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.
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?
"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.
Washington State has already made their choice, now they just have to understand it.
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.
*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."
Just curious...
If you attack people in the Matrix, is that an assault on a battery?
Please don't kill me.
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.
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
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