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.
If you games where kids can play outlaws, then only outlaw kids will play games where they can play outlaws.
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.
Mr. Pink: You kill anybody?
Mr. White: A few cops.
Mr. Pink: No real people?
Mr. White: Just cops.
... is the first game I can remember playing in ages that gives you no penalty for blowing away (or chokeholding, as I prefer) civilians (as in, in the mailrooms).
Having said that, I just want to make clear I ONLY started chokeholding the civilians because I was afraid they'd turn into Agents if I left them behind me (now I realise your first introduction to an Agent is made blatantly obvious... I'll be toning down the more anti-social behaviour in my ETM playing now...).
I'm glad that they make the distininction that it is alright to kill people, as long as they aren't cops.
-saiha
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
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.
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?
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
"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 :)
Washington State has already made their choice, now they just have to understand it.
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 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.
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."
Cop #1: It's working, sir.
Cop #2: What's that?
Cop #1: Here, listen.
[Cop #2 takes off the headphones and allows Cop #2 to overhear the bad guys conversing somewhere else. The scene fades to the bad guys headquarters.]
Bad Guy #1: What do you mean we have to turn ourselves in?
Bad Guy #2: Well, we just don't have the budget to keep on with our life of crime. We used to train our people with those games that let us practice shooting cops. But now we can't buy them any more and we could never afford to develop our own.
Bad Guy #1: Can't we just buy games that let us shoot at people besides cops and practice with that?
Bad Guy #2: People besides cops? You mean like us? You want us to practice shooting bad guys like ourselves?
Bad Guy #1: What are you, some kind of politician? Where's your imagination. Just pretend it's a cop.
[Bad Guy #2 just gives him a blank stare.]
Bad Guy #1: You're right. It's hopeless. If you losers are all I have to help me commit crimes, I might as well just turn myself in. Now where's the phone book? I have to look up the number for 911 so I can turn myself in.
[Fade back to Cops Headquarters, where the police who now have nothing more to do are on the phone to their congressional representatives, thanking them for the new tough laws that make crime-fighting so much easier.]
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
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.
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.
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.
You seem to have contently forgotten the ESRB that is already in place to deal with this.
...but the video game industry, on the whole, has been pretty unresponsive to this issue.
So I'm not sure what you mean by such phrases as:
I'd rather the video game industry had taken this up themselves and done something reasonable and responsible and respectable, but as they have consistently failed to acknowledge the issue...
I'm sure the industry tries to do as much as they can to try and make their products marketable to as large a segment of the population as possible but when a game gets stamped with the Mature rating, I would say that pretty much sends a clear signal to the publisher that the content in that game is for an adult audience.
And just to show you that I think they are doing a pretty fair job without the need for the government to come in and start some sort of slippery slope here:
Grand Theft Auto 3 -- Mature (17+)
Grand Theft Auto Vice City -- Mature (17+)
Age of Empires -- Teen
Neverwinter Nights -- Teen
Quake III Arena -- Mature (17+)
SimCity 4 -- Everyone
Freelancer -- Teen
Postal 2 -- Mature (17+)
Lilo and Stitch Pinball -- Everyone
I've played all of those games at one point or another and think that the rateings are pretty fair. Oh, and by the way. I'm a 30 something year old college grad who has been playing video games since the original Pong. Not all of us are "indignant high school age geeks."
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
INTRO to Cop Killer.
This next record is dedicated to some personal friends of mine, the LAPD.
For every cop that has ever taken advantage of somebody, beat 'em down or
hurt 'em, because they got long hair, listen to the wrong kinda music,
wrong color, whatever they thought was the reason to do it. For every one
of those fuckin' police, I'd like to take a pig out here in this parkin'
lot and shoot 'em in their mothafuckin' face.
- Body Count (w/Ice-T) - "Out In The Parking Lot" - Cop Killer
...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.
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.
I think an orthodox jew would tell you that God gave out considerably more than 10 laws in the old testament. For example don't shave, or wear poly-cotton clothing. But few people observe the commandment to keep Saturday holy, so I'm not convinced people would follow even 10 rules.
Those studies are all flawed. They never factor in the fact that violent screwed up people will naturally gravitate to violent games. If I'm crazy and violent, I'm going to enjoy playing GTA. But just because I play GTA doesn't make me any more likely to be violent.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Ok, Read some of that, and it showed Correlation, NOT Causation... They are different. And that is what some of us are saying. Some people have violent urges. Some of those people shoot up schools, Others(the Majority IMO) Shoot up the computer screen.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Since nethack has Keystone Kops, I guess that rules out playing nethack in the state of Washington. Not a minute too soon either, whenever I see those K letters Ice-T's Cop Killer starts going through my head.
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?
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