Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Gov. Seeks Violent Video Game Ban
Foobar_Zen writes "Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois has apparently decided to build on past "wins". He seeks to impose legislation that will prohibit the distribution, sale, rental and availability of mature video games to children younger than 18. Breaking of this law would be punishable by up to one year in prison or a $5,000 fine." From the article: "The Illinois Retail Merchants Association blasted the governor's proposal as a way for retailers to become "the violence and sensitivity police for the state of Illinois." Update: 12/16 21:14 GMT by Z : Lum's take on this over at Broken Toys is excellent.
I'd like to see how this is handled if some kid downloads America's Army...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
If I, as a parent, decide that my under-18 child is fit to play the game, buy it (since the store can't sell it or rent it to him/her) and give it to him/her, am I breaking the law?
... than doing the job of parents?
I eat crayons
I don;t see the problem with this legislation. It's just like the R rating at theaters, or the fact that kids can't buy tobacco until 18, or beer until 21. I certainly woulnd't want my kids to (at age 9) walk into a store and buy GTA 8: Be a Porn Star. When he's 18, or I decide to buy it for him.. fine.
-Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat-
Kids don't buy games, they warez them. This is a broken solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"We already place limits on alcohol, tobacco, even adult movies. It's just logical that video games, which are so heavily marketed to young kids but many of which contain adult images, should not be available to young people or to minors," Ottenhoff said.
Ok, I see the connection with adult movies (and I'm talking about porn, not R rated movies) but I cannot see how they think this can cross over into alcohol and tobacco territory!
Alcohol and tobacco are PHYSICALLY HARMFUL. You can die from alcohol and tobacco. You *cannot* die from abuse of video games... Explicit or otherwise.
On a personal note: Yes, video games showing full frontal nudity or realistic depictions of death (and when I say this I mean watching actual video clips of people being tortured, decapitated, etc) should be looked into as we do with movies... But video games showing a completely unrealistic depiction of human characters (as real as video games are looking they are still not 100% on) in a fantasy world should be treated as such.
I thought that as we matured as a society that this type of conservative bullshit would cease. Perhaps we are regressing?
I don't see anything wrong with requiring a consumer to be 18 to purchase a game marked mature. I think it's a good idea to require proof of age when purchasing games marked AO or Mature by the ERSB.
If anything, this puts responsibility back onto the parents. You can't blame you're kid shooting someone on video games if the parents have to buy them for them.
The governor of Illinois is a Democrat. Illinois is a fairly solidly "blue" state. People on both sides of the political spectrum find video games to be "scary".
What a joke though, in one article I read they listed Halo 2 and Half Life 2 along side Doom 3 and GTA. Like there's any real comparison between those games. It was clear they never played any of the games.
Absolutely ridiculous the way video games are the scapegoat for this generation.
Remember Judas Priest , Ozzy, et al being sued back in the 80s because their satanic lyrics caused all of the problems with young kids today?
Remember when it was Dungeons and Dragons?
The people are idiots though, if the movie and recording industries can police themselves (MPAA ratings / "explicit lyrics" stickers), whats the problem with the (incredibly coherent) ESRB rating system?
And once again, games are created for and marketed to adults, primarily 18-40 year old males. Just go google for any statistics (Nielson, etc) on who plays/buys games if you dont believe me.
The "think about the children" argument is a red herring. This is all about appeasing Hollywood by helping eliminate the competition. Pure pork. And politicians think it's win-win because it'll get them a lot of "cranky old bitch" votes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The /. one that is. Ban? What?
Hello, how is this different than R-rated movies today? Mature games are intended for a mature audience and you better believe we shouldn't have 8 year olds playing GTA3 unless their parents approve of it and buy it for them.
What's the crazy backlash to this? It's absolutely sound to set up laws prohibiting sales of these games to minors (just as it prohibits sales of pr0n to minors).
If parents choose that their kids are mature enough for said games then they'll go and buy it for their kids. If not, then kids won't be playing games that they likely aren't ready for.
-Nic
"We already place limits on alcohol, tobacco, even adult movies. It's just logical that video games, which are so heavily marketed to young kids but many of which contain adult images, should not be available to young people or to minors," Ottenhoff said.
Methinks he subscribes to different logic than I.
The answer, of course, is to do nothing - allow the Invisible Hand of the Market to continue to do its work, driven by parents' enforcements of what little Johnny can and can't buy.
-ZOD-
Illinois is a fairly solidly
wtf? I suck
My stock micro-rant on this topic is mostly just a quotation.
- Now that eighteen-year-olds have the right to vote, it is obvious that they must be allowed the freedom to form their political views on the basis of uncensored speech before they turn eighteen, so that their minds are not a blank when they first exercise the franchise. And since an eighteen-year-old's right to vote is a right personal to him rather than a right to be exercised on his behalf by his parents, the right of parents to enlist the aid of the state to shield their children from ideas of which the parents disapprove cannot be plenary either. People are unlikely to become well- functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.
Any elected government, be it Democracy, or Representative Republic, or otherwise, owes it to their constituents to allow unfettered access to ideas and information, praiseworthy or critical. To deny a citizen the right to know their own world is to deny them identity.--American Amusement Machine Assoc. v. Kendrick No. 00-3643 (7th Cir., March 23, 2001)
[
What these people must realize is that many violent videogames e.g. WWII games are based on the real world, even if just for entertainment's sake. GTA reflects high crimes in a fictional city that highly resembles some of the US ones. Of course, these aren't meant to be taken AS fact and never really are. One of the major misconceptions about violent videogames is that reality is based on them and they have an overwhelming influence on children over reality, but this just isn't true. The first violent game I remember playing was Doom, but that didn't make me want to go out and shoot people. Videogames are based on reality, not the other way around
I don't see a problem, per se, with limiting sales and rentals of M rated games to children under 17, as the "M" rating is equivalent to an "R" for a motion picture. But, I think that a year in jail for renting a kid a copy of the new Prince of Persia game is a bit harsh. That said, there is no way that this law, even if it passes, will get past the courts, since it's so poorly written. Here's why: In Criminal Law there are what is known as "Strict Liability Statutes". These statutes are written to basically regulate the flow of traffic, commerce, and modern issues that were introduced after most of the common law was already laid down. See, most actual crimes require an act, and a criminal state of mind. The Strict Liability Statutes are the exception - they require only an act. This law is a Strict Liability Statute. The courts have said on numerous occassions, that if a piece of legislation is going to get rid of the mens rea (criminal mind) component of a crime, that piece of legislation needs to have a very minor punishment (usually a small to moderate fine) that will attach no "stigma" to the one violating it. Well, a year in jail is a pretty major "stigma" to have to bear. Dumbass legislators have, on many occassions, tried to pass these Strict Liability Statutes with long jail sentences, and almost always, they've been overturned. This bill is doomed before it's even signed.
In the UK, we already have a similar system. Some computer games are rated by the BBFC (the violent ones - non violent games are not usually rated by them), and are given the same ratings to those applied to films and videos. Although the system is not perfect, it allows for some degree of control. As an example, games such as Manhunt are given 18 ratings, with Quake III getting a 15 etc. Of course, this still doesn't stop the occasionaly press frenzy over violent games and children (...suspiciously familiar in tone to the "video nasties are corrupting us" 20 years ago...)
The laws only apply to sale and distribution - for example, it's illegal for a minor to buy an 18 rated game, but it's perfectly fine for their parents (if they think it's sutiable) to buy it on their behalf, and them allow them to play it, as you suggest.
I just don't get it. What is the real problem here. If you are over 18, then this law DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. If you are a parent, and want your kid playing Doom 3, then you get off of your lazy but and go buy it for him.
He is not censoring anything, unless you call not letting a 13-year-old into a hard-core porn store censoring.
In this society, we try to protect children. Children cannot vote, drink, buy guns, buy porn, etc. The fact that you might consider it to be OK does not mean that you get to make that choice for the whole country. With this law, if a parent wants to buy it for their children, they can. But at least they will be aware of what their children are doing.
I bet that most of the people flaming this law do not have kids.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
What must be made clear is that the headline is incorrect. There is no proposed ban on violent video games. What is proposed to be banned it the SALE of the video games TO MINORS.