IDSA Files To Block Violent Gaming Law

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a Yahoo/Reuters story indicating that the IDSA games trade body has filed a lawsuit against the Washington state videogame violence law. The law, restricting the sale to minors of games featuring violence against police, was passed a few days ago, and the IDSA are filing to have it struck down, saying "..while we share the state's objective to restrict the ability of children to purchase games that might not be appropriate for them, we passionately oppose efforts to achieve this goal by running roughshod over the constitutional rights of video game publishers, developers and retailers to make and sell games that depict images some find objectionable."

Comments

JAcK JR.

[Shanoyu]

Just Another Knee Jerk Reaction.

The essential reason laws like this will continue to be created (regardless of being struck down) is that gamers have in some politically active circles become one of those hated groups.

These groups of legislators and lobbists, whom I will refer to as knee-cons (for knee jerking) believe that the current style of video gaming is symptomatic of what they feel ails society. To put it crudely, they want to push the clock back as far towards 50's TV land as possible, with a few exceptions for their largest groups of supporters such as the newfound status (since the 60's) of women.

Not all knee-cons are Republicans, some are simply democrats who believe strongly in the "republican motherhood" (small r) concept: Good upbringings make good citizens make good republics. Unfortunately everyone is their (Big?) brother's keeper these days.

These legislators represent a segment of American society which holds that video games, homosexuality, any rise in drug use (including medical marijuana), etc. are a threat to the social fabric and thus the political stability of the United States.

In essence, it is necessary that gamers realize that a war has been declared upon them as well as gaming in general. The main fatality could be the constitutional freedoms of entertainers.

Once this has been realized by all groups threatened by this law, the sheer size of the majority will crush the political muscle of the knee-cons. The US Army's game will not be able to include foreign law enforcement officers, even those of tyrannical or evil countries. Tom Clancy will be a step away from having his books banned. Simply put, we're very close to being neck deep in the smelly stuff.

Remember, The Taliban banned Chess.

Do they really want to win?

[ronfar]

I've come to the conclusion that in some cases when laws like this are proposed, it is irrelevant for the people creating the laws whether they are held to be constitutional, or even passed. These people want publicity, and they want to reinforce certain scapegoats in the public mind. So, from this law, how many headlines are we going to have about "Cop-Killer" video games? How many news stories will focus purely on games like GTA, and focus in such a way as to horrify Jane Soccermom?

Now, that doesn't mean that some of the people behind these laws aren't sincere crackpots, jut that I doubt very much they'd be trying to pass these kinds of laws if it was going to harm them in the polls.

Look at Joe Lieberman (well, you don't have to actually look at him, I mean his career). He's made a career out of being "the pious Democrat." Part of the way he got that reputation was by hammering video games. It means that when the news media wants a quote, say, about President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, he gets to be on TV and lecture us all about morality. He's a more important figure than he would've been if he had just left Mortal Kombat alone. (When he was a Vice Presidential candidate, though, he tried to downplay it. Being a sanctimonious scold may play well in Connecticut, but it wasn't as "cool" nationwide.)

For conservatives and certain kinds of Left-wingers, it's even more valuable than that. It becomes a symbolically defining issue for them to the public. When people go to the polls, they might think, "Well, I don't know if Bob Johnson is pro-life (or pro-gun control) but he did try to get those horrible video games taken off the market, so I'll vote for him."