Indianapolis Bans Violent Video Games

Dark Nexus writes "This article on MSNBC talks about how a City law restricting access to graphically violent or sexually explicit video games to those who are at least 18 or accompanied by a parent or guardian has been upheld by a federal judge." A ban on violent video games, more or less. It's important to note that this was just a preliminary injunction hearing; video game distributors filed suit to stop the law and the judge has refused to block enforcement of the law while the suit progresses. In theory at least, they could still win the suit. (In reality, the judge has already decided, of course.) If you want a dose of rhetoric to equal or exceed the DeCSS case, read the judge's opinion. Are video games speech? Is violence a new category of speech which receives no constitutional protections?

Comments

not a free speech issue

[dboyles]

I'm trying to see how restricting explicit video games to those under 18 (unless a parent/guardian is with them) is any different than doing the same thing for explicit movies. Alright, I give up... how are they different? This is not a ban on violent video games. It's not a free speech issue and it's not censorship. A 2 year old is allowed to play a game rated mature so long as [s]he has his/her parents' blessing.

If I had a 13 year old kid, I'd buy him Halflife or Quake3 if he wanted it. My parents let me have access to whatever video games I wanted, and I never walked into school with a shotgun. Why? Well I think it has something to do with the fact that I was raised well. This law still gives the parents the right to raise their child[ren] as they see fit.

Done to a certain extent in Utah

[discore]

Well, here in good old Salt Lake City, Utah, this sort of thing is already happening to a certain extent. Not with arcade games, there's no regulation on that at all.
But a while ago I did a test. I sent my 10 year old sister into a computer game store to buy a copy of Q3. They would not sell it to her. They said it was too violent for someone that young. I had to go in there and buy it.
I'm not sure if it's a law here, but with the conservative attitude this state has it just sort of happens by itself.
I personally don't think it's that big of a deal of parents want their kids kept away from violent, bloody, whatever games. There's plenty of "rated E, for everyone" games out there. Take rollercoaster tycoon, the sims, the ever-classic simpsons arcade game. Non violent, fun, even addicting.
I personally don't want any future children I may have to be playing quake 3 at 10 and 11. And if they insist it's sure as hell gonna be on a linux box =)

The MPAA ratings...

[Kragma]

...Are not backed up by force of law. A minor can watch NC-17 movies all day if he or she wants to (and they aren't covered under local pornography ordinances). The system is completely voluntary, the trick is that theaters or movie rental chains that break the rules can be cut off from their supply of movies by MPAA members.

My understanding is that the system would be unconstitutional were it legally enforced. Since movies are regularly cut down to make the R rating (or else face basically no market for an NC-17) the government would essentially be saying "censor your movies, or we'll not let you have a market for it", which seems like a pretty blatant violation of the First Amendment. It would be blocking speech between adults.

This ordinance though... The "harmful to minors" part is probably the week link. Can the city prove violent games harm minors? No, years of psychological research has still registered a big "inconclusive" on that. For any study the city commissions, the plaintiffs could cite 10 more that say the opposite. The likening of violence to pornography is the culprit here. It's pretty obvious that porn isn't nessesarily healthy for five year olds, but violence? Besides, even the most realistic arcade game is stil protraying something not quite realistic...and still something a kid could see far more of on television.

The ordinance itself is aimed at removing the machines, making them uneconomical to operate, not nessesarily keeping them from minors.

The wording of the ruling is also frightening. The judge comes very close to saying that video games aren't speech, or at least not protected speech. Does this mean that, in the future, if the government wants to censor something all they have to do is rule that it isn't protected by the First Amendment?

You'd think these politicians would be a little afraid. I mean, gamers are all trained snipers that have an insatiable appetite for blood, right?

Incorrect Facts

[John Goerzen]

Slashdot and many readers are totally misinterpreting the facts of this situation. The "ban" applies to ARCADES, and works similar to the movies -- it says that children cannot play the violent games unless their parents consent.

For an accurate and more factual report, check out this article from the Indianapolis Star. It is extremely bad form for Slashdot and its readers to continue to mislead and be misled about the facts.

Please, let's discuss the merits of what actually was proposed. Unless people are giving their kids money to go out and buy a coin-operated machine, this story is totally off-base and incorrect.

Speaking as someone who used to sell video games..

[D'Arque Bishop]

... I would probably say this is a good thing.

Unfortunately, parents don't tend to take the time to understand what their children are playing. The more info we can give them on the subject, the better they can prolly understand what their children are up to. I worked for Toys R Us in their video game department for two and a half years, and I repeatedly informed parents of the rating system. It was very rare that I found a parent who didn't think it was a good thing.

I guess the best analogy I could give was this one time I was working at the game booth itself. This woman in her mid-30's came up to me, holding a ticket for a copy of DOOM for SNES. I got her the game, and as I got her to sign the ticket, I casually asked her who it was for. She smiled, and said it was for her five-year-old son. I just looked up, and asked her if she knew what the game was about. She said no, and I proceeded to describe the game in detail. When I was done, she was noticably paler and wanted to know where she could get a refund (the cartridges themselves weren't handed out until the game was paid for). I'm firmly convinced that a lost sale is better than a refund later and an irate former customer. I guess my point here is that parents don't know about a lot of these games, and that at least this way they have a chance to take a look at what it is their kids are buying/playing, and gives them a say in it.

Age limits are a good thing

[flatpack]

I really fail to see how anyone can argue that age limits on violent and explicit material are anything other than a sane policy. It has been shown that children are more vulnerable to these things than adults, and so limiting their exposure to these kinds of materials is nothing more than caring for our future.

When violence becomes a part of society that is tolerated, then we must make sure that it does not become accepted. Currently American culture, such as it is, tolerates violence as being an inevitable consequcne of allowing firearms to be possessed by people, but it hasn't gotten to the stage yet where people accept violence as a tool for getting ahead in life. So, in order to make sure that people don't begin to perceive violence as a valid socio-economic tool of advancement, we need to make sure that children don't perceive violence as being "cool".

These kinds of laws, whilst perhaps not being strictly Constituional, are very necessary. We cannot let our children fall into the trap that violence is good, and nothing shouls be allowed to stand in the way of ensuring this. When the Constitution was drafted, if they'd have realised the threats that children face everyday, I'm sure they'd have realised that sometimes, freedom of speech is not an abolute concept.