Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Restricts Anti-Cop Videogames
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to this CNN report mentioning that Washington state is the first in the US to regulate the sale of videogames to minors. The bill, passed Monday, "..forbids selling minors any video or computer game depicting violence against law enforcement officials.". Interestingly, the law (as mentioned at Slashdot a while back) seems to ignore the fairly well-respected voluntary ESRB ratings for games, with the article suggesting that Enter The Matrix might be banned for purchase by those under 17, due to the player battling cops, despite EtM only being rated 'Teen' by the ESRB.
What I find so annoying, about this is not that its another "we know what's best for you" kind of law, but that its one based on the assumption that the lives of normal citizens are less valuable than that of the policefolk. Apparently, if you were just mowing down innocent bystanders the game would be fine for minors that would otherwise be damaged by simulated combat with the police.
Thankfully I live in Washington state and can sign the petition for the repeal of this stupidity.
If they made it against the law to sell a game that depicted shooting white people, but it was OK to sell the game where people are shooting African-Americans, I think it would be slightly more obvious who they thought the second class citizens were, but it is no less offensive.
I may not agree with violent games in general but what happend to free speach? Gun ownership is not banned. How can you ban something very similar? Surly someone will take this to court and it will be struck down.
But I guess we gotta start somewhere, and apparently they think video games is a good place to start
-Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow
Urm, this would effectively restrict the sale of Return to Castle Wolfenstien. After all, the SS are law enforcement officials too...
Lest we all forget about the movie industry, which has successfully managed to implement a ratings system that many people can agree on and has become common practice, while at the same time there is absolutely no legal involvement in the process. If a 6 year old sees Terminator 3 then no law was broken.
It's a good thing that the movie industry has such a powerful lobby to protect themselves against retarted legislation like this. The video game companies need a similar legislative body.
I don't like the direction some of the video games are going these days, but this is a bad precedence. When selling games is strictly forbidden for attribute 'A', pretty soon games will be forbidden for attributes 'B' through 'Z' (religion, race, nationality, etc.). Congress should support and enforce the ESRB rating system (more funding, etc) instead of taking direct action themselves - the ESRB is more properly equipped to research ratings and make intelligent, UNBIASED decisions.
The following is an excerpt from a post I made to a mailing list, where this very subject came up for discussion:
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
So, you can let the kid watch cop-killer movies and read cop-killer books, but he can't play cop-killer video games. Not fair to the cop-killer videogame makers is it?
/sarcasm.
So, what about playing 'cops and robbers' is that restricted too? Can the kid playing the robber shoot at the cop, or does he just have to lay down and get frisked and cuffed?
"Protecting" minors _IS_ a violation of free-speech. Some people are fool enough to think that as long as the law doesnt apply to all age-groups, it doesnt count as going against free speech. Remember that your speech is not free unless you can choose who you are speaking to!
"You can say that, as long as certain people aren't listening." Is NOT good enough.
If you're a parent, don't depend on the law to do your job for you! "I can't watch my kid every second of the day" is no excuse, because raising a child is about what you kid does when you aren't watching.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Laws of this kind that have started showing up since 9-11 make me sick. You want to make a law preventing children from buying violent contnet, fine. I don't agree with it. It is just another case of the government making up my parenting decisions for me. But WHY is the law only restricted to violence against law enforcement officials? So assuming that one buys into the idea that videogmaes make people do violent acts, it is ok for a minor to buy a gmes that is, for example, Teacher Killer 2K4, but not Cop Killer 2004 Season? What logic is that?
In my opinion, it makes just as much sence as making a law that applies to videogmaes but not movies, books music or any other form of popular entertainment...
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Also, who will be fining retail employees $500 for selling games like this to minors? It's not serious enough to put a cop in every corner of compUSA.
How will this law affect online buying of games though? If it makes it more difficult for people in other states, game companies might have better grounds for a lawsuit (business negatively impacted).
Well, I guess killing the Redcoats in the Revolutionary War is out of the question, being that the British were the "legitimate authority" back in 1776.
I'm feeling disapointed that when I hear about the law singling out violence against a group, I feel like it values one person's life over another one; as if the life of a cop is more valuable than that of a citizen. It's kind of like the hate crime thing.
I see this as a good step for video games, it shows that the legislators are starting to treat video games as a legitimate form of entertainement such as movies.
Since video games core audience are males aged 18-34, there is a market for 'mature' content and should not be held up to different standards than other forms of entertainment (movies, TV, etc..). It will allow for developers to put whatever content they wish into their product providing they are willing to accept the rating it will be given.
Mind you, if I were still a minor I'd be super pissed :)
I guess that would not be the case, first of all the SS is considered evil, as they were a part of an evil regime. Secondly soldiers, which they basically are in the game, aren't really law enforcers.
;)
Anyway, I agree that if there was a game called Iraqi Virtua Citizen, where you shoot Iraqi policemen, it won't be restricted, but perhaps I am just jaded
Dre
Living in Washington State and having been through the public education system and made privy to the legislation which takes place here, this recent restriction of video games is another typical step. Washington state seems to be a test ground (along with California) for new Federal projects. If any of you readers have recently graduated highschool from anywhere in the northwest or greater western US, and you had (or if not, very soon) to complete a "Senior Project" you can thank Washington State. All bias aside, Washington is corrupt. There is no dout in my mind that the state is receiving some sort of compensation or as they call it "SPONSORSHIP" for enacting laws or legislation which has the favor of the current administration. The rest of the country can expect this to spread very soon. I was actually shocked to heat the age 17 limit, because I was aware that Washington was planning on making the limit 21. Essentially, cartoonish violence is only for those with the responsibility to make themselves drunken stupid. This is just more of the same.
... "From my cold dead hand!"
I'll accept a ban on violent video games... right after they ban child-accessible weapons and ammunition and not a moment before.
Videogames don't kill people, people wielding weapons kill people.
Who's willing to bet money that banning violent videogames may actually lead to a statistically significant RISE in actual violence?
---
(I realise this is my second original post on the topic. I work tech support and my first post was written before I had to just deal with a client. I've just had to deal with a network problem and client complaining about said problem, hence the vehemence in this post...)
*Sigh* as someone who has engaged in the law enforcement profession in the past, I find this offensive.
The reason there are tougher legal sanctions on people who assault/kill a law enforcement officer is because those persons are felt to be a greater threat to society.
Just as a person who coldly plans the death of another (ie. malice aforethought) is guilty of first degree murder and garners a stiffer sentence than a second-degree murderer, so a person who is willing to assault/kill a police officer is considered a great danger to society. The greater the threat to society, the harsher the sentence. It has nothing to do with cops being first or second class citizens.
Cops come third all the time... their lives rank just above that of a bad guy's, and below everyone else. The order goes like this... victims (or hostages), then bystanders, then cops, and finally, perpetrators.
That's not to say I agree with this law; I don't. I disagree with this law from a civil liberties standpoint. This is a parenting issue... If a parent wants their child to listen to Ice-T and play cop-killer video games all day long, then fine. But I expect them to STFU and hang their head in shame if some police officer has to kill their gang-banger-wannabe kid in self-defense some day, simply because he's conditioned himself to the idea that it's OK to kill a cop.
Actions. Consequences. Bad parenting has its own rewards... and punishments. While I wouldn't wish it on anyone, can you conceive a worse punishment than outliving your own children and knowing it was because of your own parental neglect? Talk about crushing guilt... As a parent, I can't imagine much worse.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
See, well meaning but clueless lawmakers believe that you can pass a law covering every possible circumstance. You can't. Laws are supposed to do two things: 1. Prevent anarchy. 2. Set basic guidelines for life. Yes, there has to be a few rules (laws) when people live together in a community. NO, the law book should NOT be thousands and thousands of pages long! The problem is, that is exactly what has happened. There's dozens of new laws passed every day....which is more then the sum total of laws (commandments) GOD gave us (10).
Not to mention any Robin Hood game.
Robin Hood was directly in conflict with the law enforcement, not soldiers.
I have nothing against law enforcement officers. I respect every individual equally, and none more than equally.
I am utterly disgusted when I see reports on the news title "Cop Killer" or hear reporters and law enforcement officials remarking "you just can't kill a cop and get away with it".
There is perhaps nothing more offensive to the dignity of a free man or woman than this.
The suggestion that the life of a cop is somehow more important than the life of a businessman, a vagrant, or myself, is utterly repulsive and an affront to all that I believe in.
It makes me cry.
The day you believe that the life of any one individual is more instrinsically valuable than the life of another is the day that you surrender your dignity and your soul.
NO! You are fundamentally wrong.
The punishment required by justice is equal, always equal, and equal in all instances, to the injustice of the crime.
To punish an offender more than is required by the injustice he has done, even a day longer, is to commit an abhorrent act of moral sin.
To punish an injustice more than is required by justice, or less than is by justice to be expected by the offender, is to commit an abhorrent act of moral sin.
Injustice is solely and entirely the measure of the crime apart from its consequences, probable, posssible, or actual.
You see, do you see where your line of reasoning LEADS US?
If the punishment due is not solely and entirely a function of the injustice of the crime, then we may just as well imprison indivudals based upon what they might POSSIBLY do.
Do you realize that considered as a matter of probable consequences, an African American teenage male is a significantly greater threat than a white teenage male, or a female of either race?
Do you realize how absurd it is that this should be the basis for our ethical reasoning?
God help you.
Ya gotta remember who the folks were that he didn't care for...he was dealing directly with the Rampart division of LAPD. A division that was known for shooting first, planting weapons second. Known for forging evidance and having other cops back them up on this. Taking money from drug dealers and if you didn't give them the money asked for, you could be assured if they thought you were a criminal you'd end up dead or in jail with a mountain of proof that didn't exist.
:-) In retrospect, yeah -- this was innocent, but its not something I would consider falling under protected speech for a 15 year old. It was FAR more innocent than some of the shit I see today. Just as first hand reactions to the bad police officers can shape ones views, this sort of stuff can reinforce those reactions.
When all of this came out, Ice-T was interviewed on the subject and just said I Told you So...
Personally, I've had a few run ins with the cops over the years. They say it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become conservative without changing a single opinion...I say that it takes one false imprisonment to change an otherwise conservative to a liberal. In my case, I had blue hair or bleached blonde hair or a number of other wacky colors that didn't fit into my hillbilly hometown's idea of what was right. My nose is crooked to this day and its hard to breathe from one nostril from where an officer broke it because I got smart with him by invoking my rights -- I was a minor at the time, and I couldn't do anything about this because when it came to pressing charges, I was told my father needed to be a part of this and his opinion was (at the time, his opinion has changed since) that if someone get their face beat in by a cop, they must have deserved it (yeah -- handcuffed to a chair -- I could REALLY defend myself).
I have had several encounters like that growing up. Here in Indianapolis, I had two run ins with the law...those guys were nothing but professionals. I've also seem my african american friends harrassed for no reason (I guess they had bigger problems here as my hometown didn't have no 'unwanteds' living there) and once in an admitted 'hooptie' that had darkened windows and falling apart (though still within the legal limits) I had a cop pull me over after following for about 2 miles (on the way to a security job I was working trying to get through school...man I HATED those uniforms) -- when I opened the window, the officers attitude from 10 seconds earlier changed...he got friendly and I made reference that I 'understand' why he was pulling me over because my car looked like it shouldn't be in this neighborhood and this was just a car to get me through the winter because I didn't want to have my decent car on the streets this time of the year -- he responded, "Yeah, if you were a 'nigger' you'd be on the ground right now". he said it like a good ol' boy thinkin' I believed the same...
I mentioned it to another security guard that was an off duty officer and he supposedly turned in the report...
But the fact is there are good and bad officers -- the good out rank the bad most of the time. In some neighborhoods, its unfortunate but folks are going to see more of the bad than the good -- and in the Rampart area that Ice-T grew up in, most of the officers that were good STILL let the bad do what they wanted to do and covered for them. I wouldn't have a very decent attitude about them if this is all I was ever exposed to. I've had a friend from South Africa get locked up here for speeding tickets...tried bribing the officers on the spot thinking this was the appropriate thing to do as thats how all the police officers they've dealt with in the past (almost lost his student visa but had a decent judge). Peoples experience and views on police officers will be shaped by what they see around them.
Bringing it home, I don't see a problem with banning certain types of games for those under a certain age. I'm sure in my youth they would have tried to ban DopeWars if the cops knew about the BBS Games
blah
clif
The land of the free,and ppl who can't tell reality from fantasy.
Heard the Matrix 2 was R rated over there? With no real nudity, no gory violence, didn't really think it was a threat to gun toting teens.
Am I getting that old, it's a parady of an old (in the 1980s) NRA tag line
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
By the way, if you make them illegal then by definition only outlaw kids will have the now outlawed games.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
If you cant play the matrix because you fight cops (who aren't really cops, just constructs in the matrix) does that mean you cant fight any "police force" of any kind?
Can I not play wolfenstein because of all those german "police" I kill?
What about Super Mario 1, don't I go into King Koopa's castle and kill just about everyone, including those keeping the (his) peace?
Or is it only for those who represent U.S. police forces?