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.
It could be argued in many video games, the enemy is "enforcing" some law for a corrupt or evil government or organization... whether it be the Hammer Brothers in Super Mario Brothers, the Imperial Stormtroopers in Star Wars, to the Republican Guard in a hypothetical Gulf War shoot-em-up. Absurd -- where do you draw the line?
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
You should check out Grand Theft Auto 3. You can walk down the street and beat a regular person to a bloody pulp, and nothing happens. But once you beat up a cop, your 'wanted level' rises, all hell breaks loose and they're on your ass.
-Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow
Being only 16, if this actually affects any games I wish to puchase you can sure as hell bet I'll be getting them off kazaa. And It'll be a lot easier than the classic five finger discount ;).
Without music, life would be a mistake. --- Nietzsche
Interesting, that reminds me of a certain book I once read...
:D
"It warn't the grounding--that didn't keep us back but a little. We
blowed out a cylinder-head." (huck finn)
"Good gracious! anybody hurt?" (aunt sally)
"No'm. Killed a nigger."
"Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.
I have a feeling this won't be modded funny
Weren't the Nazi Brown shirts cops too ? So frag as the SS officers you want, but NO BrownShirts
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Just buy them online. Sure, fight it in court, buy in the meantime, just buy them online. You can get them cheaper and often faster by preordering them. Also, if they were to have a law like that, I would rather have it modified so that they required a parental signature or something. Complete bans suck.
I'm not a fan of "we know what's best for you" and this kind of thing borders on silly. On the other hand, I doubt a video game where the goal was to hijack a plane and crash it into a building would be well-received even if the targets weren't police, so I don't think it's really a question of police being more valuable. The fact is, they're easier to identify targets on the street and promoting that targetting of police is no different than a game targetting blacks, whites, or garbage collectors. It's all sick.
Almost as alarming as the law is the fact that the designers of video games are so completely out of creativity that they have to resort to something as disgusting as shooting law enforcement officers. Is there truly nothing more interesting or fun that they can come up with for new video games?
I might be showing my age, but Space Invaders, Asteriods, Pole Position... They were all fun and didn't involve killing humans. I know things change and evolve and I'm not suggesting we bring back Space Invaders, but I have to believe that fun games can still be sold that don't require the killing of other humans, police or not...
I know I'm marking myself to be modded down into the lowest pits of Slashdot hell for doing this and will incur the wrath of hordes of indignant high school age geeks on this forum, but I can't say in all honesty that I'm against this. I've watched in the last few years as games have gotten far more realistic (shockingly so, in many cases) and borderline subversive. There have been reasonable complaints about this stuff and I've watched as those making a profit from it all have, for the most part, sat firmly on their thumb and blithely ignored the issue. With all that profit comes responsibility. If you disagree, clamp down on your next complaint about Microsoft, okay?
I'm not immediately in favor of legislating this kind of thing, but the video game industry, on the whole, has been pretty unresponsive to this issue. What have they done to prevent legislators from moving in this direction? Precious friggin' little, from what I can see. While you're busy complaining to your representative, fire off a letter of complaint to your favorite video game publisher too. They bear just as much blame.
Do I think people should have the right to play these games? Yes. Do I think keeping this stuff out of the hands of kids is an attack on free speech? No. I value free speech too much to allow some attorney for the video game industry to play emotional semantic games with that term. And that includes the term "censorship" too. It's not censorship, if it can be sold. It's not anti-free speech either.
Then there is the issue of public placement of violent video games. I called Regal Cinemas to complain once about some of the games they had on plain view in their lobby and the response was the typical, greedy corporate garbage I should have expected. To sum up, I was told that the games make good money and that my complaint was basically irrelevant. That is the kind of attitude that leads to stupid laws like this.
And before anyone think they need to take the predictable path of attacking me personally, bear in mind that I play many games myself that would be considered shockingly violent, but I do that in the privacy of my own home. I'm a big fan of video games. But I'm not a mindless consumer who isn't annoyed by bad behavior on the part of the companies I patronize. What bothers me is the apparent lack of concern for what kind of games are put out as demos in places like Toys R Us and on full public display in various places. If any of you don't see the problem with having games like House of the Dead on display in places like theaters and malls then you need to re-think your position a bit. It's not unreasonable to expect those things to be placed in appropriate areas.
I'd rather the video game industry had taken this up themselves and done something reaonable and responsible and respectable, but as they have consistently failed to acknowledge the issue, I guess it has to become a law. It's sad and could have been avoided.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
what is with "violence against law enforcement officials" of iraque or iran? are they also protected by this law?
One wonders how this kind of law gets justified... there is countless research that proves that the violence police applies in it's daily routine is directly proportional to the amount of times they get shot at. For more then once I've almost been tempted to defend myself when a law-enforcement officer 'attacked' me for no good reason other then having long hair.
In the Uk they've understood this, bobbies have nightsticks and they never get shot, plus people co-operate with a polite officer much more easily then with one who forces them in a defensive posture.
Violence only leads to more violence, bigger violence leads to even more bigger violence.
Instead of banning a videogame lets ban the guns, for all those who are confused about the difference between real life and fiction. If there are no guns people can't accidentally kill their 6 year old neighbour.
I respect your disagreement, but I think simulated violence DOES have an effect on the susceptible mind. Some people are not born killers and others are frank sociopaths... but that vast continuum inbetween holds people who can be drawn to one extreme or the other by their environment and/or experiences.
How does the military train soldiers to kill? By having them simulate the act hundreds of times. Most people have great difficulty killing others; most cops that are forced to take a life in the line of duty leave the profession shortly thereafter... it's truly a life-changing experience, and not for the better. For most people, killing another human being is tough, and it requires practice. I've known police officers who couldn't pull the trigger... I know one who lost their life because of it.
I think you are blaming the victim when you excuse a cop killer's behavior as being due to their "bad experiences" with police officers. If you break the law, the police are required to gift you with some bad experiences. It's people who refuse to obey the law that are the problem, not the cop who is oath and duty-bound to intercede.
Most cops I've known try very hard to catch the bad guys; it can be a real thrill to lay hands on a serious felon... it makes you feel good, like you're making a difference. I think, however, that you're kicking the little guy when you blame the urban cop who's running from call to call for the department's poor response time. Most urban police officers are as busy on their shifts as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest; they are not Barney Fife hanging out at the station all day, waiting for something to happen. In big cities, the hanging-out-at-the-doughnut-shop cop myth is exactly that. Generally speaking, those departments tend to be understaffed, underfunded, and have to deal with a lot of crap, including things like 911 abuse (people who call the police to discipline their child, for instance).
I agree that video game violence is a probably a small factor, but it does encourage a certain sociopathic bent. I would equate it to mullahs in Saudi Arabia and Iran exhorting their flocks to kill americans and jews... not everybody will listen, but a significant few will...
All that said, I still disagree with the law... this should really be left to the parents.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
You know, I read your comment and it led me thinking on another skew: What does that say about the image of law enforcement officers in America as a whole? Are they the enemy,and if so, why? Is killing them "cool"? What crimes are you committing (or pretending you're committing) that warrant the killing of a peace officer? Or, without a mass of bullshit rhetorical questions, WTF are you doing that means you have to pit your life against a policeman doing his job?
The only answer I can come up with: It's a game. And in real life, about the worst thing you can do to in society (according to the courts, anyway) is kill a police officer. That's much worse than killing a civilian, you know. I guess the police force and the reputation it has built for itself as a powerful force with a large number of members and more importantly, the image that they are untouchable/unbeatable, means the exploitation of this sort of taboo becomes acceptable, if not (scarily) attractive, at least on a fantasy level. Rebellion against authority has always been enticing, especially to those still working out their place in society (ie teenagers). Until, of course, they get their first taste of reality. It's just the usual attraction to that which is against the grain (and there ain't a bigger "grain" than the government).
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
...of legislators taking responsibility out of the parents' hands.
There ought to be punishment for parents whose kids break laws. That should encourage parents to raise their kids to respect rules.
Most of the "punks" I met in high school had parents who didn't care what they did. In fact, a few of them would have their parents bail them out at school whenever they could.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Great way to encourage piracy, tell the kids under 17 they can't buy their favorite games, the largest portion of the pirating world are 12-19 years old.
I'm not condonning this, but this is a hard fact, you won't fix the problem by making laws, this is the parents job anyway.
Like I said earlier, prevent a 16 years kid who is in love with Grand Theft Auto (If you haven't been a witness to this you don't get out much!) from buying the next version of the game, and the amount of burnt copies will spread worse than SARS in Asia.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
krispykringle -- Apologies, but this really is getting more involved than I have time to pursue right now, so I hope you don't mind if I call this my last contribution to this thread :)
... the nuke-in-a-briefcase does give me the willies. Depending on who you believe or refuse to, there may be one or more of these in cities around the U.S.; reasonable sources suggest that the Soviet Embassy had one. (Or maybe this is now to the level of proven or disproven fact, I am not sure.)
In more direct regard to guns, though, we clearly acknowledge limits. You would be in the great minority (not that that discredits your beliefs, to be sure) if you truly believed that "anything [one] can bear is fair.""
Well, that's why I used the past tense
"Does this apply to everyone? Are licensing schemes to make sure owners have proper training illegal?"
That's a good question. The Constitution specifies the right to "keep and bear" arms, does not address matters of acquisition directly. Certain types of legislation could obviously subvert the intent of such a statement of rights (banning ammunition, or outlawing guns with a capactity for >0 rounds of ammunition, mandating a 131-year waiting period etc), but I am not certain whether a mandatory training or competency test would do the same. I've considered this only a little bit in my life, but I don't see it as clearly unconstutional (or immoral, fattening etc) to require a basic competency test. (General welfare might cover this, though I think the general welfare is basically best served by leaving people the hell alone.) Driving licenses don't bother me so much, since they apply to public spaces; I think a decent analog in the gun world are the courses required, I believe in every state which allows concealed handgun carry, before people can carry. I think it's important that any such requirements be reasonable and liberal -- the law should defer to the gun owner and the public, rather than force the owner to defer to the state.
"What about preventing minors or mental patients or felons from owning guns? I know this will probably make you shake your head and mutter, "it's a slippery slope," but clearly once you acknowledge that some restrictions are OK, the debate becomes a bit more complex."
Well, I do acknowledge that some restrictions are OK, but I think this slippery slope is far less slippery than the point you raised earlier re: scope of arms ownership rights (the MiG). Felons who have served their full term ought IMO have the full rights of citizenship restored. It's not good to have a stratified society where people have different levels of rights. (For that matter, I'd like to see a lot of age restrictions done away with, on both ends of the age spectrum. Mandatory retirement ages disgust me.) Parolees by definition do not have all the rights of ordinary citizens, but I don't want a permanent parolee class.
"There are, of course, those who argue that in a historical context, the 2nd Amendment didn't mean what it has been said to mean, namely that the "well funded militia" means the intention was for a regulated militia, not rampant gun ownership in any home."
The Constituion specifies "well regulated" rather than "well funded;" that well regulated though is in a subordinate clause, subordinate to the "right of the people shall not be infringed" part. And, in a historical context, the founding dads expressing an opinion (looking for counterexamples) were pretty pro-gun.
See for instance this page, with gems like "Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29)
(Though see also this page of bogus founders' quotes, which casts some doubt on the top quote from G. Washington listed in
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5