasn't going to carry its values out into the world with me.* In this game, the idea that a young black male could only make his living by mugging people, etc, is offensive on many levels which I need not go into now. I suspect that the primary players of the game are young white males... ignorant of the (not so subtle?) message presented by the marketing department and its affiliated corporations. This is bad enough to expose youngsters to and doesn't even touch on the violence in the game. A child of 10, 12, or 19 may perceive this in-game behavior as a viable, real life option at a later time. That's my concern and we may well be creating future sociopaths; I do not trust that the young and undeveloped minds of the "target consumers" are in a mental space to realize that their actions will have consequences if they attempt to practice these sorts of game ethics in the world. A Buddhist could argue that the game behavior is real because the full intention of the action makes it so.
And gaming of this type represents a mere fraction of the inundation of senselessness, violence, racism, and disrespect of other human beings with which we are finding ourselves increasingly swamped.
That's all I wanted to say. End of rant.

*Unfortunately, I did contribute financial support to the corporation which sold, not a game, but an idea, to the public.

[goldshirt*9]

The law is frantically trying to stay relevant with technology that is going too quickly for it: "making photographs" was the law, and someone decided that downloading a picture to a computer is the digital equivalent. This "crime" is generally applied to the downloader as well as to the photographer. (In truth more often to the downloader, as they are easier to catch)

thanks for clearing that up,

[6pairsofshoes]

The law is frantically trying to stay relevant with technology that is going too quickly for it: "making photographs" was the law, and someone decided that downloading a picture to a computer is the digital equivalent. This "crime" is generally applied to the downloader as well as to the photographer. (In truth more often to the downloader, as they are easier to catch)

Actually, isn't downloading here being made equivalent to taking possession of an illegal form of pornography?  Even if the accused downloaded printed and distributed the images, they aren't the author/maker, just the distributor.  I'd assume that defining downloading as a crime is the equivalent to saying that if the police came to your house and found a stash of 8 x 10 prints of child pornography, it's the same as having downloaded them.  Normally, laws try to tie new forms of technology to existing legal strictures, no?

[smokester]

It is rather odd though, that regarding narcotics you can argue "personal use".  It has always confused me when celebrities come out and admit a long term cocaine dependency, which more often than not they combine with some heartfelt promise to clean up their act that brings a tear to the eye of the listeners. Everyone then applauds them and the paparazzi set up camp outside the Betty Ford clinic ready to supply the magnitude of magazine stories that will run for a couple of months.

No one mentions the law breaking involved in a drug dependency even when the said 'sleb falls off the wagon and probably has a few grams in his/her pocket during the next TV interview (for personal use of course).  I'm not saying that anyone should be able to use the same argument regarding child pornography, but a little consistency would be nice.

[xtopave]

You're talking about celebs and media. The only consistent thing is money. 

[6pairsofshoes]

Are celebrities excused child pornography in the UK?  Because I don't think they are in the U.S.  Roman Polanski is a case in point.

[smokester]

Are celebrities excused child pornography in the UK?...

Pete Townshend tried played the "white knight syndrome" card, and that seemed to work.  Interestingly, and also in line with christ's comments: Townshend didn't download them but quite obviously viewed them.  So the crime would be possession and not "looking at pictures".

[6pairsofshoes]

My comment re: Roman Polanski was a typical stupidity on my part.  He was accused of statutory rape, not possession of child porn.

I think that consumption of the images is regarded as the same as trade in ivory, as a defacto commission of a crime by creating a market for exploitation.  Elephants are endangered, while children are a protected group of people unable to fend for themselves.  Apparently obtaining or possessing the images, electronic or otherwise, is akin to buying ivory as far as the law is concerned.

Apparently the law does not see this as a thought crime as much as a behavior that supports an outlawed activity, the exploitation of children for sexual purposes.  As it stands, the law does not find this a victimless crime.  This seems to be the basis for the apparently draconian policy.

[8ullfrog]

There is a rating system regarding Video games, just as there is one regarding Films.

One common argument is that parents are "Too busy" to keep their kids from playing M rated (M18) games. To which I say. "golly you, get less busy."

Also, don't equate some duck bless'ed weirdo with my video game habits. I know not to golly a duck.

Just realized you said CJ's journey was an unfortunate take on black culture.

The name of the game is GRAND THEFT AUTO SAN ANDREAS. The game cover shows gang culture, driveby shootings, and hookers.

Your rant is bad, and you should feel bad.

[6pairsofshoes]

I think 8ully was referring to tarascon's self-described "rant."

Yes, parents should impose limits.  But teenagers are crafty, and specifically seek the forbidden, sometimes, despite their guardian's best efforts.  It's hard to know what to do with respect to this.  And, agreed, playing a video game is a far cry from having biblical knowledge of a duck.

tarascon is currently without internet access.  I'm sure he'll respond when he returns next week.

[goldshirt*9]

... and I really struggle with the conceptual difference between holding them on a local hard drive as opposed to a remote hard drive: does this mean that as long as you store your porn on Amazon or Dropbox's servers you are "looking", but on your own machine you "possess". The law truly is an ass.

wouldn't this be classed as downloading them to your cloud hdd though.
cannot be argued to type so here is the info
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a02

[Beatrix]

To be honest, I get ChrisT.  I understand finding it incredible people can be prosecuted for looking at pictures, no matter what they are of. 
As a mom, I have to admit I want him jailed, possibly beaten.  Not because he has done anything wrong, but because I am self centered. To have my child in a neighborhood with him, I would want him to know there is a consequence to him looking at someone in one of those pictures.  God, what if it was your child made to make them.. That is a tired comment, but you see where I was going with it.
I'm not one to say if a person is wrong.  I believe that sexuality towards children is wrong, no matter how.  I don't believe in jailing people unless they have committed a crime, though.  I will also point out that because it is a law, does not make it a crime to me. 
But I will never condone putting people under psychiatric care as punishment, make them hurt, don't give them meds and cause a conscious coma, allowing them to forget the pervert they were.  Make them remember what they are, and make them recognize the disgust others have for them. /end

[6pairsofshoes]

There are two parts to this "looking" so let me break them down.  One is not and should not be illegal.

Say you are walking down the street and somebody has posted a photo containing illegal content.  You look at it.  That is not and should not be a crime.  Your gaze simply falls on something in your environment.  The person who made and posted the photo should be prosecuted.
Or you are in an educational course where someone shows such an image in order to educate you as to what constitutes child pornography.  That's not a crime either.

But say, you are a pedophile and want to look at photos to get your jollies.  No photo is available to you, so you have to go seek one out.  To obtain the photo, you have to actively acquire it, either by downloading it or paying for one in hard copy.  There is a crime here, I believe, because your active seeking creates a market that requires the exploitation of a vulnerable class of people.  The laws seem aimed at stamping out the illegal manufacture and distribution of those images on the premise that their production hurts children.  Most reasonable people think children should be protected from that sort of exploitation.

[6pairsofshoes]

It's hard to understand how a work of imagination intended to amuse only the creator can be harmful to society unless it is reproduced, displayed and the contents mimic the referent in a way that can be said to actively induce damage through instigating the harmful actions of others.

This stricture could be used to refer to all kinds of hate speech/imagery which is not protected and can include imagery intended to incite violence or harm to minorities or other vulnerable populations.  That, the reining in of speech that is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, is the only circumstance in which this kind of expression should be limited.

[6pairsofshoes]

That does seem a bit of an overreach.  If the aim is to avoid harm to society, what is the basis for this kind of draconian prohibition?  Is there a presumption of magical harm via the existence of such images?