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

Thank you Thomas Jefferson!

[plover]

I was at the Jefferson Memorial this summer. It's nice and all, but he deserves so much more. I don't think enough people know what he did for us.

Is this a great country or what? :-)

John

Re:Violence is OK, but god forbid you show any sex

[Pig Hogger]

...
I find it really troubling that its alright to show someones head being blown off, but you show a breast and suddenly its banned.

In the original Dune book, evil baron Vladimir Harkonnen goes to bed with a slave-boy.

When they did the movie, no more bed scene, but rather a gory scene where the baron drinks the kid's blood straight from his aorta.

Looks like the yankees have a sick, perverted mentality where it's okay so suck blood, but not to suck dick.

Re:In unrelated news, on the off-topic topic: CSS

[einer]

Killing? (I can't tell if you're being serious... I'm really hoping that this is an ad absurdium argument.... please...)

It doesn't matter if you think your actions are correct. You've given up a piece of your personal soverignty to live here, as we all have just to remain citizens. We are obligated by that to endure any punishments the leaders we have elected decide to bring down upon us. In other words, if you don't like it: move. (What a horrible sounding argument). My argument here is that it is not wrong to break the law, but it is wrong to try to avoid any punishments that you may receive as a consequence. In other words, the law has no moral compass.

Re:Expect more rulings like this

[gamgee5273]

Actually, being a strict constructionist or a broad constructionist has no bearing on this. The judges who ruled on this are, in all likelyhood, probably Clinton-era appointees. And, while Mayor Peterson is a Democrat, he is typcially seen as a conservative one (a "New Democrat," if you will), one of the reasons he was elected in a city that hadn't seen a Democratic mayor in over 30 years.

I, for one, am a broad constructionist and I abhor censorship laws of this nature because of the fact that it takes the responsibility away from the parent allowing them to rely on the government for babysitting.

I'm thinking your touting of Dubya hasn't been thought out completely, considering the fact that he hails from Texas, a state that still, to this day, censors the works of Shakespeare sold in the state. Not just the works read in school or sold to children, but the works sold in the entire state to everybody.

Re:Sex? NO! Violence? YES!

[kryzx]

I'm with you on this. I have no problem with my kid seeing naked people, but the violence that's on tv during primetime is way too much for him. I'd like to see a better rating system for the various media (tv, movies, games, music), with different scales for different things. Like rate from 1-5 each on nudity, sex, violence, and language. That would give you some real information to work with in judging the suitability of programming.

I just saw LOTR, rated PG-13, (here on imdb) last week, and lots of parents brought their kids. We were sitting next to a woman and her 6 yr old daughter. I think that movie was a seriously traumatic experience for that kid. And yet sirens (here on imdb) was rated R for people running around naked, and barely even any sex. I'd take my 3 yr old to that any day.

Re:at what point do we stop though?

[Rupert]

Yes, there are some things that need to be separated from children. Paedophiles, pederasts and censors spring to mind. Other than that it's my job to instill my values into my children (which will have a greater or lesser degree of success depending on their personality). I don't want my children drinking in bars, but that doesn't mean I want to close down all the bars in my neighbourhood.

A story about an Indianapolis arcade

[sdo1]

I was recently on a trip to Indianapolis with a friend and one night we had some extra time... so we were spending some time at the arcade in the big mall right downtown. As it got later, the arcade began to fill with more and more city kids.

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.

Yes, I know that the problem is the kid and NOT the game... but if that's the attitude of a human being on in this country... that he might just like to shoot me for the fun of it... then maybe games like this shouldn't be allowed to coexist in the same place with this person. There ARE clealy people in this world who have very little respect for human life. Who aren't intelligent enough to delineate between a video game and reality.

The experience of having a complete stranger threaten to shoot me did leave me a little shaken. It gave me pause to think about such laws and to make me reconsider my long-standing anti-censorship position. I'm honestly on the fense on this one. Just look at my .sig. Censorship is something that I take very seriously. I'm bothered by what happened and I'm bothered that my convictions have been weakened.

-S

Re:Correctness

[limber]

There was an interesting article by Tad Friend in the Nov 19 2001 issue of The New Yorker (alas, no link as they don't seem to have a real online archive) about the conflict between the major TV networks' Standards and Practices departments and their creative departments. Lots of amusing anecdotes about past tussles.

i.e.

- the story of how after a year of negotiation after NYPD Blue's debut in 1993, Steven Bochco was able to persuade ABC to use exactly 37 vulgarities per episode, as long as he did not stray from an agreed on glossary of words. He could show breasts from the side (no nipples), and dorsal but not frontal nudity. He could suggest, but never show intercourse. 57 affiliates refused to air the first episode, and ABC couldn't charge its full ad rate on the show for years.

- In 1959 on CBS's "Playhouse 90", when 'Judgment at Nuremberg' was presented by the American Gas Association, they cut the word 'gas' from the script. So millions of Jews died in "...chambers."

- Aaron Sorkin (resp. for 'The West Wing') relates how "Standards and Practices made it very clear that I will be able to say 'motherfucker' on the air before I can take the Lord's name in vain. They fear that religious groups will aggressively boycott our show." The article goes on to detail how "in one episode last year, President Bartlet exploded about being bested by a 'damn street gang.' "It didn't ring true," Sorkin said. "I originally wrote 'goddamn street gang.' In the movies, it would have been 'fucking street gang.'""

A funny article. The issue also has a decent historical overview of the roots of Islamic conflict with the West. Your local library should have a copy...

Here in Indianapolis

[Cyberllama]

This has been nothing but headaches for arcade goers. I'm a college student and I can't tell how irritating it was to get carded at an arcade. The way most arcades were doing it (the ones who use cards not tokens) they'd put out two sets of cards, one programmed to play any game, and one that won't play the over-16 games. Alot of the time I'd just end up trading with some poor under-16 smchuck, take his card and go back up to the counter and complain that I was given a under-16 card. I liked to think of it as "freedom-fighting". :)