Slashdot Mirror
Violent Video Game Law Struck Down
The Importance of writes "Washington State banned the sale of violent videogames depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers' to minors under age 17. When challenged, the law was blocked by a preliminary injunction. Yesterday, a federal district court decided that the law was unconstitutional because it failed the strict scrutiny test and was also void for vagueness. Read the 15-page decision [PDF]. A summary of the case's holdings with quotations here."
Long ago we needed a separation between Church and State. Now we need a separation between Parent and State. Parents need to take some responsiblitity in raising their children and stop blaming every form of media that doesn't fit into their package of morals.
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
This is bang on the money. Violent Video games give people stress relif; they are good for society. Would you rather someone take their frustrations out on other people, instead of fake people? Let's face it, there are plenty of injustices in the world that require more attention than any injustices proportedly caused by violence in media, be it video games or film.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
It is interesting that the court appears to have said that obscenity can not be used as a justification (i.e. can't sell Playboy to minors) because obscenity deals with sexual matters, rather than violence.
While I think that this is a great win for free speech, does it seem a bit weird that the ability to blow someone's head clean off is given a higher protection than showing someone's nipple? Which one is really worse in the long run?
Note: I am not for censorship of any kind, though I think voluntary ratings and PARENTAL INVOLMENT I N CHOICES are the best solution, but it speaks volumes that violence seems to be celebrated but anything sexual must be covered up "for the children". It really goes to show the almost paradoxical prudist warrior culture that permeates America today.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Than I ever did playing Doom, Quake, or Half-Life.
This is such bullshit. There is no formidable connection between violent video games / music and a proclivity to commit violence in the long run.
I'll tell you what the problem is with the youth of today with all the violence.... Shitty parents. Mystery solved.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
14 years old can pull the trigger as easily as a 22 year old.
In this country, ([stand up straight, remove hats] our Blessed and Glorious Country), you are a child, a child you hear, with no rights, no voice, no nothing, until you turn 18 and then wham, society hits you with a ton of bricks (paperwork) and all of a sudden you're supposed to conduct yourself as an adult and a productive member of society. Well, if you don't get the training and exposure, sherlock, you ain't gonna be any good at dealing with adult stuff.
I'm of the opinion that all the under 17 or under 18 laws can be brought to under 13 and society will be better off in the long run.
US, wake up, the other 5.7 billion people can't all be wrong.
"Piter, too, is dead."
As the demographic moves from teenyboppers to more mature folks in their 20's, are they even really focusing on the right people? Yes, I understand that it's not exactly wholesome material when 47 fiber-wires the local law enforcement officials. I also understand that I'm playing a video game.
For the younger crowd, there's a rating system in place. If mommy buys Hitman: Contracts or Vice City for little johnny (even after reading the rating for it) -- and continues to let the PS2/TV/Internet babysit the child, I believe no law can help that "family."
It's a strange society that looks to everyone else for responsibility in raising children. When all else fails, I suppose we can always blame Canada. Until then, spend time with your children. Make sure they know the difference between reality and fantasy. Give them a sense of morality. Lead by example and for fsck's sake, let them know they matter. I bet that'll work much better than any legislation could.
First, as others have said, what makes a game (or, for instance, a cartoon or comic book, although these ones are less censored these days) different than a movie or a book?
GTA is much more "light" than any cops movie, yet are these censored all the time? Are all of these X-rated or something?
Second, the thing about law enforcement officials, specifically, is absurd. If that law passed, then what would come next? Shouldn't firefighters enjoy the same "protection" from violence in games? Old people? Women? They can be killed in a movie, but not in a game, because a game is different, right?
Besides, doesn't the game have an "M" or an "18" on the box? Shouldn't be sold to minors, period. No need to create a NEW law about the killing of THESE people you PARTICULARLY don't want killed, even if it's just a game. If a parent wants to buy it for his 8-year old kid, anyway, despite the obvious sticker, then it's HIS responsibility (although in America he'll blame the games industry and/or the government anyway, if something goes wrong with the kid later).
(BTW: the "kill the haitians" thing in Vice City was even more ridiculous. Drug dealers can sell drugs, kill people, but god forbid they make racist comments, because they are NICE people, good role models, after all...)
The Tlog - a technology blog
I am sure he can find some studies but the problem is that these studies are usually bullshit and unscientific. A good example is the one that studied children with a history of violence and found that most of them had played violent games. What it doesn't answer is whether the games made them violent or their violence made them attracted to violent games.
This is even older than video games, though. Remember when D&D supposedly made kids violent? The amazing thing is that we live in one of the least violent times in history.
Offtopic, but ontopic later...
;)
Erm... that's been a long standing arguement here in the USA, so I hope you didn't get the feeling you'd come up with something original
When the founders of this county added the second amendment, they knew that the only way to remove an oppressive government (which they'd just been under) was with force. Protecting the right to own arms was essential to being able to use such force.
We have laws banning such substances as cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth, etc... None of these laws stop criminals from being in possession of those substances. The long standing arguement against banning guns is it means only the criminals will have them.
ontopic
The idea behind laws such as this one is that children/teens are desensitized by violence in games and on tv. I don't agree with that, but it's what these pretentious lawmakers think. These same people seem to think that, in the 1950's, the world really was like Leave it to Beaver portrayed.
The simple solution is for parents to become parents again. We (I have 3), collectively, need to quit blaming other people for our shortcomings as parents and own up to the fact that kids turn out pretty much how we raise them (and who we let them hang out with). We, not laws, should be the filters that sort out what our kids watch and do.
My 11 year old boy is a big fan of Will Smith, and we own (lease?) the Bad Boyz DVD's, and he's allowed to watch both of them. Why? Because we speak with our children all the time about how people should act and how they should treat other people. He understands that what he's watching is purely for entertainment, and stuffing people in trunks, while funny on tv, isn't funny in real life.
The idea of having more laws on the books infuriates me, wether it be banning violent games or guns. We just need to stop blaming other people when our ignored child turns out rotten.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
everyone knows that pot just makes you stupid
Yeah, the several Nobel Laureates that were pot smokers were pretty stupid.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
...and my parents took me to the local Egghead Software to get a video game for my birthday. Being a young computer nerd, this was fine by me. Well, I chose some game that I really wanted (I now forget the title) and my mom INSTANTLY asked the sales guy if it had ANY violence in it. Yep, it sure did. So I put it down. I then chose "Blades of Steel", and the sales person told my parents you could get into a fight in the game (it's hockey, for those of you who don't know). So now, frustrated as hell, I put that game down. So then I decided on Microsoft Flight Simulator 4. Seemed to go ok, until we got home and my ma opened the package and read the manual.... "WHAT?!? WORLD WAR ONE COMBAT! YOU CAN SHOOT PEOPLE! AHHAHHAHAHHH YOU AREN'T PLAYING THIS!" I was a social retard for a while because of this constant shielding from the Chicken Little that was my mother. Hitops were 'gang shoes'... Etc etc. Funny that after all that, I still got into fist fights at least once year until I was in High School, because of my lack of height and my raising (social retard). At least I learned how to fight. :-/
Fucking stupid Tipper Gore bullshit, and my ma bought into it like a sucker.
My point? Kids are smarter than people give them credit for, and they need to be held responsible more often. I knew what the fuck the difference between fantasy and fiction was back then (I was 8), and so do kids today. In fact, I truly believe they are smart enough to game the system for protection when it comes down to it. What really needs to be done is for children to have better education. Spend all this wasted money on effectively teaching kids and giving them a future, and shut the fuck up about violence, because we all know that it's bullshit anyway.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
People have been griping about this forever now. It truly amazes me how misguided parents can be. Take the hundreds of hours you spend whining and moaning, and go spend them with your children. Parents need to take some responsibility for their children's upbringing, if you don't like a game, then don't let them play it. If you hate television so much, don't let them watch it. I don't think hiding your children from reality is a good choice, though. It only truly becomes an issue when it's made an issue. You rant and rave to your child for years about how evil this that and the other thing is, there is probably a much better chance of them having problems coping with the cruel reality of our world when they are eventually forced to anyway. Provide guidance, wisdom, and caring for your kids. Teach them the difference between reality and video games, teach them to treat others with kindness, and let them come to their own conclusions. Going postal from playing a violent game only proves that you are one of two things: stupid, or insane.
Linux Forum
I never said that I thought sex was harmless, but a lot of the harm that sex causes can be avoided by educating children properly. And by properly I mean none of this "don't touch anyone until you are married" nonsense that one would have to be an idiot to think that most people will follow. For some reason (probably the same reason Americans don't like sexual portayals in the first place) we refuse to consider open, honest and frank sexual education.
Technoli
You've never met kids who've gone through the D.A.R.E. program. They tell all kinds or horrific lies about drugs. Crap like pot will turn you into a heroin junkie.
Now, I support teaching kids about the dangers of drugs. But I'm against lieing to them about it. If you want your kids to be able to deal with drugs they need to know the truth.
The problem with lieing to kids about drugs as mostly-harmless as pot is that when the kids do try it, and none of those evil things happen to them, they doubt your word on the really dangerous stuff like cocain and heroin.
Honesty is paramount when dealing with children if you want them to have the tools to survive.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
is that the courts found that video games DO qualify as protected speech. This is a very good thing because it sets a precedent that will make banning/restricting games much harder.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
1) Think how much smarter they would've been without.
Probably not at all smarter. I'm not a particular fan of pot (it makes me paranoid; I much prefer a nice glass of 2000 Estancia Meritage), but there is absolutey no evidence it "makes you stupid" and a great many studies that indicate it is quite innocuous, including several fairly recent studies by the US Federal government that were subsequently squashed for political reasons.
Chronic abusers of any drug are another story, however, even there we see far greater damage resulting from alcoholism and addiction to prescription drugs. Recreational use isn't terribly healthy (no alien chemicals to the body are), but there is no correlation between pot use and lack of intelligence except in the most egregious cases of chronic, ongoing, long term excessive use where the abuser is essentially stoned 24/7.
2) Wonder how many others would've been without it?
Again, probably none. Anyone who abuses marijuana enough for it to impact their intelligence probably has an addictive personality, and would have substituted alcohol or some other equally if not more harmful substance had pot not existed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I agree with others that people need to be more involved with their children. There are games my children will not play. I have taught my 8 year old what the ratings are and to ask me.
Have these people ever watched the news?
The difference between the Nightly News and a violent video game is that the games are NOT REAL. My kids are smart enough to know the difference.
Life must be lived not legislated.
I can't use my sig - my computer can't read my handwriting.
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
...find it much easier to answer "Mommy, why did he shoot her?" than "Mommy, why did he put his thing in her bottom?" And because it is much easier to say "You should never shoot anyone" than to explain the complexities of when, where and with who it is reasonable to have sex. "Not until you're <age>" is hardly going to work...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Same for the video games. In the case of the all-too-well-known example of Columbine, those were certainly users of violent video games. In fact, their shot-accuracy was better than the police trained people tend to be because of those video games.
It's funny how many people buy ridiculous statements like this without asking the obvious questions: "Who measured their shot accuracy? How did they measure it?" Just a moment's consideration should tell you how implausible it is. Think about what would have to be be involved to actually be able to honestly make such a claim. Did somebody really go around and try to figure out where every shot was fired from, guess what the kid was aiming at, and calculate how close the shot came to the target? And then somehow work out an appropriate metric to compare it to police accuracy? That would be quite an accomplishment indeed! Where is this tour de force study published?
"The amount of flak and disrespect that police officers get for what is an essential and dangerous function in society is likely to only reduce their sense of job-satisfaction."
If they actually DID their job of controlling the unnecessarily violent in society, they might get some respect.
Instead, they enforce "institutional morality" like anti-drug laws which are totally irrelevant to preventing coercion. Then they start acting out "us vrs. them" fantasies. They end up sodomizing people with broomsticks in back rooms.
They've been doing this for GENERATIONS now (read any description of 19th Century and early 20th Century police tactics). Until public outrage in the '60's forced a (slight) rollback in those tactics, they were doing it. (Of course, the recent beating in LA shows that nothing's really changed.) THAT's why they don't get any respect.
Christ, they've been showing police TV shows and movies now for FIFTY YEARS which show the police REGULARLY violating people's civil rights in order to apprehend "evil bad guys". If you think video games influence the respect police get, what about the thousands of police-positive movies and TV shows that are everywhere?
If they're not having an effect on generating respect for cops, there must be a reason. Same one as violent video games. People have to deal with reality on the street. Games and TV are not yet indistinguishable from reality - despite the corporat media and the state's efforts to blur that distinction so as to better control this brain-dead population.
The Situationists talked about the "Society of the Spectacle". Well, it's not seamless yet.
I spent eight years in the Federal joint seeing cops (and wannabe cops, which is what correctional officers ARE) on a daily basis. There are only three kinds of cops: morons, assholes, and both.
Get in a cop's way one of these days and see how much respect you have after he takes you down several pegs. Try complaining at an airport check-in - that'll do it.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!