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..
But how many more times can these types of bills be defeated? It'll only take one to get through, and we head down the slippery slope...
Disclaimer: The above comment was made while under the influence of too much coding and not enough sleep.
from the article: "It has very little bearing on the final outcome of the case," Dickerson said.
so there you go. just a bump on the road to a world of games where cops are invincible juggernauts.
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.
Seriously, can we go back to using TV as a scapegoat for the results of bad parenting? It's not like there's anything good on.
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,
Is keeping violent games out of the hands of minors really a bad thing? I don't believe violent games make people any more or less violent than they already are, but some games go to the extreme, and I really don't think putting in an age restriction is a bad thing. If the kid really wants the game, he can gladly go into the store with a parent, and they can buy it for them if they think their child is mature enough for said game. Think of it like pornography, sure kids can get it online for free, but legally there is an age restriction. Now I don't think some 13 year old boys checking out a penthouse will become raving serial rapists but there are age laws put in place, and for a good reason.
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
What? Screw preventing people from selling video games to minors--what about banning saled of Windows to minors? Surely that's far more damaging than Halo or Half-Life.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
IDSA: We don't like piracy!
Slashdot: Boooo!
IDSA: We like violent video games!
Slashdot: Yay!
So... do we like IDSA?
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..
Aren't there enough screwy laws already? Do we really need another one for the books? (And exactly how will this be enforced? Kids still manage to get cigarettes.)
I don't think it is the games that need to be looked at as opposed to how much interaction the kids get at home from the parents. It appears that quite a number of these kids that go off the deep end tend to have parents who didn't check up on them enough to make sure everything is fine.
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
As the offspring of a law enforcement officer myself, I have mixed feelings about this. I find any kind of game which involves flaunting a disrespect for the law somewhat disturbing. On the other hand, a lot of laws don't deserve our respect and a lot of cops shouldn't be issued the badge. But... I myself will not play these kinds of games. I prefer games RPGs where you go out and slaughter demi-human races and accept without question that they every "thing" you are killing is evil and where the ends justify the means. Yay NWN!
The saga continues
I actually read it as, The rampage continues...
Yeah, I am going to hook myself up with hookers, slash people's head off, steal drugs, carjack, and take out the Mafia as I steal my way up the ladder in Vice City.
Seriously though, it is good to have a judge (or judges) that respects freedom of speech, because as the most people other thread have suggested, games of this nature does not promote violence, in general, if there is good parenting and all. Lawmakers should not be restricting games, parents should educate their children on things of this nature (much like sex, and everything)... unfortunately, I don't see too much of that happening..
Parents, please educate your children, be responsible and so they will learn to be responsible, and use your good example when they grow up.
Please direct all bug reports to
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.
to impose fines on anyone selling games to minors depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers'
What if that law enforcement officer was tried and convicted of a capital crime?
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
The problem with out society is everyone wants to blame someone else. Parents need to take responsibility for the way they raise their kids. You don't want your kids seeing violence, keep them away from it.
Parents have the option to decide what their kids do and do not see. The government needs to stay out of it and leave the option in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
LordBodak's journal.
In other news, sales of Vice City are up 3%.
In other news, sales of Postal 2 rise 25%.
Although having a game where you shoot cops can leave a bad taste in some peoples mouth, along with brown nose induced halitosis, we have these freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. Okay maybe not killing cops in games but freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness.
Some have fun acting out in games and/or some don't even differentiate between the skin on an in game model. This world is becoming so overly protective of things that were trivial in the past. No there weren't cop killing games back in the day but we did parade dead criminals around for public viewing back in the day. (John Dillinger).
We are a violent society and so our games reflect that. If someone becomes so influenced by a game that it makes them want to kill an authority figure then it was bound to happen anyway. All these people need is an excuse. This is the day and age of no personal responsibility. If I spill McDonalds coffee on myself and get burned then it's their fault and my ass it getting paid...CHA-CHING!
I don't practice that shit because I believe I am responsible for my own actions no matter how stupid or utterly sexy they may be:D The point is you cannot legislate personal responsibilty and you cannot prevent the other guy from seeing what you see as offensive or disgusting. The people who pursue these laws are an amalgamation of fear and self loathing epitomized. Just because your kids a total fuck up don't tell me how I'd raise mine if I had access to see them...you drink a case a day and sing show tunes in the front yard naked and you aren't allowed to see your kids...wtf is that shit?
In closing this is all a loosely related DRM package. Pretty soon we'll have no choices, no freedom, no music (unless it's on a public kiosk only access by submitting a DNA sample and $100 per sample), sex in a petri dish, and nothing but customized infomercials.
FUCK THAT!
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
play "cop and robbers" anymore, ...
well maybe not ... but "robbers" will not be allowed to run (unless players are 14+ y. old).
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
But neither do I say that people do not have the right to depict such things, or make them into video games. And everyone has the right to buy such things, if they want them, and to sell them, if they desire. We cannot legislate morality, because it loses the virtue of being voluntary, and ceases to be morality.
I intend to teach my children that violence is always a terrible thing, even when it is necessary (I am not saying that it is not necessary). I hope that they will choose not to partake of such things, but I do not wish for a law to make that so.
COLUMBINE WAS BAD PARENTING PLAIN AND SIMPLE
how do you NOT know your kid has a gun, you have to be a moron to not check up on them. It's your resposibility as a parent to do it.
you know I grew up in a inner city school, and if someone had a problem , the teachers knew, the parents knew and more importantly they made sure YOU knew they where there. They checked up on you and made sure you where ok.
reading everything I ever have on Columbine and what do I see, ever single person not caring cause they had other things too worry about. thats why it happened not video games.
Im sorry but I played doom and quake and wolfenstein from age 8 on, a) my dad was there both cheering me on for kicking nazi ass, and to make sure I understood it was a game. and b) never once though it would be cool to do in real life
im sorry, but your post is just flame bait imho
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
In still more news, stupid posts on Slashdot are up 100%
They're trying to use the "minor" word to ward off the First Amendment; as every censor knows, the courts will give lots of latitude in restricting what minors hear and see.
But they inadvertantly invoked an opposite talisman, that of political speech. A restriction against violent games can be argued to be one of those permissable "time, place, and manner" restrictions, particularly when applied to minors. But a restriction against games with violence _against police officers_ is viewpoint restriction; the viewpoint that cops and other authority figures are scum who ought to be shot is obviously not one most people would want minors exposed to, but it IS a political viewpoint, and thus should be subject to full protection, even for minors.
If they can ban a video game that depicts killing a cop shouldnt they ban it from all entertainment? Does anyone actually believe this could save a cops life? I know, lets ask a few cop killers and see if a video game was the deciding factor.
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
is that "our kids are bad, and something is to blame." Violent video games are just the something du jour. It boils down to the fact that parents, legislators and teachers are trying to deny the fact that they are clueless when it comes to the rash of violent incidents involving teenagers. They must rally to some cause, else they would be forced to look to themselves for answers and solutions. Introspection and awareness are anathema for most politicians and many teachers and parents. It is so much easier to find something to blame. Better even when they find something to blame, like the video game industry, which doesn't have a well-established lobbying effort in Congress and the state legislatures.
This bill, or one akin to it, will eventually be passed. First, in a state legislature, and then, when the shootings and spree killings continue, by Congress. There's too much momemtum to it from those in power.
The intriguing (and possibly scary) question is this: when this bill is made law, and the killings don't stop, what are these cowards going to blame next?
I know from my own anecdotal evidence that children are adversely affected by violence they are exposed to. Violence can be as innocuous as name-calling in family-rated cartoons. Or it can be as brutal as sexual abuse by a parent. Either way, a child learns the violence will act it out. My own two young children are only exposed to a tiny amount of violence compared to most children (we do not have a TV, and we very carefully select their movies and games), but still they both play with guns and swords. My wife and I try our best both through example and through our words to teach them to be gentle and loving... and at the same time not to shelter them completely, but it is a real struggle. Seeing their personalities and behavior change as a result of environmental violence is a real tragedy.
Regardless of any laws, either rational or irrational, parents have the first responsibility to their children. However, being a parent in a society which does not support parenting makes the job almost impossible to do properly. Laws might be able to help...
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Hey wouldn't it be better if there was a game that splattered gamers, hackers, junkies, and other politically correct targets. The only shooters were sneaky upwardly mobile polititions? Now that would be a killer game! The ultimate goal would be to gain enough voter brownie points to be elected to congress.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
All the law's going to do is encourage piracy, since kids can't get violent games via legal means.
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
Bad parenting wasn't the only thing that caused Columbine.
An endemic problem of systematic abuse was allowed, even encouraged, at the school for decades.
The high population of evangelical christians at the school felt it was their god-given right to both physically and verbally assault anybody who wasn't a mindless clone. The school authorities allowed this to continue and eventually somebody snapped.
You kick a dog long enough, don't be surprised if you get bitten.
and the werewolves came...
and they ate him...
and they drank his beer...
I find two glaring problems with this bill.
8 _new_antievolution_legislation_1_23_2002.asp)
One, parents should be in charge of their kids, not the government. With more parents off to work, there is less time to ensure that kids have proper guidance and development. This same problem arose during WWII when Dad was at the front or in the factory and Mom was often in the factory too. Latchkey kids spwaning gangs (Zoot Suit Riot, 1943 or 44 in Los Angeles), elevated teen pregnancy rates, runaways, etc. These reports sound familiar to anyone who studies modern urban youth would find the same problems back then. Lack of parenting, whether due to necessity or greed of the parents or whatever else, is the main cause behind the "moral decay" in this country as well as the vast majority of school shootings.
Two, solving the problems by attempting to legislate morality is both ineffective and dangerous. It is ineffective because the dealers are not going to police themselves if demand is high enough and the stores that sell copies under the table or without ID will prosper, potentially putting the rest out of business or causing them to discontinue the product in question altogether. It is dangerous because it sets precedent for allowing a faction of society to dictate its morality on the people who believe that good intentions will result. Remember, one mildly conservative in the Washington State Senate tried to prevent the teaching of evolution on the basis that it conflicted with Declaration of Independence. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/WA/97
Thus the potential exists of such a group not only legislating its morality on the rest of the country (Christian Conservatives are trying to do this piece at a time in several states on abortion, science education, etc.) but also to enforce their views in a legal sense*. Note recent laws proposed or passed by AG Ashcroft, Senators Santorum and Representative DeLay et al.
*Democrats are not innocent of this either, but the tend to use "security" and "equality" as their preferred excuses for violating civil liberties.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
I'd just like to say, your sig amused me. I can only hope you meant it as a joke, but in any case it made me laugh (as well as make me glad I live in Canada.... but that's another story). In any case, I don't mean to say "right-wing is always wrong" or "left-wing is always right", it just amuses me when "right-wing" pundits or "left-wing" pundits start spouting things off in an undisguisedly biased manner -- the only people they will possible "sway" are the people who already agree with them, so it all boils down to a pointless exercise in ego, or more likely intra-community self-assurance. One of the reviewers on Amazon commented that it's also amusing to read Micheal Moore, but he wouldn't take historical lessons from Moore or the author of the book you are promoting.
On another note, your use of the ultra-capitalized uber-patriotic "Real Americans" also made me chuckle. Kill the COMMIES! RAH RAH RAH!
Goodday, and may everyone feel free to mod me into oblivion.
...makes no sense. If the proponents of this law believe - as they apparently do - that virtual violence causes real violence, why on earth would they stop at protecting law enforcement officers therefrom? In my day, it was women and children that we sought to protect from violence: In fact, I thought that's what we invented police for to begin with!
Not to mention space aliens: imagine the war that might get started one day, if the first emissary of the Galactic Federation to land on Earth gets his head blown off in an FPS-inspired, xenophobic killing rampage.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
They sold another copy?
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
What? Banning something means criminals are automatically more likely to have them? Shit, we'd better legalise nukes now, or someone might jump me with a ten megaton device on my way home!
Thoughtcrime. Thinkmaking a Party member an unperson without upsub is plus ungood.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The intent of this law is to stop kiddies getting their hands on CopHunter Xtreme, right? It's not to allow parents to decide, because the State has already a priori decided that CopHunter Xtreme is bad. So, put your legislative balls where your preaching mouth is. Ban all traffic to minors in these games.
Yes, you heard me. Make it illegal to give a copy to, or allow a minor to play, CopHunter Xtreme. Ban it in the stores, ban it in the home. Give the SWAT teams a break from saving stoners from themselves, and have them kick down doors and drag Susie Homemaker screaming into the street for all to see. Bad Susie! Little Johnnie was sneaking into the basement to play his daddy's copy of CopHunter Xtreme, and you didn't stop him. Bad Susie!
Remember how we sneered at the Soviet Union for making its citizens spy on and denounce each other? How we scoffed at their culture of denying personal freedom, personal choice, and even the opportunity to accept personal responsibility.
Now we have retailers who are responsible for their customers going nutso after playing games. Tobacco companies are held accountable for the health effects of a product that the government still refuses to ban. Gun makers are sued for allowing people to uphold their Constitutionally protected rights. Bartenders are held responsible for their patrons' drunk driving. Stores are to blame for ice forming on their sidewalks. We make manufacturers pay (and pass on the bill) to the tune of $350 billion a year for not making their products idiot proof. What's next? Hey, let's go after librarians for not reporting when people take out seditious books. I mean, after USA PATRIOT we can find out anyway, so what are those spectacle wearing subversives doing trying to cover it up, huh? That's wasting valuable State resources, right there.
ACLU, get with the program. When the state creates or allows laws that make anyone responsible for the actions or potential actions of another, that's a priori infringement of their liberties right there. Lower courts aren't dealing with this. Legislatures aren't dealing with this.
Let's take it to the Supremes. Let's make it clear once and for all, that you and only you are responsible for your safety and your actions. Warranty not included, disclaimer not necessary.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
(Personal Responsibility doesn't pay out as much as the Lawsuit Lottery(TM) or Nanny Government Peace of Mind.)
--
Power to the Peaceful