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.
Mr. Pink: You kill anybody?
Mr. White: A few cops.
Mr. Pink: No real people?
Mr. White: Just cops.
More to the point, guns, be they a fundamental American right or not, kill vastly greater numbers of innocents each year than video games. Conversely, guns are hardly any remote form of artistic expression, while the nature of video games implies that they should enjoy the same protections as art and individual expression as a whole.
I'm not in fact a big video gamer, and I'm not really into violence (except against stupid people--you know who you are) but I think that considering it obviously not protected speech simply because its a newer medium unfamiliar to many is ridiculous. Sure, pac-man may not have much culteral value as protected speech, but extending that view is ignorant and short sighted.
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
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.
Teacher Killer 2K4, Cop Killer 2004 Season
Those games sound freakin' sweet. Where can I buy them?
Kidding aside (somewhat) I always sort of secretly hoped that all these violent video games would turn me into an unstoppable killing machine, like Rambo or Charlton Heston. But the unfortunate reality is that the thousands of hours spent playing games really just improved my mousing skills.
Need something clicked on, in a rapid and ultra-violent manner? I'm definitely your man. Need someone offed in real life? You probably wouldn't call me.
I guess what I'm saying is: If video games are supposed to cause violent behaviour, I think I got ripped off.
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.
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
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.