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."
I think they let members of society get out thier frustrations without physically acting them out.
And it rendered on, until the end of its days.
... if a cop is killed in a movie, then ban the movie?
And possibly all future productions by those involved in it?
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Do the Roman centurions of 'Age of Empires' ... qualify as 'public law enforcement officers'?"
Shows just how laws like that could be misinterpreted...
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Drugs became illegal in the US because of these exact types of stupid legislators. Now, it's part of our culture. Walk down the street and you can find zillions of people who actually believe that pot kills. Same with video games. Once they ban them, it's easy to "educate" people with PR campaigns. Eventually, hardly anyone will remember the days when a 10 year old could play space invaders. Zillions of people will actually believe that videogames cause violence. Truth won't matter. Science won't matter. Research won't matter. They will believe it because they don't think about it, and are afraid to take a minority stand.
Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.
It's a good sign that free speech and common sense has largely won out in this circumstance; it's been some time since I've seen a legal issue on here that actually followed the principles of freedom granted by the constitution, rather than blatantly ignoring it ;P
One thing that I did notice though, was:
Which suggests that as expected, the debate over violent/explicit video games is long from over, and more restrictions may well be brought in over time.
...are most cops that get injured in the line of duty attacked by people under the age of 18? I'm glad the law has been stopped--this is, IMO, the duty of the parent not the gov't.
Graphic depictions of depraved acts of violence, suc as the murder, decapitation, and robbery of women in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, fall well within the more general definition of obscenity. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word "obscenity" means material that deals with sex. Only "works which depict or describe sexual conduct" are considered obscene and therefore unprotected.
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
Technoli
Maybe. However i don't know anyone who thinks pot kills, everyone knows that pot just makes you stupid. In fact, I would argue that most people think alcohol is far more dangerous to your health. Drinking too much can kill you, smoking too much pot can't.
Drugs like heroin can kill. It's a good thing that heroin is illegal. So comparing video games which don't hurt anyone, to drugs, seems to be doing an injustice to video games.
Yet again, we teach our kids and everyone playing games that pretend death is fine, but pretend love is not... and they wonder why everyone's weird!
stuff |
One of the most interesting example, at least in the U.S., was the ban on the smoking of opium. Opium was still widely and legally available, but smoking, a habit favored by chinese immigrants, was criminalized
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Banning titles is indeed a bad idea, but (as previously stated by another person) restricting them is fine by me. Parents do need to work at raising their children, but the government needs to give them the tools to do so. If a law requires people to be 18 to buy "Cop Killah" games, then it gets my vote. But, banning such games is indeed against how I interpret the constitution. Let parents choose how to raise their children while stopping children from choosing how to raise themselves. As always a happy medium shows good results. Sometimes, adults also need to vent. Requiring credentials doesn't impact freedom (if you play your cards right, you will someday be 18 too). Washington took it too far, seems it is getting on the right track again.
There's only one thing I'm allergic to... Sudden Death. (Danger Mouse)
What kind of idiot uses violent metaphors to describe their initiatives against violence?
irb(main):001:0>