Banning Violent Arcade Games Unconstitutional

zTTTz writes "The US District court ruled that it was not only unconstitutional to ban violent video games from public arcades, but also ruled that the city of Indianapolis pay $318,000 in legal fees to the video game industry. This will probably make other cities think twice about trying to censor video game content again." Update 17:45 GMT by J : We covered the Indianapolis story previously in July 2000, October 2000, and March 2001. Check out NCAC's open letter, too. We haven't bothered covering the recurring news of declining real-world violence (while video games just get more gruesome and explicit), mostly because it's the same story over and over.

Comments

Excellent!

[asdfasdfasdfasdf]

The world is now free for Elevator Action! For a moment, I was afraid I wouldn't be able to go into those "secret" red doors anymore!

The money will be much needed

[TheGreenLantern]

but also ruled that the city of Indianapolis pay $318,000 in legal fees to the video game industry...

Thank goodness, this ruling comes not a minute too soon. Have you seen John Romero's monthly hair care bill lately?

Sometimes the Court System gets it

[toupsie]

Its every American's right to be outrageously offensive through expression. Be it sex, violence or politics, its every American's right to make other people incredibly uncomfortable by their speech and expression. The more disgusting and disturbing, the more freedom it should enjoy. These violent video games are nothing more than an expression of ideas set forth by a person or group.

Hopefully, the courts will also start striking down "Hate Speech" codes at public institutions next. Once Government and our public institutions start governing what can and cannot be said, it limits the ability for the disenfranchised to respond. No one has the right not to be offended.

Re:Someone should probably fill in Austrialia too.

[abh]

As much as we here in the US would love to force our values on everyone, just because the US Supreme Court says that something violates our constitution, doesn't necessarily mean it is agains the law in Australia.

Re:Correctness

[breon.halling]

I concur. Up here in Toronto, one of our local stations (CityTV) has a tendency to bleep out the word "mother" while leaving the word "fucker" untouched.

It's a constant source of amusement. ;)

Re:Correctness

[einer]

Oh I know, just the other day I was watching the "tee-vhee" and they cut out the majority of Animal House on TNN. However, they had no objections to showing a man spraying a can of liquid hair onto his bald head. I think we all know which one is going to be more damaging to our nations children in the long run.

Re:Expect more rulings like this

[DonkPunch]

and has pretty much ripped up the Bill of Rights from No 3. on

Please cite evidence proving Ashcroft has sought to allow forcible quartering of soldiers in private households.

You do know what what Amendment Three says, don't you?

So please back up your poorly-punctuated assertion about "No. 3 on." Otherwise, I will simply dimiss you as yet another immature, Constitutionally misinformed, knee-jerk slashdot wannabe geek.

Re:GTA

[Moonshadow]

What violent games was Hitler Playing?

Risk :)

Re:GTA

[Archanagor]

This law didn't interfere with the creator's write to make a video game, it prevented minors (who are not, and shouldn't be, granted full Constitutional protections) from using that game. There is a difference. While I personally disagree with the ordinance, you have to recognize that this issue, like most, is not so cut-and-dried as most people here like to think

You're absolutely right. It just banned it from being available for anyone to use. Which amounts to silencing free expression.

How is this politicians' faults? I mean, we blame them for everything under the sun, but what "soft parenting" laws have they created? I feel that people don't discipline their children as much anymore because they're not around to do so. We've created a society where in most families both the parents have to work simply to make ends meet. Children are not monitored suffiently not because of moral failure on someone's part (except maybe the corporations that have created this situation), but because of economic necessity.

Encouragement and laws are 2 different things. Nowadays you can get arrested for spanking your child. I should have been more clear, or less single-minded about this one, there are many more factors than political. But, when I'm in a resturaunt and there's someone there with a child the overwhelming majority of the time the child will be running around, making a nuicence of themselves, but the parent does absolutely nothing.

There are people out there that push just that agenda. I call them political, you may call them something else.

Indianapolis hasn't gone nearly far enough.

[gdyas]

Despite this minor setback, hopefully Indianapolis will be able in the future to regulate what games children may play. The world of the child is stuffed with a plethora of unhealthy, evil entertainments that need to be purged so that we may produce moral, upright children ready to perform God's will.

Take for example the realm of board games, those mental cannibals of cardboard that swallow our children's time. There's Monopoly, teaching children to ruthlessly crush the dreams of prosperity possessed by others. And what of Battleship? Have we learned nothing from Pearl Harbor? Do we really need a generation of children trained in the dive-bombing arts? I can't even begin to approach Candyland, that pernicious purveyor of tooth-rottening sweets to our youngest and most pure.

Vigilance must also be a priority on the playground. For far too long have our most defenseless been savaged in the hour-long assualt & battery of a dodgeball tournament. Today the ball, tomorrow the bombs. Heed my words. And "tag", that cruelest of isolationist evils masquerading as a recess diversion. Stop the madness now, lest your child be the next to become IT.

Re:A story about an Indianapolis arcade

[gdyas]

While I was standing there playing at a (particularly violent) first person shoot-em-up, some kid (maybe 20 years old) pokes me in the back and says "You better watch where ya go when ya get outta here 'cuz I might just wanna shoot ya with my real piece." Great... I've just been threatened with death.

See?!? He obviously knew the difference between the simulated violence in the game and the nine in his pocket. Who say's kids can't differentiate between video game and real violence?

Re:GTA

[FigBug]

i think they should ban bejeweled. that game is a drug, like crack, but worse.