Slashdot Mirror
Courts Block Washington Violent Game Law
Thanks to Reuters/Yahoo for their report that the enforcement of a Washington state law, designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors, has been postponed. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik blocked enforcement of the law, set to start July 27th, and to impose fines on anyone selling games to minors depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers', saying: "Plaintiffs have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of House Bill 1009 and the balance of hardships tips in their favor." Doug Lowenstein of the IDSA praised the move, praising "..the judge's finding that games are a form of protected speech like music and movies", but the Washington Democrat politician sponsoring the bill suggested that "..any injunction would only be preliminary and that.. the case [will] go to trial." The saga continues..
Seriously, if you want them to stick around, be active. Form your own version of the NRA for violent games. The NRA has successfully thwarted scads of anti-gun legislation over the years, and they are simply an organization of individuals who cherish the right to own guns.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
I'd like to say hooray as this isn't a good law to keep on the books.
I'd also like to slap all the idiots who helped this pass.
And, I'd like to make a comparison: What happened when the movie rating system came out, and was this treated the same way as the video game rating system is now at first, then becoming law?
I will now redundantly add my name to the end of my post. You know, in case you forgot me or something.
to impose fines on anyone selling games to minors depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers'
So it's legal to sell games where you blow away Ma and Pa Kettle but don't dare kill a cop in a game or it's illegal? Since when did law enforcement become some sort of sacred cow? Hmmm... I wonder if 3D Realms will have to re-do Duke Nukem 3D, recall that you could kill pigs in cop outfits in that game.
Trolling is a art,
What is the likelihood that the final verdict overturns a preliminary injunction? Are there statistics on this?
If I had to guess I'd say they're slim. Already the judge has determined that the 'balance of hardships' tips in favor of the plaintiffs, in other words, even if the state had the right to prohibit the games, the judge thinks prohibition hurts society more than it helps.
Think about the children!
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
IDSA: We don't like piracy!
Slashdot: Boooo!
IDSA: We like violent video games!
Slashdot: Yay!
So... do we like IDSA?
Yup. Precedent counts for some in US courts.
What annoys me is that there never seems to be any really serious precedent until it gets to the Supreme Court. Then it becomes ipso facto law.
I think our whole system has become so complicated that nothing can really be decided anymore. Look at the 9th circuit and the (sometimes obviously politically motivated) decisions that have been passed there, then overturned.
It's a mess. Is this any way to run a civilized country? I don't know. I do know that it's not working; what I mean by that is that laws change so much, and are becoming so convaluted(sp?) that the average citizen can't figure them out; and if they do, then the laws change, again.
Anyone who says that democracy/republicanism/imperialism (pick your favorite) is not still an experiment is ignorant.
More ontopic, Nano, is how about "Violence against Avatars"? Eeeks.
Somebody sooner or later will come up with that. "My son's avatar was violently killed online!! I'll sue!!"
Jebsus!!
SB
Pardon me, I'm drinking tonite.
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
You hear over and over about how bad these video games are, yet any loser can go and buy a gun. Such a gun culture seems to be at the heart of the problem.
After all, I doubt the British are likely to return after all these years..
Restricting the sale of games with a very specific kind of violence like this? Only against law enforcement officers? Sounds to me like cops are just afraid of 14 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto grabbing some guns and blowing them away. That Doug Lowenstein guy is right; games ARE free speech, and to be restricted in such a specific manner is ridiculous. It's just the narrow definition of the law that bothers me. Violence against pregnant women? Sure, beat the hell out of them with a baseball bat. Punch a cop? Uh-uh, we're not gonna let you do that, son.
Since the game wouldn't let me advance, I shot my seargent.
They sent me to the brig.
Would the United States fine itself for allowing me to kill an army personel?
After all, the Army could be used as law enforcement in a police state.
STILL....
Let me get this right.
Violence, where we invade a country and kill its patriots is alright.
Yet its not ok to vent violence on a video game?
Oh I get it, the government wants people willing to join the Armed Forces.
If we had FDR style work programs researching cures for AIDS and cancer, we'd solve unemployment... But we'd allow skilled people a work option outside of the Marines. Yes I know CMU grads who enlisted out of suicidal depression at getting no job.
I love America, and I respect the armed forces, but theres some major shit going wrong in our nation. We need to stand up against liability lawyers, insurance/credit agencies, banks and all forms of corruption.
God spoke to me
I live in Indianapolis. For the lucky half of you who live on a coast, the bible-belt really, really sucks. A few years ago our mayor (Bart) was trying to make a high profile to get himself re-elected with. He chose to ban violent video games within city limits. The area, once being Klan central, and still being non-christians-are-to-blame-for-it-all, allowed it to pass. The first day it want active it started to be enforced.
In short time, arcade operators and video game vendors got the help of the ICLU and ACLU (thank god they considered this high profile enough) and sued the city. All the courts up to the state supreme court had no problem with this and let the law stand. Finally, the Supreme Court in D.C. decided to hear the case. A unanimous decision stuck it down as unconstitutional. That little media fiasco cost the city over a million dollars in legal services. Coincidentally, the legal firm that collected most of those billable hours was the same one the mayor used to work for. He made his golf buddies over $400,000 richer. He did manage to get re-elected though, thanks to selective media choosing to give most of the air time to the righteous fight and next to none for the legal loss and absoutely none to the tax money and who got it.
His next re-election campaign was right out of the movies. Anyone remember Footloose? It is now illegal to dance in the city without a permit. One of those will cost you thousands of dollars, unless you run a large music venue or club, in which case selective enforcement ignores you. It's a good thing all of the 'legal' venues play top 40 stuff, because that's quality music. The argument "Dancing and music causes kids to do drugs" just won't seem to die. Unfortunately nobody with money to spare gives a damn about this one.
This one is for all of those politicians who fight the symptoms instead of the disease: I hope you burn in the hell that you create here on earth. Screw your children, Darwinism will see that they get what they deserve comming. I want to shoot some simulated cops before I go out dancing to government approved music tonight.
> Yeah but each time it gets defeated, it gets harder and harder to pass it.
Like the repeated vague laws (CIPA, CDA, etc) which try to control otherwise legal content because some people might become offended, or worse the babysitter internet won't be PC for the at least some of the children who look for non-PC images. I think the larger issue at hand is not trying to hide the reality or truth to protect the children. The only thing lying to children does is make them disrespect authority more and crave the illict more strongly (a great way to enhance what would have otherwise been only a vague human interest is then able to easily balloon into a billion dollar industry). If we really want to protect the children of this world, the best way is to be frank and honest, not attempt to lie to them about ones past because it's better to look "clean" than to be truthful, and probably most importantly give up the notion that children are so inately pure that they can't grasp both the fact that our society is shielding them from sexuality nor that they're being shielded almost frantically from their own natural sexuality (such as pleasure through masturbation) at what is considered a relative early age. Normally anything as directed as wanting sexual contact with another is not requested, so that's not what I'd begin to advocate; exploration of one's own anatomy plus others (playing doctor) is not uncommon. The usual natural limits to this play is a combination of social/parental reprisal and a limitation of sexual pleasure at this point (of course, that's the majority, not everyone).
My frank point is, the major problem with exposure of sexuality to children is probably more the fear of its result ("hey, they look like they're having fun, so let's do that") and the legal ramifications of a still very closed social view on what could be considered the norm. I think that most "sexual deviance" is really just an attempt to act out the exploration that was denied them at a younger age. If instead of squashing all sexual activities, instead a limit was set at a reasonably high bar, parents would realize that just like them, their children will soon become bored with the activities and move onto other things. When it comes that a child is actually capable of becoming more than a child (pre-teen on), they should be frankly told the truth about sexuality. Earlier is always possible as well, as the truth is psychological damage is more caused by abuse and claims of abuse than any amount of concentual play (in other words, if it doesn't harm the child(ren) and they're the initiaters and sole occupants and aren't coerced in any way, they can't be harmed any more than any other activity that they'd play in--external parental or otherwise influence, even in a purely observatory (but probably intent) way is a form of coercion...parents need to get over seeing anything that's sexual and "improper" as kinky too).
Your right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the Constitution. Like the right to speak your mind, gather with whoever you like, etc., the right to keep guns is a natural right...it's part of being human. More generally, the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of your rights. It is a guarantee (one that's not always been followed, unfortunately) that the government will not encroach on your rights. Notice that the amendments are not of the form "The people have the right to X;" instead, they are generally of the form "The right of the people to X shall not be infringed."
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I don't think its wrong for people to take their prescriptions. Maybe I am an idiot, because I don't understand your argument at all.
My argument is pretty easy to understand:
Sell drugs, make money.
If you cure disease, then pharmaceutical company no longer makes money.
Theres actually copywrights, and patent lawsuits protecting information about diseases because of capitalism.
If there was governmental funding, then information would be shared freely, and focus would be aimed at the cures.
Of course, countries are the same as people in a marketplace. If you cure AIDS, you can't sell drugs to foreign countries. The only thing curing AIDS would do is raise foreigner's opinions of your country... But that doesn't buy guns.
God spoke to me
I didn't know that they still enforced that arcane law with such vigor. The last I heard of it was when it was used to shut down most of the sex and fetish stores around Times Square (among other places). I haven't been to NY for several years now, but the last trip I made was because of a visit to its' booming underground music scene. Do you know anything about its' health now? I have to drive out of state now to hear any live music that isn't on the top 100 or 200 charts. Hell, even Chicago forces its venue owners to shut down. You can't dance in Chicago after bar hours (2 or 3am). Our mayor has done such a good job at driving live music performance out. Basically, if you want to hear anything live, and it's not played on the radio, you run the risk of being arrested. It's even worse if you are performing or promoting it. Musicians will get their equipment confiscated, and will never have it returned. It becomes labeled as evidence or drug paraphernalia and eventually gets auctioned off.
I was at one very memorable event where the cops walked in and shut down an event because of a fire code violation. Sounds important, right? ONE fire extinguisher near the bathroom was dangerously undercharged. They called the news, and kept everyone inside until the camera trucks got there. Then they walked everyone out the door single file. As soon as the cameras and lights went on, they started to line up and pat down the kids. As soon as they got their video bite, they continued to move everyone out without any sort of search or observation. The next day at 10am the mayor was out front publicizing how 'tough' he was on drugs and how he is the savior of our children. Pardon me, I'm not a parent, but if little Johnny or Susie is out at 2am, I have only myself to blame. Shit, my parents did a fine job at keeping my locked down. I thank them for my computer skills, because they wouldn't be so developed if I didn't completely lack a social life growing up. I'm not socially well adjusted at all, but at least I make more than them combined.
Back to my slightly off topic rant, promoters who allow water, junk food, or many other daily items to be sold at their event run the risk of being tossed in jail for many years. A recent federal law that was stapled onto the amber alert bill makes anyone who sells such items in the presence of music not only a potential drug user, but illegally supporting drug use. Oddly, the same senator who put it in this session tried to put it through last session by itself. It made a very loud bang when it hit the floor. So, he decided to hide it in a bill that had no chance of failing. This, in conjunction with a federal "crack house" law, is the first time in history that venue owners and operators are felonious criminals as a result of their patron's activities, no matter how tight security is. Under these laws, people who run prisons are just as guilty because they can't even keep drugs or weapons out. Do a google search about "Disco Donnie" because he was the first, and most publicized, victim of this law. These federal laws are being used all over the nation to shut down music events that aren't government taxed or sanctioned. The help of strict local laws, and complete indifference, in my area makes it even worse.
I know that as the younger generation's age and gains control, things will change. But I don't want to wait 50 years before I don't run the risk of being arrested, strip searched and humiliated on the evening news just because of my passion for music. They did the same thing to Jazz, and they are doing it again. History is definitely a class politicians slept though. I heard in some movie one time about how politicians work: They tell you about something, and then they tell you to be afraid of it; then they tell you that they are your only solution.