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.
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.